Ohh, they weren't human, so it's okayyyy.
Just because someone gave in to evil, doesn't mean they're going to remain there. I don't recall Anakin making the decision to become a Sith lord after his slaughter of the Tuskens. And Anakin felt guilt for what he did. Despite his anger, he actually felt guilt and shame for what he had done. And this had continued for at least three years, which was confirmed in
"Revenge of the Sith".
I don't get the comment about the Tuskens not being human. Are you claiming that Lucas had excused Anakin's actions because the Tuskens weren't human? If not, what did you mean by the comment?
And why is it that when it comes to morality, a lot of people are incapable of realizing how messy and complex it truly is? Why cling to this black-and-white morality? Why insist that it has to be constantly used in fiction? This seems like storytelling for eight year-olds to me.
By the way, what are
"dark" tendencies? Why does anything
"dark" always have to be a metaphor for evil? And why does anything
"light" always have to be a metaphor for good? Come to think of it, why do so many pop culture fans and geeks cling to the use of
"dark" and
"light" when discussing morality? They don't even use
"good" and
"evil" anymore. It's damn disturbing.
The premise of the prequels is sound and still relevant. The execution was not. I feel the same way about the two Matrix sequels. There's good ideas at the core, maybe even good enough to make you think about them afterwards, but surrounded by bad execution.
Well, that's your opinion and the opinions of many other fans. I don't share them. And I'm also aware that many other fans would feel the same as me.
I love both the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy. But I'm also aware that both trilogies have their flaws. I cannot take this question about how can the PT be improved seriously, if no one bothers to extend the same question to the OT.