He has good ideas. I don't think you even need to re do the script to help out the PT, even though his story ideas are quite good. Some re-shoots of the existing films to remind actors to act, some better casting, and purging Jar Jar Binks would all go a long way to helping.

I agree with the "playfulness" observations, everything is just too bloody grim in the PT. I particularly like the Owen Lars character he suggested which could totally fit into the existing story. The PT had the Jedi/Sith issue, but it desperately needed a Han Solo, someone outside that whole grim galactic crisis stuff that was fun to watch, Owen would fit that bill nicely.

Actors often get a lot of the blame for terrible directing and bad writing. Hayden Christensen isn`t a bad actor, but the directing makes him so boring and bad. Hell, even Sam Jackson is boring when delivering his lines, that is some bad directing! Only ewan Mcgregor and the guy who plays the Palpatine kind of manages to pull it off somehow.

Completely agree and I have said similar many times myself. Even Iain McDiarmid (Palpatine) descends into cackling pantomime at the end and that fellow is a wonderful classical actor - ultimately, an actor has to do what must be done. I feel deeply sorry for Hayden Christensen because I doubt at all that he is a bad actor. Trying to do a transition in one or two scenes from troubled but well-intentioned young man to child-killing monster and keep both plausible. He actually does an admirable attempt at pulling that off. But for something like that you really need the director helping you. We all know how good an actress Natalie Portman is. Watch Black Swan if you don't believe me. Or see how much she brings to the extremely depth-light role of Jane Foster in that first Thor movie. The role has next to nothing to it other than to be a plot device and viewpoint for the audience, but she makes it vivid, likeable and completely believable. But back then we didn't know that. She had a stupid role in Mars Attacks prior to that and otherwise was not much known. The Phantom Menace, far from being a big break, nearly killed her movie career. She escaped obscurity by the skin of her teeth despite her huge talent. The only other lead who wasn't already an established big name was poor Hayden Christensen who was even more in the spotlight and therefore even more lambasted by critics and the Internet Hate Machine. I feel really, really sorry for him. He got what he must have thought would be the greatest opportunity he could imagine and then got loaded down with lines like "I trust that the kiss which you should never have given me, does not become a scar upon my heart".

Ewan McGreggor gets away with things because he's actually allowed some lightness to his character sometimes and the actor is smart enough / experienced enough to tone down the Epic Drama whereas I have this hunch that the rest of the cast felt obliged to actually listen to George Lucas when he was egging them on to give everything more pathos.

Lucas is a wonderful visual director. A real David Lean grasp for landscapes and changes of scale (the opening of Episode IV remains a masterpiece). But that is it. He should be kept far away from scripts and people.

In short, as a cartoonist once put it: "Dance, Monkey. Dance for Lucas!"

I actually love the two youtube "what ifs", and imagine what a campaign would be like if run in that alternative universe.

It's just my opinion, but I also felt closer to both Obi-Wan and Anakin throughout that guy's detailing of episodes one and two - even though he was merely detailing it to me in a very summarised manner.

I love the prequels. If you don't, you're simply wrong. The Disney films are going to make you miss Star Wars

I love the prequels. If you don't, you're simply wrong. The Disney films are going to make you miss Star Wars

Only a Sith deals in absolutes... I don't hate the Prequels, I simply don't like them. In Episode I, I didn't like 9 year old Anakin, Jar-Jar, Qui-Gon dying from a stab in a location that wouldn't have ended in death so quickly. In Episode II, I didn't like whiny teenager Anakin, the Clone Wars starting at the end of the film, the Clones being the good guys. In Episode III, I didn't like how fast Anakin fell (remember, this is from the perspective of the films. He went Sith in just a short span.), didn't like the Clones turning on the Jedi without the Jedi picking up on the threat, didn't like how Commander Cody so willingly fired on Obi-wan (again, this is from the perspective of the films.).

