Debunking anti-PT articles/videos

Cryogenic
yes

Even as drive-by bashes go, there's not a lot to chew on (at the risk of mixing metaphors) there. I only skimmed the article, but based on that and your words, the offences seem to be confined to the opening paragraph:


First, I'm pleased they recognise that Anakin is "wildly important" to the storyline of the prequels. Although, based on their next sentences, it could be that they're trying to imply the prequels failed to do justice to their "linchpin". Either way, without getting into "Clone Wars" territory, I dispute the notion that Anakin is "an annoying kid". Although, without getting into an elaborate defence on the matter either, this just turns into a game of "He said, she said". Still, to say a few words...

Personally, I like Anakin's dynamism and drive in Episode I, even if he maybe comes across as a bit chipper or aloof at times, like when he casually introduces Threepio to Padme (the former), or says goodbye to Threepio (the latter) -- it's part of the story, though. What people fail to recognise or appreciate is that the PT is a meaningful character study; and that doesn't automatically entail we'll find a character likeable in every word or deed. What matters is how much thematic meat there is to tuck into. Of course, I'm not saying a character should be unlikeable for the sake of it, or that a character with an abundance of traits need not be softened and presented in a way that's sympathetic. But I think Lucas avoids these pitfalls -- while working to a destination where the character falls into a pit. Geddit? Darnit, I'm here all week! All year!

No, but seriously...

Why all these absolutes all the damn time? I don't really find Anakin to be annoying. Perhaps a little bracing here and there. But overall, I consider him to be an interesting and well-developed character, even in his "kid" phase. His precociousness might be a little offputing to some, but again -- it's part of the story. Why would Qui-Gon even care about the little urchin if he wasn't a touch special in terms of his basic intelligence and outlook? This is one of the more engaging aspects of the story, and a mighty fine reason for starting with Episode I, if you ask me. There's a lot of thematic and human interest -- a lot that resonates -- in TPM. Also: Has the writer never been around kids? Kids can be plenty annoying. Anakin scores pretty well on this front.

Padme is hardly a character who is "barely there" in the PT, although I do have some sympathy for people who feel she could have had a stronger presence in the latter prequels, especially Episode III. More and more of the territory is given over to Anakin; so that, mid-way into ROTS, his story basically dominates everyone else's. Which is kind of fitting since his actions effectively determine his own fate and those of everyone around him. But just because Anakin steals the limelight, it doesn't mean the prequels are only his story. Padme is very strongly depicted in the PT as a young woman who is also trying to find her place in the world, while serving her people from a young age; yet being, at times, a little high-minded and even a tad naive, not to mention more than a touched panicked at the prospect of allowing Anakin to tear down the veil of their marriage in Episode III. In ways delicate and subtle, Padme is dealing with a lot in the PT, and I like how this is increasingly written over Natalie Portman's visage as the trilogy unfolds.

There is always more to flesh out and more gaps to be filled in, but the idea that Anakin's isn't well-drawn in the PT (which is in "live action" -- geddit?) is pretty silly when you bear down on the films and see all the cogs being turned. TCW is a nice supplementary piece to the PT, surely; but it isn't essential. Wanting to spend more time with prequel characters is all well and good, but even that says something about the power of the story Lucas developed in the first place. TCW is a little like one of those elaborate interpretative pieces you encounter on Dickens or Shakespeare. Even when you're dealing with undeniable genius, some people are always going to desire putting a different slant on things and developing situations that may have only been thinly alluded to -- if it at all -- in the original works. That doesn't mean the original works are lacking. Does one criticise a sequoia tree because it isn't a jellyfish? One should be able to argue for things (by and large) on their own merits; even if, as John Muir said, if you try to pick anything out by itself, you'll find it hitched to everything else in the universe.

