Or, the other way 'round. How do we define the "right" or "best" way to look at Star Wars? It's hard to say. I would guess that the majority of SW fans out there thinks that Lucas made a mistake with Jar-Jar. No flames, please. And this is an opinion, not a fact, but I would call it an informed opinion. Anyway, there are people out there who enjoy the character of Jar-Jar, for a variety of reasons. Their feelings are valid to them and are valuable for that reason alone. Of course, if you're talking to someone about the philosophy of film, you'd probably accredit more value to that person's opinion than a 10-year-old child. But, on the other hand, that film philosopher is coming from a certain viewpoint as well, so her opinion may not really have any more validity. So, to throw some postmodernism into the debate (which I generally hate doing), there is no absolute truth, and I would say particularly in art. Given the number of gushers and the number of bashers, it is evident that each side has some valid points to make. It's not like there's 100 million people loving the PT and 1 person hating it. Or the other way 'round. It's the nature of the beast. Look at the topic of this thread: "The biggest fault in AOTC was..." - and you could get 1,000 different responses. Same with "The best thing about AOTC was...". That's the beauty of SW. Anyway, enough philosophizing. Back on topic. If I was to pick ONE fault overall with AOTC (and it may be my favorite SW movie), I would say it is the editing. Not with specific shots except in a few places like the Hangar Duels scene, but the overall cut. I suppose I just disagree with what Lucas decided to keep vs. cut in some cases: notably, I would have rather seen the deleted scene with Padme's family/home than the meadow scene. I would have shortened the droid factory scene (although it was extremely cool) to allow for more character depth. But then again, maybe it's just me.