There's plenty of things I think are wrong about the Prequels. But I don't think the Originals are perfect either. It wasn't designed to be a trilogy from the get-go and radical changes occurred at every turn. Just by watching A New Hope, you can tell that Luke never had a sister, Vader wasn't Anakin Skywalker, and Leia definitely wasn't Force-sensitive. In Empire, Luke and Leia clearly weren't siblings but they weren't love interests either, Leia is still not Force-sensitive, Yoda is this weird green dude who pulls wool over Luke's eyes. In Return of the Jedi, Luke was intended to be the last Jedi and Leia is still not Force-sensitive. There are plenty of inconsistencies in every film and plenty of intentions that were either not fulfilled or changed at the last moment.

Episode I suffers from a lack of a main character (or even a cast with defined motives and personalities) and relied too hard on a scattershot of purposeless Classic Trilogy callbacks and *way* too much focus on the background events of the fall of the Republic, but it does have the best structured story and the most effort made into cinematography.

So much of Episodes II & III simply drag on waiting to reveal plot points via scenes of walking & talking that just don't matter or were telegraphed hours earlier (then again Palpatine being obviously Sidious doesn't really make a difference in TPM either and they killed off the worth-while villain, so...). I wrote off a lot of the problems when I was seeing them as a teenager and just happy to see Star Wars explorer on screen with big special effects, but 10 years later the nostalgia has worn off and they're just aimless, tone-deaf, narratively backwards glowstick-spinning effects shows.

Episode I needed a lot of little things polished up, but it would have been greatly improved by focusing chiefly on Obi-wan. Don't delve into what the Trade Federation is plotting while the Jedi are onboard; let Obi-wan get separated from Qui-Gon on Naboo and only rejoin when arriving in Theed; make Jar-Jar shut up and stop doing 'funny things', just let Ahmed Best play a character; Make Anakin older, force-sensitive just because they can sense it, and *don't* take him to Naboo (we'll have two whole movies to explore his growing friendship with Obi-Wan... Or maybe we'll get to that in a 6-season cartoon series), and don't kill Darth Maul, that'd be like killing Vader in Episode IV.

And yeah, script rewrites and dialog polish is a must. Episode IV had like 4 major drafts and V and VI were written and directed using other people. Lucas wrote the prequels by the seat of his pants without a single contrary opinion from his entourage.

I don't hate on Episode I but there are some things I'd like to see differently. As others have mentioned, toning down Jar Jar comes to mind first. After that action-packed opening on Trade Federation cruiser the Star Wars mood was set but as soon as they got to Naboo and Jar Jar started talking it was like someone let all the air out of the room. The tone of the audience changed, you could feel it. What a shame. I understand where Lucas was going with the character and he wasn't meant for the audience I was in; however, the execution could have been more strategic to include his lightheartedness without disrupting the tone of the film.

The acting is fairly wooden. Padme's lines are just flat. Qui-Gon was a well-rounded and interesting character and I would have liked to have seen that same interest injected into all of the main characters.

Darth Maul needed more setup and dialogue. 'Nuff said.

The lightsaber battle at the end is epic, change nothing. The starfighter battle someone didn't manage to pull us into the heads of the pilots the way Episode IV did. Everyone remembers Biggs, Porkins, etc. For some reason it just works. With the Naboo starfighter squadron they didn't seem to capture that magic. The ground battle was... well it was what it was. The Jar Jar effect kept deflating the tension whenever it would build.

I have been overly critical here. Believe it or not, I do enjoy all of the prequel movies including Episode I. It's an integral part of the overall narrative despite its flaws.

I love the prequels. If you don't, you're simply wrong. The Disney films are going to make you miss Star Wars

Only a Sith deals in absolutes...

But isn't that an absolute? Wouldn't that make you a Sith?

I love the prequels. If you don't, you're simply wrong. The Disney films are going to make you miss Star Wars

Your opinion is your opinion. Even though it is just as harsh as those who do not like the prequels.