Yeah. There's little point in weaponising Star Wars and using one part of it as a club to bash another. Of course, that's not to say "versus" matches can't be fun. They banned them on TFN because the mods are fascists and cowards (in part, that's probably why they permanently banned thephantomcalamari -- they were triggered by his perfectly acceptable use of the "fascist" term to describe a Star Wars character). And like any rule, some people transgress the rule and get away with it (and for the most part, I say "good luck" to them), while others are shot down immediately (or are even falsely accused of implicitly bashing other parts of Star Wars by a mega-biased and blatantly aggressive moderator). People need to learn that plenty of things can co-exist; and that suggesting strengths or limitations in one thing isn't immediately an attack on something else or an apologetic defence at another thing's expense.

Anakin: Symbionts?
Qui-Gon: Lifeforms living together for mutual advantage.


Nice blog article. I was, however, rebutting the charge of Anakin as a kid being annoying, because that's what the Screen Rant writer specifically said. Though perhaps by "annoying kid" they were also referring to Anakin in his teenage phase in Episode II. In the words of Mace: "That's possible." As prequel fans, I'm sure we're all too familiar with the notion that AOTC Anakin is supposedly an "annoying punk", or some variation. The Anakin/Obi-Wan relationship in AOTC is very complicated, and that's certainly something, I think, that works to the film's advantage -- yet so many people through the years have treated it as a detriment, because, in large part, they are unable to let go of their attachment to the Original Trilogy and what they imagined the backstory to be. 


Right. To echo what I just said above: Their relationship has many layers and is one of the more compelling aspects of the film. 

Obi-Wan mentors his student in a rather conservative and uptight fashion, and clearly doesn't quite know how to control his recalcitrant padawan half the time (though he does have his methods), often falling back on the Jedi Council line, as established in their opening scenes (which, of course, is the perfect place to establish a great many details that will ripple down the rest of the trilogy). Additionally, a too-close age-gap creates an obvious "sibling rivalry" dynamic; which produces certain fruits and allows their talents to shine, but it also means that Obi-Wan comes down extra hard on Anakin, and Anakin invariably chafes in response. And with Palpatine feeding his ego on the side, a dangerous cocktail is brewing: an explosion/meltdown with catastrophic consequences (given Anakin's abilities in the Force) begins to feel more and more inevitable. And all the time, due to the younger Obi-Wan's pledge to Qui-Gon (training Anakin is Obi-Wan's way of paying a "life debt" to his own father figure), as well as a touch of pride on his part, where Obi-Wan is reluctant to easily admit to error or go against the Jedi Council, Anakin begins to stray off-course, finding comfort and reassurance in Palpatine and then in Padme -- ultimately building a new life in the shadows, under the nose of his master, but away from his glare and his oppressive dictates.

Anakin himself is obviously dealing with a shifting morass of emotions, temptations, and expectations in the middle prequel. The production notes even place emphasis on Anakin being at a particularly difficult juncture, with the term "complex" being thrown out more than once. While it is never explicitly stated in the film, you're right to say that Anakin still carries the scar of Obi-Wan maligning him as "dangerous" to Qui-Gon on Coruscant. Indeed, in Episode III, Anakin is defensive about Palpatine to Obi-Wan, telling him, "He's watched out for me ever since I arrived here." In that one sentence, he basically excludes Obi-Wan; and he also indicates (implicitly) that he himself feels excluded by Obi-Wan -- and, by extension, the Jedi -- and has done from the very beginning. It is precisely the Palpatine factor that opens up old wounds and strikes at the foundation of their relationship once again. The real tragedy there is, in the first act of Episode III, we see how much they have grown as a unit, only for that growth to be shown as something of a lie, as Obi-Wan obliquely alludes to later on to Padme, telling her, "He was deceived by a lie. We all were." In Episode II, we see all the fault lines of their relationship laid bare; and if Anakin is difficult and callow, that's the point!

Those production notes and the Anakin section -- I think they contain some interesting quotes:

I'll keep this one brief (or not -- as usual). Little pressed for time today with a few more posts waiting in the wings, and people are probably getting a little sick of me banging on non-stop.

