Talk:Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706194512/http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/book.html to http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/book.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706194512/http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/book.html to http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/book.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolution: 817 x 1440 pixels.
The actual resolution of Attack of the Clones is not 2k, but just 817x1440 pixels. This is because the HDCAM format subsamples the 1920 horizontal lines to 1440. The 1080p aspect ratio of the camera only applies when the 16:9 aspect ratio is used. To produce the 2.39:1 aspect ratio, the top and bottom of the image are cropped, reducing detail. This cropping is why Spy Kids 2, (shot with the same camera) looks better then attack of the clones. Spy Kids used the native 16:9 aspect ratio and thus used all the pixels of the camera. (Anamorphic lenses could have allowed the full 1080 lines to be used, but were not available for the HDW-F900.). --Algr (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Critical reception
I recently removed unsourced material from the lead. I am posting here to see what we can summarize in the lead based on the sources and what is stated in the critical reception section. This is what I removed because it is not supported in the article: "Although the visual effects, costume design, musical score, action sequences, and McGregor's performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi were all praised, the romance of Padmé and Anakin, the dialogue, the screenplay, and the long runtime were all criticized". Are there sources we could use to expand the critical reception to include these topics? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To follow up, here is what I replaced it with: "The film was praised for an increased emphasis on action, visual effects, musical score, and costume design but criticized for the romance of Anakin and Padmé, dialogue, and underdeveloped characters." McGregor's performance, the screenplay, and the runtime are not addressed in the critical reception section, and certainly not as representative of the general overall reception as described in the main body. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've pinged you as you reverted Wally's edit earlier today in changing the reception consensus. Can you assist on this matter, and incidentally just confirm why the previous wording has been established as a credible version? Regardless, I've found most of Wally's changes simply highlight the same points but have been worded differently. I'd remove that the film was seen as being improved from its emphasis on action when only Rotten Tomatoes' consensus mentions this; the long runtime is actually criticized by a cited review (the exact wording given is an "overlong story"); and undeveloped characters can be characterized as being a drawback from the screenplay. However, I agree that mention of Ewan's McGregor's performance should not be included as this definitely isn't sourced. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Reception -> "Box office" before "Critical response"
I was going to make a simple edit and swap the "Critical response" and "Box office" sub-sections to reflect nearly every film article on Wikipedia, but then I see Menace and Sith are this way, too. Is it just a precedent for the prequel trilogy? 70.163.208.142 (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"Veronica Segura" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Veronica Segura and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 22 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 21:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)