Does anyone else love the "Star Wars" prequels?

The original trilogy is better, but "Revenge of the Sith" is my favorite "Star Wars" movie that was released since "The Empire Strikes Back", though "Attack of the Clones" is the one that I don't find great: I *like* it, but the scenes with the most development for Anakin and Padme were cut out of the theatrical version. Why?

Among the reasons people hate them is Jar-Jar, who I too find lackluster despite not hating him (especially when we could've had a prequel version of Chewbacca), but plenty of people found 3PO & the Ewoks annoying - and 3PO was in ALL the movies, versus Jar-Jar who was only in ONE.

People also bash the CGI, but isn't it logical that the trilogy that began in 1999 has more special effects than the one that ranged from the late 70s to early 80s? "The Lord of the Rings" and the first two "Jurassic Park" sequels were also released within the late 90s to mid 00s period, but why don't "The Hobbit" and "Jurassic World" get as much criticism for their CGI substitute for the animatronics of their predecesors? That's my main criticism for both, and I actually prefer "The Hobbit" to the "Star Wars" prequels and "Jurassic World" to Episodes I and II.

Then there's the acting that's commonly scorned, but the acting in the originals isn't Oscar-worthy itself; in fact, I think that the acting of Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher in the first one is the most wooden in the saga: Luke's reaction isn't strong to his aunt and uncle being killed, and neither is Leia's to her home planet being destroyed.

As for story, with people saying that the prequels were written blandly, I think "Return of the Jedi" has the thinnest writing second to Episode II, honestly. Rescue Han? Done. Defeat the Empire? Victory. Turn your father good again because you can't just kill him? Trilogy goals complete. Not saying that it wasn't well-written, and I rank it above Episode I, but that's how I see it.

There's no more room, but I updated this post for one more point of mine.

  • I love them.
    Vote A
  • I like them.
    Vote B
  • I don't care for them.
    Vote C
  • I hate them.
    Vote D
Select a gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy
Anakin's criticized for being "whiny", but I don't think he is: he wants recognition and advancement in the Jedi Council, but I say that plays into his desire for power, which is part of why he becomes Darth Vader. People also don't find it believable that the character who becomes Vader is a guy who loves him mom and is in love, but why should he have been devoid of the humanity that Luke would later have to resurrect within him? Making him a cold character would've contradicted Episode VI.


Most Helpful Girl

  • My stance is this: they are Star Wars. I love Star Wars thus I love them.
    The only thing I would complain about is Padme in Episode 3. She doesn't have many lines and they are all weak and idiot sandal in distress-like. "I don't know you anymore" "You're breaking my heart" WTF is that? Padme was a freaking badass up until then. Queen of the Naboo not afraid to fight in combat, pretending to be her maid so thst she was in on the action, outspoken member of the galactic senate who survived several assassination attempts and has one of the best lines of the entire series. It is like the writers forgot who she was and gave her the most generic female lines they could. Natalie Portman couldn't do anything with them they were so terrible.

    • You can *kind* of sympathise with someone whose baby daddy and lover is turning into the third greatest American film villain on the AFI's list, can't you? Lol. For "Episode III", I thought the Wookies could've had more screen time.

    • Show All
    • Pretty sure Chewbacca is there when Yoda uses the force to defeat the clones that were activated to kill him.

      I'm actually perfectly ok with her dying of a broken heart. And honestly it is Anakin's love for her, and the fear of losing her that turns him into Vader essentially killing Anakin. She had to die because if she didn't then the emperor couldn't (lie) and tell Vader that he killed her. Her loss is what keeps him dead as Vader, Padme could have pulled him out of it, she almost did. And essentially it is the love for their son that does bring Anakin Skywalker back.

    • I forgot. my conclusion: they both die of a broken heart for the other. Anakin just isn't a literal death.

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 2

  • Wow the critics here. I enjoy the movies and really get into them. I don't criticize them like that. They're amazing movies that shouldn't be questioned, especially the original trilogy considering when they were filmed. There is very little I dislike about the six movies.


    The prequels were boring.
    There is no discernable plot.
    The characters are underdeveloped.


What Guys Said 3

  • They need to bring back Darth Vader properly. He's the only thing I liked about Star Wars.

  • No. They're cheesy shite.

  • "Revenge of the Sith" was the worst one of the prequels to me. I hated it. All it was was Anakin and Padme romancing. It was cute, but come on. I didn't want to see all that. At the same time it made it even more sad at the end. I still didn't like it though. I did think it was funny when Anakin became Darth Vader and was Darth Vader for a while before he got burned yet (I saw the 3rd one in the theaters) when he did get burned and they put his black gear on the little kids said "Darth Vader". I just laughed to myself. He was Darth Vader before the gear kids. Just look at the man's eyes.

    The evil was already in him. Attack of the Clones was okay. I love Mace Windu. He was badass.

    Who gets that reference?

    Anyway, I also liked some of the other minor characters in it. I loved the story and the directing was spot on. Count Dooku was very good as well. He was menacing but in a very neat way. Then again we are talking about Christopher Lee. R. I. P man. R. I. P. Hell of a actor.

    But no the best was the first to me. Why? Well because of this guy,

    He was the "coolest" Sith lord I had ever seen at the time. He really rivaled Darth Vader in sheer style, but I think what I like about him the most is within the title of the movie. While the title referred to the Sith as being Phantom. I still feel like it could apply to Maul as well. Hiding in the shadows. Seeing the process of the Sith going from underground to the public and having Maul as a leader with his demeanor and style to lead it made that movie for me. Not only that but the relationship between Obi Wan Kenobi and his master was really amazing to watch. All of a sudden Obi was alone. He then had to avenge his master.

    • People who think the prequels are boring probably don't really like Star Wars that much to begin with. They just wanna see Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, and of course Darth Vader. Probably the only three characters they know.

    • Show All
    • I adore the original trilogy. But the prequels are badly directed and the dialogue is awful. The characters are underdeveloped which makes it hard to care about the them. Also Hayden Christensen's acting in these films is terrible.

    • Well first of all let's just address the elephant in the room. No duh the original trilogy is the best. Of course. Nobody is debating that. We all know there's will be the best Star Wars movies ever. No matter what they do in the future. Now with that said the first two prequels were not badly directed in my opinion. The dialogue for sure was awful in the third one. Underdeveloped? Not all. I feel Count Dooku's character was very developed. Anakin's decent into darkness. Obi Wan's character was developed. Sure Hayden's acting is bad, but what about Christopher Lee? What about Samuel L. Jackson? What about Liam Neeson? You can't tell me their acting is bad.