Here's the first thing I noticed:


That's their first sentence and it's pretty ineptly written -- it is literally word-for-word the same as the headline/title! It's either a flat-out mistake (someone went a little crazy with the copy-and-paste function) or the writer stuck a container sentence in there and forgot to change it. Either way, it's a perfect microcosm for these clickbait articles in general. In order for it to depart slightly from the headline, it should probably have been changed to read:

"George Lucas has freshly defended Star Wars: The Phantom Menace's trade dispute plot."

The addition of a scintilla of extra information would allow the opening sentence to more organically lead into the main article. Why am I doing these people's work for them?! Grrgh.

What's also hilarious about it is that it actually mirrors the style/tone of the very thing the writer is indirectly criticising (I don't like that, either, by the way: the passive-aggressiveness of the article itself). I'll show you what I mean:

First line of TPM:

"Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic."

First line of Screen Rant clickbait article:

"George Lucas defends Star Wars: The Phantom Menace’s trade dispute plot."

Change "defends" to my suggestion above and it's an even better match:

"George Lucas has freshly defended Star Wars: The Phantom Menace's trade dispute plot."

Heck, I could write a whole parody Screen Rant crawl:


Yeah, I sound like such an ass, right now -- but I haven't had my coffee yet, and I'm grumpy already... okay?! 

Actually, my first response was going to be:


How dare he!!!

See what I mean? Send me coffee beans in the mail -- NOW!

Anyway, I guess beyond there, the clickbait clickbaits, things are said, taken out of context, dealt with superficially, there's the usual handwringing and veiled appeals to majority "thinking", etc., etc...

Okay, but seriously, let's quickly go over the rest of this sorry thing:


You know, I almost hate to correct them on this point, but TPM didn't quite garner that much on its original release. Back then, it grossed a still-tidy $924,305,084. Since then, after being re-released in 3D form in 2012, its takings have gone up to the figure cited: $1,027,082,707. 


Technically, Jar Jar isn't "fully computer-generated". He was based on the movements and mannerisms of performer Ahmed Best, who was recorded with motion capture. Best also performed as Jar Jar in some takes and stepped out in other takes, to better capture the other characters' reactions, and so that the ILM teams had more to work with. And small parts of Jar Jar are non-digital in the film: in a few places, brief shots of Best's physical Jar Jar costume (mostly his arms) can be glimpsed.

The concealed bash also overlooks or downplays the work of all the animators and conceptual artists that brought Jar Jar to life in conjunction with Best himself. Computers didn't generate Jar Jar -- humans did. And his "bumbling comic relief" is no more out-of-place than the droids in the original film, who are the first talking characters and who lead the viewer to the other characters (or Luke: the main protagonist).

Somehow, over the years, people have conveniently forgotten about all the slapstick and silliness in the Original Trilogy. Moreover, silliness and profundity can go together; only people with a churlish mindset like to imply they are mutually independent of one another. Star Wars is an epic chronicle. It's meant to contain traces of everything. Or in the memorable words of prequel veteran Go-Mer-Tonic, Star Wars is "the whole enchilada". (Couldn't find an exact quote with Google, but I know he's said it).


See... I think I'm going to stop here...

This is the whole problem with articles like these. They throw out all these assertions and accusations, without substantiating anything; and then it's somehow expected that if a fan can't substantiate back, that means they don't really have an argument because they "know" the author is right. Conversely, if they do respond at length, they're just "desperate" to defend a "bad movie". So you can never win: the deck has already been stacked against you.

People may have objected to Anakin being a kid -- but so what? Lucas was constructing, in his own words, a "character study and an exhibition piece about politics". He wanted to chart the downfall of a once-decent person with great talent and promise, and he wanted to tie that into the political storyline. He wanted to create, in other words, a grand allegory for the human condition, and a commentary on the psychic temperature of the world at the turn of the millennium. It's a shame the writer missed all these things.

