If you’re a fan of Star Wars nowadays, it’s practically impossible to not debate about it. Just take a look at the Star Wars community and how crazy the fanbase is these days. If they love Star Wars, they either love the prequels or the Disney-produced sequel trilogy. This has been the hottest topic of Star Wars debates ever since The Force Awakens came to fruition, and as time passed, it has only gotten more heated. Does it seem ridiculous? Maybe so, but then again, I feel like it’s a thing only Star Wars nerds can understand. I’m one of those people, and I love debating about Star Wars, even if it does tend to get a bit heated.
I’ll just come right out and tell you why: it’s a debate about pop culture. At the end of the day, who really cares? Of course, we all want our beloved Star Wars to be great all together, but just like with everything else, it’s all subjective. Not everyone is going to love everything Star Wars puts out and that’s okay. Now I’m aware some fans take their debates a bit too far, but I’d like to think that I’m one of those fans who just wants to get his point across. One of those points has to do with answering one particular question fans have been debating about ever since The Rise of Skywalker came out: which trilogy is better?
The vast majority of fans all seem to have the overall positive consensus for the original trilogy; why can’t it be the same case for the prequels and the sequel trilogy? Well, if I had to give the short answer, I’d say it’s because neither trilogy came close to holding a candle to the original trilogy. The reasons as to why is the long answer, and I’m going to take some time to explain them. Don’t get all worked up yet, my fellow Star Wars fans. As I said earlier, this is all subjective. If you agree with me, then great. If you don’t, then that’s fine. I just want everyone to hear my piece and hopefully see where I’m coming from. Let’s begin.
I’ll start out by saying that Star Wars has become a popular subject of debate between my friends and I. They are firm defenders of the prequels, while I vehemently defend the sequel trilogy. Does that mean I think the sequel trilogy is automatically better? Not necessarily, and I’ll explain myself. First of all, just think about why the prequels get so much hate. The very, very terrible romance dialogue is one of the main reasons, but it actually runs much deeper than that. One of the biggest crimes of the prequel movies is their ignorance of what the original movies established.
One great example is how it explained the Force. The original trilogy explained it as a mystical bond between man and everything around them. It was almost like a spiritual connection that acted as a moral compass for people and gave them something to believe in. That was cool, so why did George Lucas feel the need to turn it into some kind of science and introduce midichlorians. Instead of keeping the Force as a spiritual-like bond, the idea of these microscopic creatures enhancing someone’s ability to use the force felt like an unnecessary retcon. The midichlorians weren’t emphasized beyond The Phantom Menace, and that’s a good thing. They didn’t serve much of a purpose.
Oh, but the crimes of the prequels doesn’t stop there. One of the biggest criticisms the sequel trilogy faces is its underdeveloped characters. While I agree with that criticism to a degree, no trilogy is more guilty of that crime that the prequels. George Lucas is phenomenal when it comes to creating great characters, but the way he developed many of his characters was underwhelming. One of the first prequel characters we were introduced to was Qui-Gon Jinn, a Jedi Master and mentor to a young Obi-Wan Kenobi. Qui-Gon is one of few go-to pieces that prequel defenders love to cling to in order to argue why the prequels aren’t that bad. I understand why, because he is an interesting character, but his whole development in The Phantom Menace was missing something.
Prequel lovers argue that Qui-Gon, not Obi-Wan, should’ve been Anakin’s master and claim he would’ve prevented his turn to the dark side. Maybe it’s because he was a more experienced Jedi, but that’s all we got from the movie itself. Qui-Gon’s character was fully expanded on in the comics and novels, and this development really did give some validity to the argument that he would’ve been the mentor Anakin needed. Prequel defenders are aware of this, but they fail to realize that all of that development should’ve been in The Phantom Menace. If we don’t read the comics or novels, we don’t know those details.
I realize all the details are hard to cram into a movie, but the most vital details should be included. It wasn’t just an issue with Qui-Gon, however. Count Dooku was an intriguing villain, but it was never fully explained why he became disillusioned with the Jedi Order. Jango Fett looked cool, but the reason he was chosen to be the clone template was never explained. General Grievous was cool, but all of his greatest moments happened outside of Revenge of the Sith. Even Darth Maul, a character that stopped The Phantom Menace from being completely forgettable, had a great backstory that was explored in the books.
Lucas may have created these characters, but their best characterization didn’t come from him. His biggest crime was failing to give us a relatable Anakin Skywalker. Before he was Darth Vader, he was a mostly a whiney brat who spent a lot of time creeping on Padme. Their chemistry didn’t sell, and when he turned, it was hard to feel sorry for him. This is the greatest failure of the prequels.
Now for the sequel trilogy’s greatest crime. In short, it’s The Rise of Skywalker. In my opinion, the way a trilogy ends is critical for its success. Rise of Skywalker took many characters that had promising starts, but took them nowhere. The worst case has to be Finn. A stormtrooper going good is something we haven’t seen before, and I was anxious to see where his story would end. Unfortunately for him, his biggest achievement was just basically being Rey’s sidekick and shouting her name a lot. Then there was Poe Dameron, who was overall a good character, but he just kept being the witty pilot and didn’t evolve beyond that.
And then there’s Rey. I don’t think there’s no other character in Star Wars that has a more divided fanbase. She does have her issues, but I thought she served the trilogy well. My biggest issue with her wasn’t her occasional Mary Sue characteristics, but how her story ended. She started out as a loner, then ended as a loner. Did she decide to train a new generation of Jedi? Luke Skywalker told her the Jedi needed to end, so that’s unlikely, but did she have to end up back where she began?
Speaking of Luke, the way he died in The Last Jedi was just, well, awful. How exactly did he die? Did he use too much force energy? Luke Skywalker was the first big hero of the franchise and the way he was killed off was basically borderline sacrilege. That also reminds of what he did to stop Emperor Palpatine. Luke managed to “destroy” Darth Vader and bring Anakin Skywalker back to the light, causing him to turn on Palpatine. We all thought he was dead (he blew up twice) but Rise of Skywalker revealed that he survived without giving a proper explanation. In the end, it wasn’t Anakin who destroyed him, but Rey. But wait, wasn’t Anakin the chosen one the prophecy was referring to? When he seemingly destroyed Palpatine, he brought balance to the force, but as we all discovered, that wasn’t the case.
Much like the prequels, the sequel trilogy didn’t develop its characters fully and undid vital elements from the original trilogy. It’s a shame, but when you look at the big picture, both trilogies made the same mistakes.
So which one is truly better? Well, on the bright side, they both had their star characters. The prequels had Ewan McGregor’s Obi-Wan and the sequel trilogy had Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren. They both served their trilogies well, but couldn’t save them in the end. If the prequels have anything on the sequels, it’s their level of consistency. It was all George Lucas’ vision and he knew where he wanted it to go; his execution of that vision is what fell flat. The sequel trilogy clearly lacked any kind of plan of where it was going, but despite that, their movies had superior quality.
The Force Awakens was easily the best of the sequels, just as Revenge of the Sith was easily the best of the prequels. The difference is The Force Awakens was nearly the perfect set up to a trilogy. Revenge of the Sith, however, was only a fine ending to an overall disappointing trilogy.
There you have it, my fellow Star Wars fanatics. Do you guys agree or do you think I’m wrong. As I said earlier, it’s all subjective, and that’s the beautiful things about movies as a whole.
Follow Us
