star wars 1-3?

[Galuf]

Am i the only one who thought these movies were cool?. I like all of them all 6. But most people i see are hate 1-3. I especially like the clones..especially there armour is cool. And i thought the movies were fun. I dont have any facts to say why i like them. But oh well

[blackmage_nuke]

Episode 1 is the one I enjoyed most out of the 6 (I blame a million parodies of the original trilogy for ruining every scene before i was born for that). My best hope for Episode 7 is that I like it more than Episode 1 so I can stop telling people it's my favourite and getting death stares. I didn't like Anakin in 2 and 3 though, I didn't get seething anger and hatred so much as teenage angst. I hated Jar Jar throughout all of the prequel trilogy.

[Fox]

I quite like Revenge of the Sith. Ewan McGregor is a consistently good Obi-Wan, and the lightsaber duels were amazing. Hayden Christiansen was notably less awful than in Attack of the Clones.

But that's all I can really say in their favour. I rewatched Phantom Menace a night or two ago and it certainly wasn't as terrible as I remember... but still pretty poor. It's not even just the annoying stuff like Jar-Jar, there's really simple little problems. Like, I've never seen such wooden acting from Natalie Portman. Not sure if it's poor writing, poor directing or a generally poor performance from her, but it's disappointing nonetheless.

[Formalhaut]

I've not seen them before, and I have heard some terrible things. I'm told that I don't need to see 1-3 to see 7, so that's all for the good, really.

[Del Murder]

They aren't as bad as everyone says. It's just very difficult to compare them with the original trilogy. They are very flawed but I overall enjoyed all of them. Some of the set pieces are fantastic and Ewan McGregor rocks the whole time through. If you can get over Jar Jar and Hayden Christensen and some of the more boring imperial senate stuff, then you will enjoy them.

Someone once suggested that you should watch the episodes in this order: IV, V, a 10 minute recap of I on Youtube or something, II, III, VI. I kind of like that order.

[NeoCracker]

There are things about them that are downright terrible. The actual story following Darth Vaders Fall is nearly cringeworthy, and the dialogue of the love story is just bad, for a couple of the worse aspects.

But there are some great things. Darth Mall, without needing to say anything, is a damn menacing villain. A lot of the guys are fantastic actors as well. Obi-Wan, Mace Windu, and when Hayden isn't speaking he's pretty damn good.

[Fynn]

Hayden was pretty okay in The Revenge of the Sith. Not so much in Attack of the Clones.

Clones is by far my least favorite Star Wars film, but I still thought the prequels were decent and never got why people are so offended by them. Yeah, the dialogue is pretty bad, but dear God, is Ewan McGregor just amazing as Obi-Wan. The prequels are seriously worth watching even if it's just for him - he's having so much fun with the character and really carries the movies despite their shortcomings.

[Ayen]

I liked Episode I as a kid because I was a kid. III was pretty decent. II is definitely the weakest of the whole bunch, and even when I was younger I didn't care for it that much.

[Fox]

I'm watching the "anti-cheese" edit of Attack of the Clones right now and this guy is my smurfing hero. Cuts out about 50% of Anakin's dialogue and replaces Jar-Jar's English with subtitled 'alien language'. This is pretty watchable! I mean, it's still no Empire, ​but still.

[Pumpkin]

I really like Episode I and II but not III

[Fynn]

I really like Episode I and II but not III

That's funny, because I think The Revenge of the Sith might be my favorite Star Wars film, actually :p

[Slothy]

Episode I had the best special effects and sets of the prequels. That is literally the only good thing I can say about them aside from Ewan McGregor was a fucking champ to turn in performances that weren't total garbage in those movies despite the garbage writing and direction he had to deal with.

Just about everything else in those movies is just bad film making though. Watching them you would honestly have to assume that George Lucas had never written, directed, or produced anything before. Massive budgets aside they were total amateur hour. Which isn't really fair to the few amateur film makers that could do a lot better.

[Sephex]

While I love stuff that tears into the Prequel Trilogy like the Plinkett Reviews, I enjoy the movies on a surface level. Big picture wise, I think there were a lot of cool elements. Most of the actors get dumped on too much for acting poorly, when the problem was Lucas's bad directing. Hayden isn't some Oscar dude or anything, but in other movies he is a competent actor and is capable of carrying a movie on his own.

