I still think the movie needed/needs a strong infusion of Clone Wars right there in Episode 1. And I don't just mean introducing a droid army that the clones are later used to fight. Lucas previously sited Japanese Samurai films (Kurasawa) as an example of: Using an historical context for the backdrop of an adventure story without pandering to the audience (whether they are familiar with the history or not) the reasons behind that history. He claimed that convinced him to not feel too strong of a need to go explicitly into the Empire/Rebel conflict and all of the reasons behind it; just let it stand that it was. He thinks, and I agree, that that take on the setting set it apart from the other sci-fi and fantasy of the time. I expected the same angle on the Clone Wars and was a little surprised (and disappointed) he didn't follow his own advice when setting up the backdrop for the PT.

Which brings me to my next random thought: I always like listening to ol' George prattle about story theory, but then I'm always surprised (and disappointed, natch) how much I think he doesn't follow it. Or at least we disagree with the application of said theory. On the contrary, I love practically all of Jim Cameron's work, and consider him to be one of the truly inspired director's of our day, but when I listen to him in interviews and on commentaries and the like, he seems to be so wrong about story theory. Maybe I'm wrong and that's why I agree with the wrong guy. And why I can't finish anything I write...

I think we can all agree that that is more like the Obi-Wan we expected from the PT (and partially, at least, got in RotS). I wonder what lead George to change it to the movie version. I guess it buys you this:

1) A pre-Anakin example of a Jedi Master/Apprentice relationship

2) More Jedi througout the film (this is their heyday, is it not?)

3) More concern for Qui-Gonn's death at the end

That's about all I can think of. Definately tempting, I would think. But ultimately you're selling more than you're buying.
xhonzi