Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

All the films are now in. So as they say in Zombieland, time to nut up or shut up.

Considering the many years of bickering debate the Prequel Trilogy caused, I would have thought this was a slam dunk a few years ago. But ever since The Last Jedi, another wave of fan hate has been rising. And now that The Rise Of Skywalker is out and been dissected to bits...

Which is better - The Prequel Trilogy, or the Sequel Trilogy?

ST by a mile. PT deserved every bit of criticism, but they were at least watchable.

Revenge of the Sith would have ended perfectly, but Anakin/Vader let out a whiny "Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!" at the end.

What an absolute waste of JEJ's vocal talent.

Originally posted by Impediment
Revenge of the Sith would have ended perfectly, but Anakin/Vader let out a whiny "Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!" at the end.

What an absolute waste of JEJ's vocal talent.

Revenge Of the Sith might be the best of the six films here, but I still vote for the Sequel Trilogy.

Hated TLJ solely for killing off Luke in the dumbest way possible.

I loved TFA, hated TLJ and TRoS.

I love all three of the prequel trilogy so there's my vote.

The ST is just a pointless revamp of the OT. And one that made absolutely no sense from the get go.

So the PT for me... by miles and miles. Not even close tbh.

Originally posted by Impediment
Revenge of the Sith would have ended perfectly, but Anakin/Vader let out a whiny "Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!" at the end.

What an absolute waste of JEJ's vocal talent.

Well if that alone is the issue for you, you might want to ask that hooker to remove his cock out of your ass. ROTS was the 4th best movie next to the OT

My vote is for the PT X 10

Prequels are better.

Prequels are worse movies. But their re-watch value is 100x more powerful.

Prequels of course. The Sequels were shit! And they had big holes in their storyline with comparison to the original sequel.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Prequels are worse movies. But their re-watch value is 100x more powerful.

Well, ROTS is better than the three prequels combined.

In a vacuum, the ST.

I'd rather watch the PT over and over, though.

ROTS is one of the prequels.

How can it be superior to itself, lol

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Well, ROTS is better than the three prequels combined.

Think about that again. Put the pizza and milkshake down

PT. This isn't even a contest tbh.

PT, Not just better films overall.. it also has a cohesive story over all 3 of them.

Sequels are better films, prequel trilogy is more fun. I'll take a fun bad movie over a soulless technically competent one.

Originally posted by Stringer
Think about that again. Put the pizza and milkshake down

IMO, I really liked the latest trilogy.

Prequels hands down.

Obi Wan, Qui Gon, Yoda, Sidious, Maul, Dooku, Windu, Anakin... all more memorable characters than the younger cast of the ST

Better fight scenes

Better story; the ST story went nowhere due to lack of vision whereas the PT; while lacking in emotion and a terrible love story have the benefit of seeing Palpatine rise to power done very well throughout the films

also, ST loses out big Tim for me due to the unforgivable way they handled Han, Leia and especially Luke... not giving us at least one scene with the three of them together or one scene of Luke brandishing his green lightsaber and taking out some goons in epic Jedi Master style is pure shit

Would've liked to have seen all the gang together in a ST episode, Failed at that too.

The prequel trilogy for me.

I grew up w. them, and though I was never a huge fan, they were a huge part of my childhood, they had one of my favorite fictional characters ever in Han Solo (and Chewie, and Lando...), and when Kevin Smith hit the scene, his love of the trilogy made a connection w. me and made me appreciate those movies more.

Wrong Prequel trilogy, Han Solo & Lando wasn't in those ones.

Oh, well screw those other movies, then...!

Originally posted by cdtm
ST by a mile. PT deserved every bit of criticism, but they were at least watchable.


Whoops, I meant Sequel Trilogy is WORSE by a mile. Not better.

Originally posted by riv6672
The prequel trilogy for me.

It's called the Original Trilogy (OT), riv.

And there's a good reason it's not mentioned in this thread --- because it's far superior to either of those trilogies.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
It's called the Original Trilogy (OT), riv.

And there's a good reason it's not mentioned in this thread --- because it's far superior to either of those trilogies.

It's kind of accepted that the OT is untouchable, it's mythic and beyond debate in a way. So that's why I didn't include it here.

I was just interested after all the years of Lucas bashing, George Lucas raped my childhood blah blah, Lucas is the problem he should leave it to others - now we've seen a whole trilogy done without him.

Have to say I'm amazed at the poll results so far. The Prequels have entered happy nostalgia territory!

Jar Jar Binks for the next New Republic leader!

Sequels are complete garbage...