As for Disney? I, for one, am cautiously optimistic, based on Guardians of the Galaxy and the whole Avengers line. I did not expect much from any of that, and I was pleasantly surprised.

Disney has done well by Pixar, the Muppets (admitedly, less so than the others on this list) and Marvel.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument against Disney that doesn't, really, boil down to stigma and knee-jerk reactions.

I love the prequels. If you don't, you're simply wrong. The Disney films are going to make you miss Star Wars

Color me wrong then.

The Disney films are going to make you miss Star Wars

So ... are you saying that they will be good and it will make us sad that we don't like the prequels, or that they will be bad and we will long for the previous films, prequels included?

I'd also chime in that The Phantom Menace is my favourite of the prequels. I'm not saying it's the best, but it is my favourite... because it felt the most like Star Wars to me. 2 and 3, on the other hand, kind of felt like damage control: "Oh man, we're in trouble here. Waddayou guys like? You like Boba Fett? Look, everybody's Boba Fett!"... "You want dark? Here's Anakin slaughtering children - can't get much darker than that!", etc...

I'm with you here. It breaks down when you start asking questions, but on the surface it still feels like a sweeping space adventure. The other two are both so clunky that they lose all the fun.

That said, when people talk about the prequels, I just put my fingers in my ears and think of the Clone Wars series.

I'd also chime in that The Phantom Menace is my favourite of the prequels. I'm not saying it's the best, but it is my favourite... because it felt the most like Star Wars to me. 2 and 3, on the other hand, kind of felt like damage control: "Oh man, we're in trouble here. Waddayou guys like? You like Boba Fett? Look, everybody's Boba Fett!"... "You want dark? Here's Anakin slaughtering children - can't get much darker than that!", etc...

I'm with you here. It breaks down when you start asking questions, but on the surface it still feels like a sweeping space adventure. The other two are both so clunky that they lose all the fun.

That said, when people talk about the prequels, I just put my fingers in my ears and think of the Clone Wars series.

Honestly, the originals kinda break down when you start asking questions, too.

Like why didn't the rebels fly straight at the exhaust port instead of flying down a trench? Why didn't the Empire bring any air support to Hoth, why was their blockade so ineffective (Vader's Death Squadron is supposed to be one of the largest assemblages of warships in the history of the galaxy - and the piddly Trade Federation's blockade with lightly converted bulk carriers was more successful), and why didn't the rebels use X-wings or Y-wings against the Imperial walkers? How does Luke become a fully-trained Jedi Knight with so little training in less than five years (the prodigy Anakin under direct tutelage of Obi-Wan Kenobi took at least ten years - becoming a Padawan at about 8 and a Knight at about 18 - with Ahsoka having become an Initiate at probably about three, a Padawan at apparently the exceptionally young age of 14, and a Knight by 16 or 17)?

I've always contended that if you took off the rose colored glasses of Nostalgia, Episodes 4-6 have a great many problems similar to E1-3. Bad acting overall (save for a couple of standouts like Cushing and Guinness), hokey dialogue and inappropriate slapstick, amongst others. It's just after 40 years of watching (from an impressionable age), we're gotten used to the flaws.

Mind you, I'm not saying that E4-6 are bad or anything. Just that the two trilogies are closer than (some) people like to admit.

I've always felt that the reason for there being so much hate for the Star Wars prequels comes down to the fact that it's about unlikeable characters making mistakes presented in the trappings of a triumphant space opera. There's also a bit of a racial component to things.

First, you have all of these younger versions of really cool characters from the previous films. Pretty much all of these characters act in very foolish ways and are, plainly, dumb. The entirety of the Jedi, for example. It's obvious that Lucas intended this to be the case, that he wanted them all to be kind of dumb because it's about how they had control of the galaxy and screwed it all up due to hubris. Unfortunately, the execution of the films makes it hard to identify the reason for the bad decisions as hubris and instead just makes the Jedi cartoonish lot incompetent. Add to that all the cool light saber fights and showiness and special effects that Lucas loves adding in, and the message gets further buried by spectacle. Star Wars is a black and white universe with black and white themes and it can't really handle grey areas very well while maintaining its sense of spectacle and wonder. So the prequels end up being way too heavy on spectacle, to the point where it becomes boring, and have a poorly executed human story because the characters don't act human and are trying to play to the idea of "flawed tragic heroes" without going full bore toward the latter.

