> The virgin birth and the midichlorians are two separate issues.
> Obviously midichlorians was a real pathetic miscalculation and
> a thorn in the series' side. But don't throw the virgin birth
> out with the midichlorinated water.

That's why I said 'perhaps the moment was too technologically inspired'. I'm merely attempting to explain why it bothers so many people (including me). The idea of a virgin birth per se does not bother me much, but the way Lucas explained it was horrible.

> > Between the 'Wind in the Door' rip-off,
>
> What?

Mitochondria? Farandolae? A bit of an exaggeration, I admit. But other people have already addressed this.

> > the identity of C-3PO's creator,
>
> Not stupid. Wait and see how that comes together in
> episodes 2 and 3 before downing it.

Err... No. It's too silly. Maybe Lucas can pull it out of the fire in the later movies, but that still doesn't make it a good idea in this one.

> > the continued lack of Jar-Jar Binks' death,
>
> Not stupid. Jar Jar was the same sort of comic relief character
> that episodes 4-6 had in the two droids -- different, but
> not altogether out of place. However, culture has changed, and
> expectations people have for movies of this calibre have changed.

No. The droids were much better comic relief, for a few reasons:
1. They were less slapstick. A little slapstick comedy is good. A lot is annoying and repetitive, unless you can pull it off -really, really- well, like some of the old silent film folk. And the Jar-Jar team couldn't. Most of the droids' comic relief came from Abbot and Costello-style dialogue.
2. The droids didn't blow up badguys by accident. That scene (and the similar one with Anakin) almost killed the movie for me. It was just ludicrous. It was insipid and evil and wrong.
3. Jar-Jar was practically incomprehensible. R2-D2 was easier to understand.

> Believe me, it's not worth expending the energy hating Jar Jar.
> You'll be happier about yourself if you accept that this is the
> type of movie where such a character would be featured.

Actually, I do accept that. This just makes me wish it was a different type of movie. Because the type of movie that features this sort of character is not a Star Wars movie (to me, at least, and apparently to others as well if the number of anti-Jar-Jar websites speaks true).

> > and the incredibly, incredibly racist bad guys who talked like
> stereotypical Chinese extras
>
> Complete and utter nonsense. You can't do anything these days
> without someone finding someway to make it racist. This is
> ridiculous. Just because this particular alien race may have a
> stronger superficial resemblance to some particular human
> race than another doesn't make it racist.
> Racism is the advocation of discrimination against a particular
> group of people in favor of another. Nowhere do you see that
> statement made in the movie, and the continued persistent allegations
> that there are do far more to aggravate race relations than anything
> alleged to exist.

Jeez. Looks like I struck a nerve there.

First: I don't agree with your definition of racism. Racism doesn't require advocacy, merely the certain belief that your race is superior to other races (or that certain other races are inferior to yours) and the visible expression of that belief.

Second: The resemblance is more than superficial. There's a physical resemblence (although certain characteristics are, naturally, highly exaggerated), there's a one-to-one correlation in speech patterns, and the image of the aliens presented fits in with the stereotypical view of the Chinese as emotionally dead money-grubbers. I went into the movie thinking that all the flak Lucas was taking from this issue was ridiculous, but after actually -seeing- and -hearing- those aliens, I was convinced.

Third: The aliens are represented as being evil and cowardly. What Lucas was saying (or so it appeared to me and virtually everyone I've talked to about the matter) was "here's what I think of those Chinese *******s." What bothered me most is that some of the people I talked to about it weren't troubled by that message.

Fourth: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now, obviously, Lucas' movies are a form of free speech, and thus he has the right to say whatever he likes. But I consider it socially irresponsible to avoid pointing out blatant things like this, especially in a kids' movie. I doubt he went into this project with the intention of making weird racist statements, but some part of his mind obviously wanted to.

I agree that there are too many accusations of racism flying around based on relatively innocent material... but we shouldn't let that cloud our view when something genuinely offensive appears.