Sequel because Daisy Ridley is in it... Nah, much as I love Daisy, episodes 4 and 5 make the original best. Sequel is still better than prequel.

Neither.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Sequels are better films

Kill yourself

George Lucas did some serious technical groundbreaking for the PT, and all films since have benefited from the innovations, from the digital 24fps camera that shoots something that looks like film, digital sets and characters etc. But no one has imitated the look of the PT since, where film by film he was increasingly shooting actors on a greenstage and just painting the movie around them later. The ST, Marvel films, and others have had a better balance of live action shooting and CGI. AOTC and ROTS are increasing looking like animated movies as the years go by.

Binks was awesome compared to Finn or Rose, lol.

Originally posted by roughrider
But no one has imitated the look of the PT since,


Yes they have. Trek 09, Infinity War and Aquaman all stole shots from TPM.

Peter Jackson himself has stated LOTR would not have been possible without TPM.

That movie inspired film making for generations whether people want to admit it or not.

On the other hand as far as I can tell The only only thing TFA has influenced in movies is films like Dark Fate. Making it cool to do a remake of the original and a sequel in one.

Although Superman Returns did that first tbh.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yes they have. Trek 09, Infinity War and Aquaman all stole shots from TPM.

Peter Jackson himself has stated LOTR would not have been possible without TPM.

That movie inspired film making for generations whether people want to admit it or not.

On the other hand as far as I can tell The only only thing TFA has influenced in movies is films like Dark Fate. Making it cool to do a remake of the original and a sequel in one.

Although Superman Returns did that first tbh.

You made me realise that I'd rather watch Superman Returns than two thirds of the sequel trilogy. You monster.

PT easily.

Originally posted by cdtm
I actually liked Jar Jar.


The idiot dad from that Dinosaurs show, now HE was annoying
That whole damn SHOW was annoying...

The only thing they did right was die.

Originally posted by roughrider


Have to say I'm amazed at the poll results so far. The Prequels have entered happy nostalgia territory!



It has nothing to do with nostalgia, As much as you would like to believe that.

Well the PT and the ST both suck but the prequels are the standard against which all badness is measured. So the ST are a little better.

That said however calling something slightly better than the Star Wars Prequels is the correct answer to the question, "What is the faintest level of praise that can be attributed to a film."

PT had amazing overall concept, just bad directing and storytelling, plus some bad idea. It also expanded Palpatine so well.

ST didn't have much problem about how to tell the story, but the story itself has 0 value and most of the characters suck so much.

The only ST film I watched was TFA, which I hated, and that was supposedly the best one. PT for me by a mile

ROTS is the only film with any rewatch value from the PT

Originally posted by Kazenji
It has nothing to do with nostalgia, It really does my man.

Originally posted by carthage
ROTS is the only film with any rewatch value from the PT Kind of true, at least in a full sitting.

I don't think any of the ST have any real rewatch value though tbh.

Originally posted by NemeBro
It really does my man.

For you it might be.

The prequels began over 20 years ago now. Most people who froth at the mouth over Star Wars these days grew up with the PT. Fond childhood memories of watch teh awesomez lightsaber fights so kewl. It's nostalgia, and it's normal.

Originally posted by -Pr-
You made me realise that I'd rather watch Superman Returns than two thirds of the sequel trilogy. You monster.





Honestly if Abrams did Superman I would imagine Superman Returns is almost exactly how he would have done it.

Originally posted by Khazra Reborn
The only ST film I watched was TFA, which I hated, and that was supposedly the best one. PT for me by a mile

Whatever you do, make sure you never see TLJ.

The PT was better, but the ST had such wasted potential. It's sad to see how many cool story opportunities got missed.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Whatever you do, make sure you never see TLJ.

The Last Jedi is one of the most curious cases of a successful blockbuster ever. Taking in 1.3 billion worldwide, highly acclaimed by critics, but two years ago it seemed to get more flak than all the prequels combined, at least from a segment of hard core fandom. That some fans were actually demanding it get wiped from continuity - that's up there with The Phantom Edit 20 years ago.


I joined this forum in the early 2000's, when defenders of the Prequels were hard to find here. To see this shift in attitude...if you are championing the Prequels now, I hope you always were. Or has enough time changed people's minds? Or have the Lucas bashers from the mid 2000's moved on and aren't here anymore?

Originally posted by roughrider
The Last Jedi is one of the most curious cases of a successful blockbuster ever. Taking in 1.3 billion worldwide, highly acclaimed by critics, but two years ago it seemed to get more flak than all the prequels combined, at least from a segment of hard core fandom. That some fans were actually demanding it get wiped from continuity - that's up there with The Phantom Edit 20 years ago.


