Mapping the world's opinions

argument top image

< Back to question Are the Star Wars Movies Prequels or Sequels better? Show more Show less

Star Wars is a beloved movie franchise, and Lucasfilms attempted to expand on that franchise with a trilogy of prequels - The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith. But it was met with heavy criticism and despised by fans. A decade later, Disney would try their hand at making Star Wars movies with the Sequel trilogy - The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, and The Rise of Skywalker. Unfortunately, these movies were also met with a frosty reception. Comparison between the two trilogies is inevitable... so, which were better? The Prequels, or the Sequels?

The Sequels are better than the Prequels Show more Show less

Long have fans decried the failures of the Prequels. There should be no doubt that the Sequels far surpass them.
(1 of 2) Next position >

The Sequel movies had far better production value than the Prequel movies.

George Lucas's direction of the Prequels made them a mess with poor direction, shoddy camera work, and unnecessary and uncanny CGI. The Sequels are simply better put together at the technical level.
George Lucas Star Wars
< (3 of 3) Next argument >

The Argument

George Lucas does not know how to direct a movie. He does not know how to use a camera, effectively use CGI, cut scenes together, or pace the story. All of this was put on terrible display with the Prequels. The CGI sticks out like a sore thumb; scenes drag on far too long and the cinematography doesn't hold up to modern standards. The Prequels simply suffer from poor design.[1] On the other hand, the Sequels have top-notch production value. They're visually stunning, and they blend CGI and practical effects well. Just look at the lighting of the forest battle between Rey and Kylo Ren in The Force Awakens, or the brilliant starship ram in The Last Jedi. They also strike a balance of lingering on important conversations and jumping into intense battles. Where the Prequels failed to capture both emotion and action, the Sequels succeed; as shown in the compelling conflict between Rey and Kylo, wherein they clash in word and deed. J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson are first-class directors, and it shows in these films.[2] Overall, the Sequels are better movies at a fundamental film-making level. For all the credit he deserves for creating Star Wars, Lucas had many faults that made the Prequels almost unwatchable. Directing is better left in the hands of those like Abrams or Johnson. Because of their influence, the Sequels are much more pleasant to watch.

Counter arguments

The Sequels' shiny veneer covers up movies with no substance. The first movie was an uninspired re-skin of A New Hope. The second was a boring movie that ruined its characters, including Luke Skywalker himself. And the third was a pandering mess that tried to cover failure with spectacle. Plenty of blockbuster films look good. There are plenty of special effects and even top-of-the-line actors to go around, like in the Disney live-action remakes. That doesn't make them good movies. The same goes for the Sequels; just because they look nice on the surface, it doesn't mean they're free from criticism.

Premises

Rejecting the premises

Proponents


References

  1. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-george-lucas-admitted-he-went-far-phantom-menace-screening-1070589
  2. https://www.quora.com/Which-do-you-think-are-better-the-Star-Wars-prequels-or-sequels

This page was last edited on Friday, 18 Sep 2020 at 08:34 UTC

Vote

Not sure yet? Read more before voting ↑

Explore related arguments