As for the race thing, well, it's no secret that the prequels are full of a bunch of bad racial stereotypes in the form of different aliens. Who knows why they were put into the movie. Maybe Lucas thought having alien analogues to a bunch of real world cultures would make the diversity in the galaxy more relatable. The original trilogy wasn't innocent of this, though. It leaned on old British imperialism/racism for characters. You have the fussy effeminate Englishman in c3p0 who annoys the other characters so much that they temporarily kill him (shut him off) to get him to be quiet. You have a noble savage in the form of chewbacca who is big and strong and loyal but will always be a sidekick to the main characters and whose words aren't worth translating (unlike some other aliens). You have droids and slaves and in general a mean and imperialistic galaxy that our heroes for the most part express no dislike of beyond when the empire decides to attack a planet of humans instead. The racial politics of the original trilogy are basically that the world is filled with people outside of the norm, but they all know their place. Contrast this to the prequels and their most hated character, jar jar. Why do people hate him? Yes, he's a bad racial stereotype. But so was c3p0. I think the deeper issue is that jar jar is a stereotype of a racial group that many people already harbor unconscious (or sometimes conscious) ill will/dislike toward, and that makes people like him a lot less than c3p0. Combine this with the fact that these racial stereotypes DONT know their place and spend a large portion of the movie taking the spotlight from the human cast. People end up just seeing the negative stereotype they are already predisposed against and he ends up never developing into more than a cartoon while taking up more and more spotlight time to where he ends up having an entire portion of the film climax dedicated to him.

So, to sum up.

1) the prequels relied too much on spectacle versus relatable human parts until spectacle became boring.

2) the main characters are intended to be either tragic Greek heroes who go beyond humanity but end up coming off as incompetent and unrelatable.

3) the racial stereotypes in the prequels are from groups that people are already prejudiced against, and their one-dimensional characters lead most audiences to dislike them.

So yeah, basically, my big issue with the films is the poorly executed characterization.

I don't buy the argument that people dislike Jar-Jar Binks because they're racist. I remember there being a huge stink over the racism in Episode 1 with regards to Jar-Jar's character and Watto's character. And absolutely nothing being mentioned about how "annoying" these characters were.

Copy-pasta from wikipedia (because I'm too lazy to google anything more): "Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal described the character as a "Rastafarian Stepin Fetchit on platform hoofs, crossed annoyingly with Butterfly McQueen."^[13] Patricia J. Williams suggested that many aspects of Jar Jar's character are highly reminiscent of the archetypes portrayed in blackface minstrelsy,^[14] while others have suggested the character is a "laid-back clown character" representing a black Caribbean stereotype.^[15] George Lucas has denied any racist implications.^[16] Ahmed Best also rejected the allegations, saying that "Jar Jar has nothing to do with the Caribbean".^[17]"

Link.

Jar-Jar Binks is annoying because he is annoying. Not because people don't like black people. Otherwise, people would hate Mace Windu, too. And nobody hates Mace Windu. Not even the slavering fans of the Fetts.

Also: Nimsim, your point number 2 has an "either" but lacks the requisite "or".

I don't buy the argument that people dislike Jar-Jar Binks because they're racist. I remember there being a huge stink over the racism in Episode 1 with regards to Jar-Jar's character and Watto's character. And absolutely nothing being mentioned about how "annoying" these characters were.