I joined this forum in the early 2000's, when defenders of the Prequels were hard to find here. To see this shift in attitude...if you are championing the Prequels now, I hope you always were. Or has enough time changed people's minds? Or have the Lucas bashers from the mid 2000's moved on and aren't here anymore?

Because it did very hard to break the tropes instead of trying to make a good story and setup for the next one.

Part of Rise of the Skywalker's problem has to do with it.

Killing off Snoke without proper explanation of his background.

Kill off most of the rebels.

Didn't really build up competent villains to use after killing Snoke.

Luke, yeah.

Originally posted by Slowpoke


Killing off Snoke without proper explanation of his background.



Palpatine got 'killed off' after his first physical appearance in ROTJ and no one complained that he wasn't built up or explained enough. Snoke got practically the same amount of buildup that Palpatine got at the time.

https://tinyurl.com/r8mq3pv

https://tinyurl.com/t8cqwr8

Originally posted by roughrider
Palpatine got 'killed off' after his first physical appearance in ROTJ and no one complained that he wasn't built up or explained enough. Snoke got practically the same amount of buildup that Palpatine got at the time.

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 roughrider
Palpatine got 'killed off' after his first physical appearance in ROTJ and no one complained that he wasn't built up or explained enough. Snoke got practically the same amount of buildup that Palpatine got at the time.


Yes and this is the exact problem with the ST. Its unapologetic imitation of the OT, justifying every idiotic decision by referring back to the OT, yet completely forgetting that this was supposed to be a SEQUEL to the OT. Hence repeating it made no sense at all.

Like I said, its the Superman Returns of Star Wars.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yes and this is the exact problem with the ST. Its unapologetic imitation of the OT, justifying every idiotic decision by referring back to the OT, yet completely forgetting that this was supposed to be a SEQUEL to the OT. Hence repeating it made no sense at all.

Like I said, its the Superman Returns of Star Wars.

It's quite different actually.

In OT Palpatine's character wasn't the focus, but he got killed at the right time, in the end as Vader's redemption and the Empire's fall. RotJ is the weakest of the OT but Luke/Vader part was done right.

In ST Snoke was killed in the middle of the trilogy before everything could be explained about him and FO, and both Kylo Ren and Hux could not fill the Antagonist role well. So it brought big trouble to the 3rd movie's story. Rian Johnson did it mainly to make a "avert the trope" surprise instead of thinking about the trilogy.

TFA was like SR to SW, yes. But the latter 2 movies didn't even grasp OT's formula well.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DchJgiCWsAYVDDr.jpg

^ simply awful character, should've died in the first film

^@ slowpoke So wait.. Thats the difference between the OT and ST? That the killing of the villains master happened in the 2nd chapter instead of the 3rd?

And even then, they brought Palpatine back in the 3rd chapter to be keep that role there lol

The whole trilogy was a complete repeat of the OT. Started in the same place as the OT (miraculously given it was supposed to be a sequel to ROTJ), and ended the same as the OT.

Kylos arc was the same as Vaders and Reys was the same as Lukes. The Resistance was the Rebellion and the FO was the Empire. They even look exactly the same ffs.

They havent moved the plot forward one bit. Not one bit.

It sucks that this is the official canon now.

We still don't even know how Palps came back, lol.

Was his throneroom made out of vibranium or something? It tanked that explosion pretty well.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
^@ slowpoke So wait.. Thats the difference between the OT and ST? That the killing of the villains master happened in the 2nd chapter instead of the 3rd?

And even then, they brought Palpatine back in the 3rd chapter to be keep that role there lol

The whole trilogy was a complete repeat of the OT. Started in the same place as the OT (miraculously given it was supposed to be a sequel to ROTJ), and ended the same as the OT.

Kylos arc was the same as Vaders and Reys was the same as Lukes. The Resistance was the Rebellion and the FO was the Empire. They even look exactly the same ffs.

They havent moved the plot forward one bit. Not one bit.

Of course, the antagonist needs to be chopped at the right moment for the right purpose.

I didn't deny that it copied a lot from OT, but it didn't even grasp well. A lot of shit including Rian Johnson's "avert the tropes" and too much political right garbage really hurts the franchise.

Prequels are a lot more fun to watch.

Still can't believe some of the shit they did in TROS.

