> You're right that it leaves no element of the unknown, however. "Attack of the Clones" is a movie about clones attacking.

In the same vein, "The Empire Strikes Back" is a movie about the Empire striking back.

> The other titles suggest what will happen but not how. This one doesn't tell you how either, but nor does it make one wonder about how.

I didn't follow that. You're saying that the title "The Empire Strikes Back" suggests that the Empire would "strike back" but it doesn't say how, then you say that the title "Attack of the Clones" suggests that the clones would "attack" but it doesn't say how. "...nor does it make one wonder about how." Are you assuming that the "attack" in the title refers to open warfare?

That's like saying the Empire struck back solely by attacking Hoth. The Empire also "struck back" by attempting to corrupt Luke. They struck back by removing one of the other heroes.

From the rumor bucket, there's supposed to be a large lightsabre battle in Episode 2. I doubt that is the only "attack" in the movie. From the title, I'm guessing we'll see some clones infiltrating positions of power and destroying the Republic from within. "Star Wars Episode II: The Enemy Within" would have made a good title, but then movie-goers would be looking for the traitor inside the Jedi Council.

> The word "clones" shouldn't have been used at all. It's too specific, too boring.

I have to disagree with that. A great deal has been made of the Clone War. Using the word "clone" adds a bit of excitement. "Here's that Clone War we've been talking about for the last two dozen years."

-Faux "Star Wars Episode II: A Question of Clones" Pas