Copy-pasta from wikipedia (because I'm too lazy to google anything more): "Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal described the character as a "Rastafarian Stepin Fetchit on platform hoofs, crossed annoyingly with Butterfly McQueen."^[13] Patricia J. Williams suggested that many aspects of Jar Jar's character are highly reminiscent of the archetypes portrayed in blackface minstrelsy,^[14] while others have suggested the character is a "laid-back clown character" representing a black Caribbean stereotype.^[15] George Lucas has denied any racist implications.^[16] Ahmed Best also rejected the allegations, saying that "Jar Jar has nothing to do with the Caribbean".^[17]"Link.

Jar-Jar Binks is annoying because he is annoying. Not because people don't like black people. Otherwise, people would hate Mace Windu, too. And nobody hates Mace Windu. Not even the slavering fans of the Fetts.

Also: Nimsim, your point number 2 has an "either" but lacks the requisite "or".

My point was to contrast to the purposefully annoying c3p0, who is a stereotype of an effeminate Englishman and is made to be so annoying that other characters turn him off to shut him up. Why does c3p0 seem more appealing to people? I think that at least part of that comes from his stereotype being more "palatable" than jar jar's. Basically, the Star Wars films tend to use racial stereotypes as shorthand for aliens or things that are different, but the prequels used stereotypes that people react negatively to AND have them lead roles in movies.

Also, Lucas's intent while making the film is not the end-all be-all of what the film ends up portraying. Death of the author and all that.

And thank you for letting me know that I had a stray "either" in my post. I will make sure that it is picked up and taken to a good home.

I'd also chime in that The Phantom Menace is my favourite of the prequels. I'm not saying it's the best, but it is my favourite... because it felt the most like Star Wars to me. 2 and 3, on the other hand, kind of felt like damage control: "Oh man, we're in trouble here. Waddayou guys like? You like Boba Fett? Look, everybody's Boba Fett!"... "You want dark? Here's Anakin slaughtering children - can't get much darker than that!", etc...

I'm with you here. It breaks down when you start asking questions, but on the surface it still feels like a sweeping space adventure. The other two are both so clunky that they lose all the fun.

That said, when people talk about the prequels, I just put my fingers in my ears and think of the Clone Wars series.

Honestly, the originals kinda break down when you start asking questions, too.

Like why didn't the rebels fly straight at the exhaust port instead of flying down a trench? Why didn't the Empire bring any air support to Hoth, why was their blockade so ineffective (Vader's Death Squadron is supposed to be one of the largest assemblages of warships in the history of the galaxy - and the piddly Trade Federation's blockade with lightly converted bulk carriers was more successful), and why didn't the rebels use X-wings or Y-wings against the Imperial walkers? How does Luke become a fully-trained Jedi Knight with so little training in less than five years (the prodigy Anakin under direct tutelage of Obi-Wan Kenobi took at least ten years - becoming a Padawan at about 8 and a Knight at about 18 - with Ahsoka having become an Initiate at probably about three, a Padawan at apparently the exceptionally young age of 14, and a Knight by 16 or 17)?

1: Diving towards the exhaust port vertically would have exposed the fighters to the weapons in the trench and those surrounding it for much longer.

2: The Imperial commanders probably didn't want to have to deal with having their fighters stay low enough to avoid the shield under combat conditions.

3: The rebels had much stronger anti-orbital defenses then the Naboo. Also based on the Essential guide to Warfare 30 rebel transports tried to leave Hoth and 17 were destroyed (And the 17 ships destroyed is canon). That's over half of the transports which tried to break out going down in flames despite the transports having fighter escorts and support fire from an anti-orbital weapon.

We don't know how many ships were intercepted successfully by the Trade Federation blockade. The one ship which we know of that did try to run it made it through despite the lack of a fighter escort, supporting anti-orbital fire or other ships to divide the attention of the blockaders. So I would say the Hoth blockade was much more successful then the Naboo blockade.

4: The Rebel fighters were on transport escort duty or were escape craft for the speeder crews.

5: Luke got the speedy Jedi course just the basics and combat training not the advanced level non-combat stuff and rushed it.

6: Ahsoka as never a Jedi Knight AFAIK. She was still a Padawan when she left the order.