PT...Better story...better characters...better fight scenes...better score

Originally posted by WolvesofBabylon
PT...better characters lawl

Also, ST didn't really try to expand Palpatine's character further more at all when there obviously is potential, PT did amazing on him.

I don't get the Rey/Kylo Ren connection at all, they have no blood relationship, nearly zero in common other than using a lightsaber, Kylo Ren's main conflict has to do with his parents and Luke, Rey has to do with Palpatine. So it's a complete miss.

Vader and Luke has a strong relationship, even Palpatine and Anakin has a good relationship building for evil purpose.

I tell you this, every scene Palpatine had in TROS he owned the screen. He's much more compelling than Snoke was. If he seemed like just a copy of Palpatine in the previous two films, now we know that's what he literally was.

Well, of course, that's why they brought him back without bothering to explain his return much.

Originally posted by roughrider
I tell you this, every scene Palpatine had in TROS he owned the screen. He's much more compelling than Snoke was. If he seemed like just a copy of Palpatine in the previous two films, now we know that's what he literally was.

True but there is still a lot of wasted potential.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
lawl

lawl because that just shows how bad the ST characters are or lawl because you actually think the characters in the ST are better?

I think the problem with the PT characters vs the ST characters is that the PT, on top of having more of them, also had the opportunity to flesh a lot more of them out in ways the ST never did.

I'm not saying that giving Finn and Rey an animated series would have definitely made them better characters, but by the same token, would I still care about, say, Shaak Ti, if she hadn't been in the CW shows? Likely not.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The OT began over 40 years ago now. Most people who froth at the mouth over Star Wars these days grew up with the OT. Fond childhood memories of watch teh awesomez lightsaber fights so kewl. It's nostalgia, and it's normal.

Rearranging your reply and it still makes sense.

Im a huge fan of the OT but it isn't without faults. Just like the PT.
The ST is just trash all around.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I think the problem with the PT characters vs the ST characters is that the PT, on top of having more of them, also had the opportunity to flesh a lot more of them out in ways the ST never did.

I'm not saying that giving Finn and Rey an animated series would have definitely made them better characters, but by the same token, would I still care about, say, Shaak Ti, if she hadn't been in the CW shows? Likely not.

Shaak Ti wasn't exactly a main focus character, so I'm not sure of that comparison if we're going by strictly movies to movies here.

The ST certainly had the means to flesh out their characters far more than they did.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I think the problem with the PT characters vs the ST characters is that the PT, on top of having more of them, also had the opportunity to flesh a lot more of them out in ways the ST never did.

I'm not saying that giving Finn and Rey an animated series would have definitely made them better characters, but by the same token, would I still care about, say, Shaak Ti, if she hadn't been in the CW shows? Likely not.

PT also has a very rich overall setting and worldbuilding, it truly expanded the SW universe a lot. Just the moves themselves couldn't show it well enough.

At least with the PT, Lucas knew what he was doing with his movies. Abrams and Johnson mashed everything in the ST like an ugly potato in an anthology of conflicting visions when it should've had only one, making so much of what was happening confusing and by the third movie (Rise of Skywalker) make no sense at all.

....

-0XqMIL6T-g

Originally posted by Slowpoke
PT also has a very rich overall setting and worldbuilding, it truly expanded the SW universe a lot. Just the moves themselves couldn't show it well enough.


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.

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. 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.

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.

http://images.killermovies.com/forums/avatars/simpsons/simpsons_krusty.gif

No not the original 2nd and 3rd movies anyway

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. 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.

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.

Originally posted by KyloRenFan69
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. What makes him deeper is the exploration of his character in the three films. In the original trilogy Vader was just calm, cool and expressionless in that helmet. The appealing part is a preference type thing so I will not waste my time on trying to show you the error of your Vader loving ways.

Facial expressions convey emotion. Any other obvious questions you need me to point out. Vader showed no emotions he was unable hidden in his helmet. Preference aside Kylo has far superior feats, movement, and the full power of his original body not the burnt husk Kenobi gifted Vader. Kylo killed his master and became supreme leader of the first order. Ben outlived Vader and merged with the force after giving Rey her life back in one of the most impressive feats of all time.

Clone Wars posh posh. Mainstream audiences do not know nor would they care. Kylo was indirectly or directly involved in the death of the big three of the Ot. Rey was the hero sure but the antagonist who brought the big three their deaths will live on forever. He is the greatest Skywalker ever to grace Star Wars. Saved the best for last. Kylo was more formidable than Rey. The films bend over backwards guiding the audience along this journey. Context is everything.

pt vs st is like comparing shit sandwiches

Prequels.