The plot may be more complex than the Original Trilogy (a simple coming-of-age fable), and even a touch convoluted or opaque, but it is hardly "senseless". I like the term "bogged down". It's used in the movie by Darth Sidious. The details aren't badly-developed. They're wonderfully-developed. However, TPM is just an overture: a preliminary assemblage of events and themes that are designed to set up and ripple down the rest of the saga. It's also a pretty basic fable at its core about symbiosis and interdependence. As Lucas explains in the new book cited in the article (this quote comes courtesy of Alexrd and his Star Wars Lucasverse blog):


And it's nothing new. Lucas pointed out his intent with this theme to Bill Moyers back in 1999:


Basically, a young girl loses her planet, she meets a frog and some Jedi Knights who help her get it back, and along the way: she encounters an interesting slave boy, slays a Supreme Chancellor, and allies with some tadpole aliens, then everyone enjoys a big celebration at the end with peace seemingly restored. It's not a hard story to follow. It's intended for children, and children were able to follow the main beats -- much more than many adults, unfortunately...

Back to this silly article:


And he's right -- because Lucas understands history (unlike many). 

In 2012, a big, beautiful book was published celebrating Star Wars from that angle: Star Wars and History. The prices are now insane, but it can be acquired relatively inexpensively as an eBook.

This Wikipedia page has an enormous list of conflicts started because of people or organisations refusing to pay tax -- I'm not going to sit there and count them up, but it must be in the 100s:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_acts_of_tax_resistance


Yep. I could pull up relevant Lucas quotes, but I'd rather focus on the psychological aspect (versus the historical or political -- of course, ultimately, it all goes together).

People often want strongmen to rule over them, like a fearful child desirous of protection. As George Lucas and Christopher Hitchens have spoken of before, it's because fear is an enormous factor in human affairs, and we are basically an adrenal, knee-jerk species. In the memorable words of Hitchens:


And in the words of George Lucas himself, speaking to Bill Moyers in 1999:


To counter-balance the Hitchens quote above, there is also this fascinating set of remarks from Lucas in the same interview:


In a roundabout way, Lucas is saying that humans are needy creatures -- and if those needs aren't met with some sort of hopeful, imaginative myth, or basic faith that the universe is capable of working itself out, it's easy to become attracted to the siren call of demagogues and dictators. Once that happens, it becomes a relatively trivial thing (psychologically speaking) to hand all of one's freedom over to an appealing tough guy who promises to take on the heavy burden themselves (giving the illusion of protection and security to the people who buy into his schtick and are willing to hand power away). Living ain't easy, and if someone comes along saying they can do the hard work for you, often with a good deal of scapegoating thrown in, many people will believe that losing their freedom is a small price to pay for feeling safe and protected (religion and all forms of authoritarianism in a nutshell). Since time began, there has always been plenty of individuals looking to exploit this basic tendency in others.

(I admit: I was looking for some particular Lucas quotes, but I'm a bit pressed for time and can't locate them right now. No matter. This article is too trivial to deserve a lengthy rebuttal, anyway.)

Let's try and finish the article off, quickly:


More casual bashing. None of the Star Wars movies emphasise action. They are action-oriented dramatic vehicles. There's a difference. What they all emphasise is plot, tone, structure, theme, and character. And yes: action and design. But in a way that serves the former set of categories. An action film without plot, character, or thematic work being done is a pretty boring, insipid thing, and that's not Star Wars -- it's certainly not Lucas Star Wars, anyway. 

While there is less overt emphasis on politics in the Original Trilogy, it mostly reflects the story situation: The Galactic Republic has been destroyed, and the last vestiges of democracy eviscerated along with it; leading to the classic struggle of a small band of scrappy rebels up against a monolithic empire. It's one aspect of the human experience. The prequels provide dense, discursive backstory to that classic struggle -- explaining why it exists, bringing depth to the world, widening the allegorical landscape of the film text considerably.

