The Star Wars prequels are bad

(Phenenas draws a blue lightsaber) “It’s over, JimShady! I have the high ground!” Thanks for your response, you’ve made a strong argument. But now I must give my rebuttal, point by point. 1. “Better Locations” The OT isn’t perfect, of course. And conversely, the prequels, as much as I hate them, have their good points. Probably the best part about them is the worlds and creatures, which, even though they look fake, are often beautiful. But are they really that much more creative than the originals? The PT shows about as many worlds as the OT. And yet, a lot of it feels derivative. We get a desert world in the originals, and another desert world called Geonosis in the prequels. And instead of having a whole bestiary of diverse life-forms, it’s just...bugs. In the originals, we get Endor, a forest-covered world inhabited by furry bear-like creatures. And in the prequels, we visit Kashyyk. Guess what? It’s a forest-covered world inhabited by furry bear-like creatures. Inspired. There are some creative ideas in the prequels, though. The key word being ideas. They aren’t explored like in the older trilogy. You mention the world of Felucia, and we get to see that planet for...10 seconds, maybe? I love the ocean planet of Kamino, but we don’t really get to soak in its atmosphere because we immediately move back to the plot which involves boring discussions about clones. Think about the bar scene on Tatooine in A New Hope. That made the world feel real. And that’s why the original trilogy was such a miracle. Rather than trying to dazzle us with now-dated CGI, they focused on what was up close and personal, as a normal inhabitant of the world might see it. What do we know about the daily life of a native of Mustafar or Naboo? Absolutely nothing. But the original trilogy was patient enough to show us the moisture farms alongside the star destroyers. And for that, I say that they have better locations. 2. “Tons of Action” I won’t deny that the prequels have many action scenes. Some of it was even real. Yet I still prefer the originals here for reasons that can be summed up in two words: emotional investment. You call the climax of A New Hope “a very shjtty invasion” and criticize the logic of that and the Hoth battle in Empire Strikes Back. I'd counter that for every plot hole in the originals, the prequels have ten. But making sure the plot makes perfect realistic sense isn’t what I care about in a movie, so I won't go over them. All fictional stories have plot holes if you dig deep enough, and if it’s a good story, I can forgive them. Besides, those scenes you mentioned from the originals? All suspenseful, thrilling, and well-paced. The big battle on Geonosis from Episode II not only had about as much CG as a Pixar movie, but had no pacing at all. There’s no sense of danger in the prequels, because most of the enemies are battle droids, which are absolutely useless. As George Lucas himself admitted, the Jedi “cut through them like butter”. The old-school stormtroopers, on the other hand, were clearly threatening even if they were bad at aiming. Sure, the prequels had bigger battles, you’re right about that. But let me ask you this - how does that make them better movies? Even if the limitations of the time prevented us from seeing the full scale of the Galactic Civil War, we’re much more emotionally invested. The Rebels are the underdogs, a small band of brothers and sisters fighting for freedom. The Empire is practically the Third Reich on an interplanetary scale. So naturally, we root for the Rebels. But in the Clone Wars, it’s mindless clones versus mindless robots. I get what Lucas was trying to do, making it more gray-and-grey instead of black-and-white. But if both sides are inhuman pawns, who the hell cares which one is the winner? As for the prequels’ lightsaber fights, we have the same problem. A lack of emotional investment. Every time Luke fights Darth Vader in the originals, you see the rage in his face, how he just loses control and whales away on him. Compare that to the fight between Obi-Wan and Darth Maul. It’s better choreographed...too well choreographed. His master just died, he should be losing control in the same way, but they’re clearly just doing a graceful, well-rehearsed performance. The same goes for the final fight with Anakin in Episode III. It’s like a dance, not a heartbreaking duel between two former friends. Maybe our priorities are different, but I put emotional investment above flashy visuals, and I think most people would agree with me. 3. “Great Characters” Thank you for admitting that most of the characters suck, but you are kind of undermining yourself there. You only compliment four of them out of a pretty large cast. And still, I have to disagree. While Ewan McGregor is a good actor and I really believe that he’s a young Obi-Wan, he’s not really well-written. Especially in Phantom. I disagree about Anakin for reasons which I’ve mostly already mentioned. His progression to the Dark Side doesn’t feel natural. General Grievous didn’t leave much of an impression on me. The only one I’ll give full credit to you on is Palpatine, and then, only in Episode III. He’s a great character. But he doesn’t make up for the rest of them. 4. “Nice Story” I stand by Episodes I and II being almost entirely pointless in the grand scheme of things. Episode I introduces the main characters, but keeps them as side characters while for some reason keeping the focus mostly on Qui-Gon. What’s the point not only on focusing on a character who’s going to die, but whose death doesn’t mean anything in the grand scheme of things and is scarcely mentioned again? Why show this minor conflict with the Trade Federation and an army of cartoon rabbits? Episode II introduces but barely shows the Clone Wars, which I still say is a bland conflict with no emotional weight. We had a pretty good scene where Anakin gets revenge for his mom by killing Tusken Raiders, “and not just the men, but the women and the children too”. But it’s glazed over so quickly, shifting focus instead back to the awful romance with Padme. Why couldn't we have gotten literally anybody but George Lucas to write this romantic dialogue? Why couldn’t we have started Anakin off as a teen rather than an annoying kid in Episode I, seeing the start of his descent from the get-go? Why couldn’t the Jedi have been more involved? Why weren’t the villains, like Dooku and Grievous and Maul, explored in greater depth? The prequels aren’t the worst movies ever made, but when you compare them to what they could have been and what people were expecting, it’s a real tragedy. I agree that Episode VII’s story makes no sense, but again, I don’t mind that so long as it’s a good movie, which it is. But this time around, I actually cared about what was going on. The prequels are not good, and not worthy predecessors. And even if the originals were out of the picture and expectations weren’t so high, the prequels are a failure of a trilogy.