My point was to contrast to the purposefully annoying c3p0, who is a stereotype of an effeminate Englishman and is made to be so annoying that other characters turn him off to shut him up. Why does c3p0 seem more appealing to people? I think that at least part of that comes from his stereotype being more "palatable" than jar jar's. Basically, the Star Wars films tend to use racial stereotypes as shorthand for aliens or things that are different, but the prequels used stereotypes that people react negatively to AND have them lead roles in movies.

It's because 3PO wasn't a vehicle for fart and poop jokes nor spent half his screen time bouncing around failing to juggle stuff like Roger Freaking Rabbit.

It's as though Lucas forgot what's a muppet and overheard them mentioned and declared "oh yeah, the next movie needs a character like this (flails arms wildly)." The slapstick does escalate with each movie, but the prequels made too big of a leap.

1: Diving towards the exhaust port vertically would have exposed the fighters to the weapons in the trench and those surrounding it for much longer.

2: The Imperial commanders probably didn't want to have to deal with having their fighters stay low enough to avoid the shield under combat conditions.

3: The rebels had much stronger anti-orbital defenses then the Naboo. Also based on the Essential guide to Warfare 30 rebel transports tried to leave Hoth and 17 were destroyed (And the 17 ships destroyed is canon). That's over half of the transports which tried to break out going down in flames despite the transports having fighter escorts and support fire from an anti-orbital weapon.

We don't know how many ships were intercepted successfully by the Trade Federation blockade. The one ship which we know of that did try to run it made it through despite the lack of a fighter escort, supporting anti-orbital fire or other ships to divide the attention of the blockaders. So I would say the Hoth blockade was much more successful then the Naboo blockade.

4: The Rebel fighters were on transport escort duty or were escape craft for the speeder crews.

5: Luke got the speedy Jedi course just the basics and combat training not the advanced level non-combat stuff and rushed it.

6: Ahsoka as never a Jedi Knight AFAIK. She was still a Padawan when she left the order.

1- The weapons mounted on the Death Star were turbolasers - which are not capable of effectively engaging fighters. Flying directly toward their target gives them much more room to maneuver - something that proved fatal for everybody who tried the trench run except for Luke and Wedge.

2- Combat speeders such as the rebel T-47 appear to be unaffected. Republic LAATs would likely not be effected, either, same for any Imperial-flavored replacement gunship. The LAAT's mass driver missiles would probably be able to drop the shield generator much faster than the AT-ATs' laser cannons.

3- If the Trade Federation blockade of Naboo were ineffective, it would not have made any sense for the Trade Federation to engage in it: How many bulk carriers engaged for how long, when they could be hauling cargo?

4- And how many infantry and how much materiél did the rebellion lose because of their inability to even do much to slow the Imperial walker attack?

5- Seems like a mistake. I understand the hurry, but so much for patience.

6- You are correct. However, Ahsoka passed her trials and was offered the rank and position of Knight, but she declined it at the time she left the Order.

I don't buy the argument that people dislike Jar-Jar Binks because they're racist. I remember there being a huge stink over the racism in Episode 1 with regards to Jar-Jar's character and Watto's character. And absolutely nothing being mentioned about how "annoying" these characters were.

Copy-pasta from wikipedia (because I'm too lazy to google anything more): "Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal described the character as a "Rastafarian Stepin Fetchit on platform hoofs, crossed annoyingly with Butterfly McQueen."^%5B13%5D Patricia J. Williams suggested that many aspects of Jar Jar's character are highly reminiscent of the archetypes portrayed in blackface minstrelsy,^%5B14%5D while others have suggested the character is a "laid-back clown character" representing a black Caribbean stereotype.^%5B15%5D George Lucas has denied any racist implications.^%5B16%5D Ahmed Best also rejected the allegations, saying that "Jar Jar has nothing to do with the Caribbean".^%5B17%5D"Link.