Lucas contrived Jar Jar, in part, to be the "key" -- or a hand-hold for younger views: an emissary that they can naturally latch onto, because he's basically an overgrown kid who overreacts to things, livens up one situation after another, and echoes the basic psychological disposition of those same viewers. Jar Jar, in a basic sense, is in over his head: shrieking and falling over, or getting shunted, zapped, or prodded, just as young kids feel a sense of awe, wonder, and confusion at this strange colourful world they've been dropped into. Adults can, of course, read more depth into everything (even though they rarely do).

The lightsaber battles don't lack dramatic tension, but they are more flamboyant and ritualised than the ones in the Original Trilogy. This is a good thing. This author has the same virus in their brain as many: they are arguing from the angle of "more of the same". That was never Lucas' intention with the Prequel Trilogy, and nor should it have been. The battles here have a delectable, kabuki quality -- and that's exactly right for this time setting. Lucas has previously called the prequels a "costume drama", reflecting the "more civilised age" that Obi-Wan described to Luke in the Original Trilogy:

From the "Costume Drama" webisode:




From the "Costumes Featurette":




Lucas had no intention of repeating the earlier films with a whole new trilogy and a brand new set of digital tools and creative people at his disposal. This was his ideal opportunity to push into new territory and bring an entirely new sensibility to his epic saga. Or as the opening line of L.P. Hartley's novel "The Go-Between" puts it: "The past is a different country; they do things differently there."

We've now reached the end of the article:


He didn't fumble on the story's political backdrop. It's not even a backdrop -- it's in the foreground! Can this writer please make up their mind? A moment ago, they praised the original movies for putting politics "far in the background", and they docked the PT for allegedly not doing the same thing. Star Wars was also never "whiz-bang sci-fi adventure". This strawman is sometimes brought out when people are desperate to act like Lucas "forgot what made the originals great". Star Wars was always a piece of mythic fiction, transforming into a parable of self-actualisation as the Original Trilogy progressed. Because, in essence, that's what myths are. 

The Prequel Trilogy is recognised to have epic scope and rich word-building -- especially after the farce of the Disney films (particularly "The Force Awakens") failing spectacularly to expand on the dense scope of the prequels and their lush worlds and striking design motifs. People are still wringing new depths out of the prequels today.

The writing itself serves the texture of the world perfectly well. Many lines have proven highly meme-able in recent times; perhaps because Lucas writes in an understated, koanistic way -- something his critics have routinely failed to grasp. And writing doesn't just encompass dialogue, but also mood, accent, orientation, and structure -- all areas that Lucas excels in. Very few films look like they could be both a) exhibited or freeze-framed and hung in an art gallery, and b) studied at college or university and taken seriously as modern-day political allegory. That's a big win for George Lucas and a big strike against clickbait writers that only seem to see the world in a single shade, and who bring nothing to the table but the same old simplistic complaints and congealed talking points. 

Hope that just about covers it.

Taxes are coercive -- no argument there. But I'm not sure they're all a result of greed and power tripping. The Trade Federation are being a lot more selfish in a bid to get their way. The clue is, surely, they have blockaded a peaceful planet and are being instructed by Darth Sidious. Rune Haako even correctly comments on their eventual fate after they try and terminate the Jedi: "We will not survive this." And they don't: Anakin kills them after being instructed by the same guy in Episode III. That's the mandala of selfishness.

In 2008, Lucas also called Barack Obama a hero when he was running for President, and pronounced shortly after he became President that he was more powerful than Luke Skywalker. Lucas also attended an inaugural ball for Obama in January 2009 and supplied funding to cover the costs of Obama's ten inaugural balls.

I need to stop talking about Obama's balls in a moment, but I think the point is made -- Lucas is essentially a Democrat, and Democrats are in favour of raising taxes on wealthy people, while Republicans are all in favour lowering them.