This is actually something the Plinkett review for Episode III points out. Look at how many scenes simply have characters sitting on a couch, standing idly, or one of them mildly pacing while the camera just shows a shot/reverse shot of the actors. Very few people realize how good editing and creative directing can save a movie. Anyone ever see raw cuts or the obscure deleted scenes from the original Trilogy? Very crying stuff. Han and Leia in Empire have more laughable chemistry than Anakin and Padme did in my opinion. Leia literally calls Han "hotshot" and it is TERRIBLE. That's just the tip of that hothberg (lol).

Anyway, the special effect hate boner people have for the Prequel Trilogy isn't as bad as people make out, either. While I do agree that the special effects are excessive (and contributed to the sitting on the couch problem described in the above paragraph), it really isn't any more guilty than what other big movies were doing at the time. Everyone strokes their meat over the Lord of the Rings movies, but there were just as many green screen effects and CGI battles (they did use more sets and extras, though). Don't know why that gets a pass if you just look at it from a special effects point of view.

I keep rambling. So...TL;DR: Prequel Trilogy has massive problems, but I can still enjoy them to an extent. Lots of the problems people harp on are exaggerated and are present in other movies they give a pass for.

[Hollycat]

I've always enjoyed all of the movies. I may not have particularily enjoyed Jar Jar (Long live the dark one) but I enjoyed them as a nice series. Too bad they distinctly feel like two seperate series instead of just two sagas in an overarching story.

[Ayen]

The main criticism I've always seen have been more leveled at the retcons and all the plot inconsistencies between the original and the prequels.

And I think I'm the only person on the planet who wasn't annoyed by Jar Jar Binks.

[theundeadhero]

I don't mind them too much, but Attack of the Clones has the borderline obsessive Anakin that's cringeworthy.

[escobert]

The acting in 1 was ok, story was meh. Acting in 2 was horrible, story was ok. Acting in 3 was meh story was decent.

[Ayen]

Android: She loss the will to live.
Obi-Wan: That isn't fatal.
Android: Yes it is. It's totes is. I read about it in a book once.
Obi-Wan: ...
Android: Welp, I gotta go! There's a big sale on new robot parts and I plan to be first in line! -runs off-

[Slothy]

I'm going to have to take issue with the idea that the LotR trilogy used as much cgi as the prequels. They really didn't. Maybe a similar amount to what was in episode I, but that's because it still used actual sets, models, and other practical effects techniques in places it made sense. In the other two though, there was almost nothing. Even places where real sets would have been easier and made more sense, they green screened it all. LotR on the otherness had tons of practical effects and sets and it was fear that any scene was entirely cgi. It also had integration with the cgi and physical stuff that was stupidly good,probably because they didn't blow the entire animation budget on the entire movie. Gollum still looks stupidly good and quite seamless. Far better than anything in the prequels, or even the Hobbit trilogy to be honest.

It really just does not compare. The cgi in the prequels is so bad it makes ILM look like hobbyists.

[Wolf Kanno]

They are not as good as the original, largely because Lucas isn't as good of a writer and director as he thinks he is. Even a New Hope always felt the weakest to me in terms of pacing and writing in the original trilogy. Barring the Ewok nonsense of Return of the Jedi, what made Empire and Jedi better films was handing the rough draft of the script over to better writers to flesh it out and work with it, as well as getting stronger directors to helm the films while Lucas produced.

The Prequels are largely hampered by bad writing, poor use of characters, trying to keep the films kid friendly, and fan-baiting nonsense like Yoda fighting. The stories of all three films lack any real cohesion beyond a few elements that tie them together and the films have a rough time deciding whether they want to be character driven or plot driven and just kind of meander back and forth making the story feel like jello. The original trilogy had the Rebels vs. Empire schlock but it served as a backdrop for the character stories, whereas the prequels spend time trying to build up the and deal with the Clone Wars while at the same time trying to make the story spend time developing characters when it remembers to.

The original films had Luke as an anchor of a character for which the three trilogy's revolve around. The prequels don't really have anyone though it tries its best. The Prequels would have done better had they centered on Obi-Wan (especially since McGregor nailed the role rather well despite the problems in the script) and watched Anakin's fall from grace from an outside perspective.