So this randomly crossed my mind, but I was thinking about how interesting the overall story of the prequels was- how a Sith Lord slipped through the cracks to get himself in power legitimately before causing a war in which he controlled both sides like chess pieces all in the conquest of ultimate power- and he succeeds. It’s a tragic tale that has roots in real life examples of rising fascism- it isn’t always just a stronger force seizing power, it can be subtlety manipulated behind the scenes. And unfortunately, many fans seem to have missed the point of this- slamming the prequels for its politics and calling them “boring” because there are talks of trade routes and Senate scenes and what not. I admit when I was a kid the political scenes went over my head, but I have an appreciation for them now. It had never crossed my mind how the Emperor became, well, the Emperor. Now I understand the genius of the character- a guy pretending to be a good guy ends up being the most evil of them all. This blew my mind as a kid. Contrast this with the Sequels, where they obviously got the wrong message and didn’t explain galactic affairs at all. We get a quick shot of not-Coruscant blowing up in TFA because JJ Abrams believes “prequels bad, politics bad,” because he doesn’t understand Star Wars in the least. And so we’re left with an utterly confusing conflict of the not-Rebels versus the not-Empire. All for it to be hastily revealed in the final installment that Palpatine returned, with no prior explanation or foreshadowing. I think if George did the Sequels, he would’ve gotten the politics right. He understood that it’s an essential part of telling the story of Star Wars, even if many of the fans don’t. Too many fans care about member-berries like the Millennium Falcon and Darth Vader’s mask because it reminds them of their childhood- without thinking about how the story has to be coherent to fit into a saga.