In 2012, Lucas conveyed his thoughts on the current systems we have (and which we seem to think are the best systems possible) to Charlie Rose on CBS This Morning:

  


*mic drop*

One of my favourite Lucas rejoinders.


While I agree they're pretty garbage-y, lots of things in society are garbage, and we unfortunately have to have some way of countering and disposing of it. Forums are a good way for prequel fans to hit back and set the record straight. I'm not saying we should respond to each and every one, but those things are out there -- and so are we.

Yeah, but... Some greed is good. Qui-Gon says it himself: "Greed can be a powerful ally." To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, emulation and ambition (desire, basically) is what makes enterprise possible. Of course, we could always do away with enterprise and live in a collectivist utopia, but we know where those lead. However, you can't have an unregulated market, either. We have poor and needy people. Children (and adults) have to be inoculated. Roads need to be maintained. Buildings and food need to obey safety standards. The environment must be protected. And so forth. You need laws. Laws are a bit like taxes in that they control behavior and impose (or contains the prescription for imposing) punishments on law-breakers. But like many laws, tax laws are often unjust and enforced in an asymmetric fashion.

You disdain corporatism and so do I -- because corporations frequently violate tax laws (among other things) and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, when ordinary citizens can't and punishments can be severe. It's a blatant double-standard. The concept of taxation is sound. I'm not a hardcore libertarian. If you took taxation away, I'm sorry but you'd just have corporatism and selfishness on overdrive. You wouldn't be dealing with the more fundamental problem (i.e., how to ensure that society is reasonably fair and just and you don't just have law of the jungle where everyone can pursue their own self-interest to the nth power).


Lucas, I think, is still broadly Democrat -- though precisely what kind of Democrat, I couldn't say. After that appearance on CBS This Morning, he sold to Disney later in the year and put his trust (even if it was arguably misplaced) in Bob Iger. Bob Iger is definitely a Democrat. So are people like Kathleen Kennedy and J.J. Abrams. Steven Spielberg: Democrat and one of Lucas' closest filmmaking buddies. This suggests Lucas still believes in a Democrat platform. Virtually all his friends and business associates are Democrat, and he spoke positively about Barack Obama becoming President.

We probably can't do away with big government at this stage in our evolution. Every system has its limitations, but society is too complex for government to be severely curtailed. That said: Elected officials must be held to account; and if people don't have a say in how that government is run, that's a bad government -- period.


Right. Every religion thinks it's teaching compassion and selflessness -- when it normally leads to bigotry and close-mindedness. So I'm not sure who gets to decide what is compassionate and selfless, or how they should be taught. Lucas has spoken before about his desire to see society become more rational and knowledge-based. People are poisoned from an early age by our consumerist culture. Acquiring stuff is seen as a better use of one's time and capital than learning stuff. I think that is something that needs to change. 


I'd say it's the Republic taxing the trade routes: wanting a cut of the Trade Federation's profits. There was likely concern that big commercial organs like the Trade Federation were growing too big to handle and needed to be brought down a notch or two. Just like there are strong calls (from some people) for tech giants like Google to a) meet their tax obligations, and b) be broken up to break their monopolistic practices. Panaka describes the TF as having a "trade franchise". They also have droid armies to collect debts. This suggests the Republic has granted big organisations like the TF permission to maintain and make a profit from the galactic trade infrastructure that exists and makes a star-spanning civilisation possible. Even Nute claims that their blockade is "perfectly legal". They obviously play a role controlling trade routes. The thing is: they clearly want to keep all the lucre for themselves and resent government interference. They're greedy and selfish.


I agree with you there. Lucas is showing that corporations have an obscene level of power: a problem that has only gotten worse in the last twenty years. And yes: The Democrats are almost as bad as the Republicans in failing to take them on; because they're very nearly as corrupt as the Republicans. The power of corporations needs to be held in check. Again: We need elected officials who are held to account. The system often prevents this from happening. And so, as Lucas said in the Rose clip, the guy with the biggest hammer wins. A good society is one that recognises the needs of all.