Jar-Jar Binks is annoying because he is annoying. Not because people don't like black people. Otherwise, people would hate Mace Windu, too. And nobody hates Mace Windu. Not even the slavering fans of the Fetts.

Also: Nimsim, your point number 2 has an "either" but lacks the requisite "or".

My point was to contrast to the purposefully annoying c3p0, who is a stereotype of an effeminate Englishman and is made to be so annoying that other characters turn him off to shut him up. Why does c3p0 seem more appealing to people? I think that at least part of that comes from his stereotype being more "palatable" than jar jar's. Basically, the Star Wars films tend to use racial stereotypes as shorthand for aliens or things that are different, but the prequels used stereotypes that people react negatively to AND have them lead roles in movies.

Also, Lucas's intent while making the film is not the end-all be-all of what the film ends up portraying. Death of the author and all that.

And thank you for letting me know that I had a stray "either" in my post. I will make sure that it is picked up and taken to a good home.

I understand your reasoning but I disagree. I did not find C3-P0 especially annoying in the OT. Whilst he was annoying to the other characters, I don't think he was that annoying to the audience. His complaining fearfulness was there but the situations he found himself in were not overly contrived and didn't drag away from the story. However, in the PT, I did find him annoying. Now he was suddenly having his head swapped with battledroids, falling off conveyor belts and all generally had become a parody of himself, just as R2-D2 also became an exaggerated caricature of himself going from competent, faithful little Droid to a beeping Mary Sue flying around on rocket skates.

Jar-Jar Binks "comedy" is similarly contrived. He unlatches containers filled with bombs, he gets his hand stuck in pod engines, falls over, shrieks and is generally absurd. And he also becomes a Naboo senator, despite all this. :/ In short, OT C3P0 is a character who annoys other characters but generally isn't a completely incompetent idiot who gets into contrived situations. Jar-Jar very much is and actually in EP.II so his C3-P0 and he's exceedingly annoying.

I don't think race enters into any of this, at least for me and I trust for many other people, also. I assure you that much of Europe found Jar-Jar annoying as well and we don't have nearly the same attitudes to race as in the USA. We have racism, certainly, but it's nowhere near as bad and generally directed more against Muslim peoples than Black.

I'll also bring to mind a scene in RotJ, it's one of my favourite scenes. It is the night before the attack on the Empire and Han, Leia, Luke et al are staying in the Ewok village. They're all in some firelit hut where C3-P0 is telling the story so far to the Ewoks complete with sound effects to the general awe of the Ewoks and the quiet, contentment of the humans. We get to see C3-P0 in his proper environment, a protocol droid designed for communication and diplomacy and find that he's actually pretty good at it. And so maybe you forgive him for not being great at balancing on ledges or trudging through deserts as that's not his role. Doesn't he also bluff his way very smoothly past some stormtroopers on the Deathstar in EP. IV? C3-P0 is a fish out of water, but he's not inherently annoying or incompetent (except in the PT where he comes a parody). Jar-Jar is both of these things and glued onto the side of the main plot like a remora.

The only time I have any time for Jar-Jar, is in the TCW three-parter on Bardota where Dave Filoni did the impossible and actually made him sympathetic and Mace Windu the less capable one, all without altering their characters!

1: Yeah but we saw what happened when a turbolaser did manage to hit a fighter, and increasing the number of guns able to fire at the attackers during their run plus the amount of time the gunners have to adjust to the rebel pilots patterns increases the odds of those hits.

2: Probably because they were flying under the shield. While the gunships might have been able to make the run we don't know if they were in service. Besides if Veers wanted to show off the AT-ATs he could have easily held any gunship support back and neither we nor the Imperials knew what.kind of AA defenses were around the shield generator so they sent their heavy armor in.

3: There is a huge difference between being effective at blocking lone cargo ships and blocking ships with fighter escort and ground fire support. Also we have no proof that anyone ever trade to run the Naboo blockade before the royal transport did. Perhaps all the cargo haulers simply avoided the system once the blockade went up.