It seems that since the release of The Phantom Menace over 3 years ago, the community of fans has split and formed factions over what is good and what is not. If these intense debates have proven one thing, it is that there is no accounting for taste, for it seems that for every person who is disapointed or opposed the the PT, there is his counterpart waiting to fight tooth-and-nail to announce his viewpoint as just as valid, if not moreso. It boils down to this: Is there a right answer? The answer may suprise you. To even begin to address these queries of whether one film is "good" or not, there must be agreements made on both side of the fence, and certain ideologies cannot be expressed for they are ideologies of impasse. "How fascist of you!," you may cry, but it is true. The terms of good and substandard (as likewise, benevolent and evil) are based on a set code of rules and ethics. To make metaphor, if there were no evil, nor the desire for evil, nor no way to express evil, what value would be represented by the word "good"? Similarly, if one does not choose to recognize the attributes of substandard, then effectly the term of substandard does not, and cannot, apply. So to sum up, the belief that some thing is valuable just because you choose not to believe in the theory of a set of rules that may devalue certain things you think to be remarkably special (whew!) is a paradox. If you say you like something just because you can without validation is simultaneously correct and false. It is correct in the fact that your position, to you, is infallible and cannot be contested. it is false in the regard that you play by no rules, and therefore you have nothing to prove your stance by. That said, let the discussions begin.