I feel like I’ve been seeing a lot more “how to fix" and PT rewrite pieces than usual lately and I’ve noticed the same underlying fundamental issue in all of them which I’d like to address here.

And though they aren’t necessarily anti-PT, per se, I’d like to first try to debunk this particular one all the same, then move on to said bigger issue.


This person's central point is that Padmé should’ve had a “legitimate”, physical, medical heart condition which would put her life at risk if she were to give birth.

He thus posits that her choosing to birth the twins despite her condition would make her a tragic hero while, just as importantly, maintaining consistency established in her character, adding depth to her story and giving her a more satisfying arc.

He further elaborates on his changes by having Padmé learn of her heart condition from a doctor (instead of the balcony scene!) but she keeps the information from Anakin for fear that the news would “push him further down a dark path” – even after Anakin tells her about his vision of her dying in childbirth.

First off, this premise has no legs because if Padmé had any sort of medical condition the medic droids could’ve done something about it. That’s… the point. Padmé’s death had to be from something droids could not fix. Lucas is continuously trying to define the distinction between AI & humans and this is the Big Kahuna.

But, let’s say she did have a medical condition. Would she really not tell Anakin? His reasoning was that Padmé feared the info would push him further down a dark path. If she knew he was going down a dark path wouldn’t she talk to him about that too?!

Let’s say she doesn’t, then Anakin has his vision which he tells her about. If she doesn’t tell him at that point I think her sound moral base is out the window. What would this video maker say her response to Anakin’s dream would be then? Nothing? That would be very irresponsible of her, and her choices would push Anakin even further down a dark path. She has to reassure him that she won’t die in childbirth, and mean it.
This change would make Anakin’s fall not about a self-fulfilling prophesy, or as much about his irrational fear of loss. Now it’s about a legitimate attempt to save his wife and kids.

Padmé dying without Anakin ever knowing of her condition is messy and, frankly, f'd up. Nor do I think it makes her a tragic hero. If anything I’d say it makes her a villain, or at least entirely implicit in Anakin’s fall.

From what I can see, her dying of mysterious psychological/emotional causes, rooted in the bonds of love, is most fitting.

Padmé needs to be the last bastion of love, compassion, diplomacy etc. in a galaxy crumbling into an evil empire. We need the balcony scene, we need the nurturing scenes, we need the crying scenes, we need the pleading scene (no knife scene). This is Padmé’s character and the heart of Star Wars.
Without Padmé being exactly who she is in RotS, we don’t have Luke being who he is in RotJ.

This video maker seems to be completely ignoring the love element of the story and wants to replace it with science and dysfunctional partnership.
-Perhaps this better suits him, but it’s just not Lucas' style or Star Wars. Which is what I think seems to be the fundamental problem at the root of all or most “fix it" pieces.

If people wish things were different due to their personal tastes, that’s one thing. But to say Lucas should’ve done it their way is a fridge too far.

This is a science-fiction fantasy space opera, not a science-fact documentary. In a saga about mystical things such as the Force, why can’t a fulcrum character die of mysterious causes? Personally, I can’t imagine her going out any other way.

In closing, I’d like to comment on his closing:
Padmé’s actions were the focal transition from a story about Anakin’s fall and Palpatine’s rise to Emperor to a story of redeeming Anakin and defeating the Sidious-led galactic empire.
She did die tragically as an unknown hero and as the linchpin of the Rebellion who sacrificed herself so that in time a new hope might rise.
Padmé is the fulcrum between the PT and the OT. She is the bridge between the thematic differences between the empire’s fall and Anakin’s redemption.
She is heartbroken and unsure of Anakin’s fate when she does risk death for the sake of her unborn children, the sake of the galaxy and the possibility of saving Anakin from the dark side.
Acting on love, hope and compassion doesn’t make one passive, pathetic or weak. Nor does dying make a character a failure.
She is the only pillar of the PT who never truly falls, or at least never compromises their character.