Which Star Wars trilogy is better? PT or ST?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Theres actually plenty of fans who hate the prequels but love the prequel era. Then theres fans who just loves the prequels.

Thats the advantage of world building. And why we have to appreciate Lucas unrivalled imagination no matter what we think of his directing.

Whilst with the sequels, if you dont like them, then you just dont like them. Theres no potential to do anything else with it.

Yes, Lucas is very good at overall concept, just some details could go bad especially as the director.

Also there are many touching moments in PT, especially EP3.

The only 2 good ST scenes were the end of TFA but it was quickly ruined by the beginning of TLJ, and then it's Luke's death in TLJ, which is the only good part of the movie. Nothing in the last one is touching, it just lack of the magic.

How was Luke's death a good scene?

It was nicely handled, I'm not saying killing Luke so soon was a good idea.

Nicely handled?

Him dying from projecting a glorified illusion was "nicely handled"?

It was terrible.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Nicely handled?

Him dying from projecting a glorified illusion was "nicely handled"?

It was terrible.

Yes it sucks, but the scene itself is touching.

I hate TLJ as much as you do.

Star Wars is but a modicum of the true salient ways. A false notion dictates this fictional franchise from seeking higher plateaus.

Originally posted by Slowpoke
It was nicely handled, I'm not saying killing Luke so soon was a good idea.

That is like giving a restaurant a 3 star review because their shit sandwich was served on a nice plate.

Originally posted by Slowpoke
Yes it sucks, but the scene itself is touching.

I guess.

It was better done than Han's death... but it also felt like a cheap ripoff, considering how it was so similar to Ben's death in ANH.

Originally posted by Slowpoke
I hate TLJ as much as you do.

👆

Prequel trilogy:
+ Exciting fast tempo fight choreography
+ A few top-tier battle scenes (Geonosis, Coruscant space battle)
+ Ewan MacGregor was great as Obi-Wan
+ Ian McDiarmid had the best villain performance of the whole SW series minus JEJ in A New Hope and Empire.
+ The new worlds explored were just as interesting - sometimes moreso - as those in the OT, and some major meat was added to the bones of the planets featured in the OT as well, such as Tatooine and Coruscant and even a snippet on Alderaan.
- The plot, while good from a background to the OT sense, was a bit poorly-paced. Too much time on taxation here, too rushed on Anakin's fall to the dark side there.
- The dialogue was utter rubbish.
- The over-reliance on CGI was a horrible decision in retrospect.
- The romance between Padme and Anakin was garbage. Lucas is great at world-building, not so great at dialogue and character interactions.

Sequel trilogy:
+ Incredible special effects
+ Great to see the original cast
+ Some fantastic scenes (the hyperdrive kamikaze, for instance)
- All the characters weren't too good besides Kylo.
- Horrible plot after TFA.

i'll take the PT thanks.

Originally posted by John Murdoch
Prequel trilogy:
+ Exciting fast tempo fight choreography
+ A few top-tier battle scenes (Geonosis, Coruscant space battle)
+ Ewan MacGregor was great as Obi-Wan
+ Ian McDiarmid had the best villain performance of the whole SW series minus JEJ in A New Hope and Empire.
+ The new worlds explored were just as interesting - sometimes moreso - as those in the OT, and some major meat was added to the bones of the planets featured in the OT as well, such as Tatooine and Coruscant and even a snippet on Alderaan.
- The plot, while good from a background to the OT sense, was a bit poorly-paced. Too much time on taxation here, too rushed on Anakin's fall to the dark side there.
- The dialogue was utter rubbish.
- The over-reliance on CGI was a horrible decision in retrospect.
- The romance between Padme and Anakin was garbage. Lucas is great at world-building, not so great at dialogue and character interactions.

Sequel trilogy:
+ Incredible special effects
+ Great to see the original cast
+ Some fantastic scenes (the hyperdrive kamikaze, for instance)
- All the characters weren't too good besides Kylo.
- Horrible plot after TFA.

i'll take the PT thanks.

Either way, you're a filthy liar and you clearly love the ST more.

Sequel Trilogy. Prequels are dreadful.

And sequels aren't?

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
And sequels aren't?

The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi are two of the best films in the franchise. The Rise of Skywalker was a let down, unfortunately.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
And sequels aren't?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You had a +:- ratio of 5:4 for the PT for a 125% positivity, and; a 3:2 ratio for the ST for a 150% positivity. If you throw Palpatine back in as the glorious + that he was in RoS, then the ratio becomes 4:2 for the ST you get a 200% positivity.

Either way, you're a filthy liar and you clearly love the ST more.

Hahaha good analysis, I've been caught red-handed and admit defeat. McDiarmid is always sublime, yes sir, and is the best closer in movie trilogy history.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
And sequels aren't?

To each their own.

New trilogy is the best trilogy by far. Best acted, best film, best character, and a definitive end for the Skywalker saga. Rots is truly exceptional but the rest of the prequels were boring films. Still enjoy them but comparing those three to these three it is not even close. F

Originally posted by Slowpoke
Because at the time of OT, we knew very little about the history. Still there is a little bit of explanation in the movie(the opening) about what happened before.

But by the time of ST, we already got the PT and OT story before, so you can't say someone came out from nowehere, so powerful and was able to form an army. Where was he before?

Also in OT, Vader is the main villain, Paplatine was mostly a cause of Vader's downfall and a plot device to be killed. But in ST Kylo Ren isn't close to Vader's characterization and level of menace. So it became the problem.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Kylo Ren is a much deeper character than Vader ever hoped to be. When we finally got depth to Anakin in the prequels it was pitiful imo. Kylo RENs inner conflict is known to the audience whereas we get nothing emotive from Vader since his facial expressions are hidden beneath his mask. In that time Vader thrived but today the films villains are not 2d and he is rather lame by comparison. Kylo Ren really stole the show do not let nostalgia blind you. Kylo RENs impact on Star Wars is unrivaled in all the mythos thus far. You can hate it but you cannot deny it.

Well, you are the one in denial my dear shill friend. I would like you to explain why Kylo Ren is a dreper character than Vader ever hoped to be. What is your reasoning for this claim? What makes Kylo deep, let alone infinitely deeper than his good ol' grandpa? What makes Kylo Ren's conflict appealing to the audience? What is the background of his conflict? Why would facial expressions matter when it comes to the depth of the character? What's this anything to do with nostalgia by the way? You are claiming it is fact and is undeniable, yet I see nothing but your personal opinions and fanboy level behaviours. Kylo Ren's Impact on SW is minimal. Rey didn't need him to defeat Sidious, Kylo didn't manage to accomplish anything, except gradually losing support from his followers, getting betrayed and dying as a result. Anakin stoped the Son, killed Darth Sidious. Rey's impact is infinitely above Kylo's. I love Kylo but your bias makes me want to puke.