The Star Wars prequels are bad

(JimShady sees Phenenas disrespecting Prequels and draws red lightsaber) "It's treason then... AAAAUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHKAS:LCK{_D(A!!!!!!!!!!" So, I've read your arguments, I must say they look pretty decent. But before I address them, first I want to present my arguments, and then I'll offer rebuttals to yours in the next round (although I might touch on them a little in this round)... Also, I'm going to be largely comparing the Original Trilogy with the Prequels, I may mention the Sequel Triology from time to time, but since it isn't yet complete, I'm just ignoring it for this debate. 1. Better Locations 2. Tons of Action... They Put the "Wars" in "Star Wars" 3. Great Characters 4. Nice Story 1) Better Locations I want to first start off by saying that the Original Trilogy (OT) is fantastic, and i can definitely understand why many people like it better than the Prequel Trilogy (PT). However, the OT isn't perfect, and one way I think the PT outshines it is in the world selections... So, what does the OT have? A desert world, a mechanical world (Death Star), a snow world, a swamp world, a Cloud world, and a forest world. That's actually a pretty good array of worlds, but you'd think that an entire galaxy would have more to offer than just these. In fact, all of these but Cloud City could be found on Earth (Death Star would be like a factory.) I'm not bashing these, I think Endor, Tatooine, and Hoth are great, but Star Wars could be better than that, couldn't it? Luckily the PT gives us more. We get Gungan City, an underwater world. We get Coruscant, a planet-sized city (yes Earth has cities, but not at that scale). We get Kamino, a world of endless rain. We get Geinosis, a world of termite-like mounds. We get Utapau, a world of gigantic holes in the ground. We get Felucia, a world of gigantic plants. And we get Mustafar, a hell-like planet of lava. Worlds like these are what we expect to see in a gigantic universe, not just basic Earth-like worlds, and luckily the PT was able to bring them to frutition. 2.) Tons of Action... The series is called Star WARS, not Star Peace, and luckily, the PT delivered on this. Now, I'm not saying the OT didn't have action; it had plenty, and I'm very grateful for that. But the PT definitely stepped it up. In the OT, the Galactic Civil War between the Rebellion and the Empire doesn't seem as big as it should. For example, the Rebellion's destruction of the Death Star in Episode IV was a very shjtty invasion. They only sent in like 25 X-Wings and a few Y-Wings, you'd think they would have a larger invasion force for something as big as the Death Star. The Episode V Battle for Hoth was pretty epic, but seriously, you mean to tell me the entire Rebel army can hide in that one base? You also mean to tell me the Empire only sends 5 AT-Ats to kill them? They are a galactic Empire, they should have millions. Episode VI was a lot better, the Battle of Endor was on a much larger scale, but still it seemed a little smaller than it should. In comparison, the Clone Wars of the PT make the Galactic Civil War seem like a skirmish. Episode I is mainly just Gungans and the Naboo vs the Trade Federation, but even then the space battles were still big and the land battle was pretty epic. Episode II gave us the gigantic Battle of Geinosis, I don't know how big it was, but both sides had many tanks and stareships and troops that far outweighed OT numbers. And Episode III featured the collosal space Battle of Coursant, the huge Invasion of Utapah, and the Battle of Kashyk. It also showed scenes of various other world in which Clones and Battle Droids were fighting. The Clone Wars were truly a galactic-wide conflict, the sheer scale was awesome. Also worth mentioning is how great the lightsaber battles are. I'm not going to get into all of them, I'm sure many readers and my opponent have seen them, so y'all should no how great they are (except maybe Episode II's and a couple from Episode III). They are much faster and much more skilled than the OT's. Now I'm not saying that the Ot's and the Last Jedi's are bad... V, VI and VII have really really good ones- I'm just saying that the Prequels lightsaber fights (and I think we can all agree that lightsaber fights are an important part of Star Wars movies) are just as great as the other movies. 3) Great Characters Some of you might be reading this and be like "what? Impossible," but yes, the PT has some good characters. It also has mediocre ones and bad ones. To start with, Obi-Wan is probably the strongest character of the PT. He is very much like his self in Episode IV, a good father figure, heroic, and offers witty comments just like he did in IV. Sheev Palpatine is also a very well-written character, he seem like a friendly old guy, and yet he has a very evil alter-ego. He does a great job making both roles convincing. Anakin is also a pretty well-written character. We can see Darth Vader from his innocent childhood and into his progression as a powerful Jedi, but also a troubled Jedi, and finally into an evil Sith. General Grievous is utterly bad@ss and awesome looking with a unique demeanor of cowardly yet still ferocious. The rest of the characters are either meh or fvcking suck, but we do get some pretty good ones. I will say that the PT isn't as strong in characters as the OT, but that doesn't mean it's absolute trash. The OT sets a very high standard, and it's understandable if movies don't reach it. (And by the way, Kylo Ren and Finn are pretty sweet, but Rey, Poe, and Rose are all detestable abominations. 4) Nice Story Notice I didn't say "Perfect Story," I said "Nice Story." I'll admit, the Prequels definitely could've been written better. But just because they aren't perfect, doesn't mean they are bad. Episode I succeeded in giving us an intro to the main characters: Anakin, Obi-Wan, Padme, and Sheev. It introduced the turmoil that was about to overtake the galaxy and thrusted these chartacters into the story. Episode II also furthered the menace that was introduced in the Phantom Menace and also succeeded in its main goal of showing that yes, Anakin is a valiant and good Jedi, but he's also going down a dark path and will soon become a master. Episode III ties the entire saga together in showcasing the fall of Anakin and the rise of Darth Vader, the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire. It's a great Final Act and tragic ending that already existing Episode IV can tie nicely into. (Compare this to Episode VII- wtf? It basically made the Galactic Civil War entirely useless by bringing in an Empire remake, the First Order. It makes the the struggle of all the previous 6 movies uselss, and the roughly 30 years in between them and what happened with the First Order and the Jedi is explained terribly.) Now, once again, George Lucas could've done better, but I feel that he still did well. Prequel films offer more of a challenge and more areas to fail in, and so that gives them a little leeway. Conclusion My opponent has stated that my job is to "simply [show] that the positives outweigh the negatives" of the Prequels. I feel like I've done that here. Am I saying that the Prequels are better than the Original Trilogy? No. Am I saying that the Prequels are perfect? No. Am I saying that they are still worth watching and are worthy predecessors of the Original Trilogy? Yes. Anyone who enjoys the first 3 films should enjoy the next 3. Same with the Sequel Trilogy... VII and VIII aren't considered by fans to be nearly as good as the originals (in fact, many hate them), but I still enjoyed them a lot. In all the Prequels are more of a success that a failure.