I think the prequels were... mixed. On the one hand I liked the exposition of them, because it explained a little. The plot of the movies was too obvious, and I think the entire second trilogy wasn't exactly needed per se.

I like the prequels a lot more than most of my friends, though I do loathe Jar Jar Binks. However, I do think they fittingly offer a more bad-ass view of the Jedi than the last three, because this is a time in which the Jedi were the ultimate peace-keepers and warriors. In keeping with that Jedi ideal, the action scenes do the Jedi justice. Which isn't to say the ending trilogy doesn't. The one on one duels between Luke and Vader are raw and expertly choreographed for what they were intended: an epic struggle between light and dark, father and son.

What I think a lot of us are missing is the surprise that is intended with the prequels. For those watching them first, they have no idea what's coming. Who the villains are, what they will do, and what will happen to the galaxy because of it. That, I think, is what will allow future generations to enjoy the prequels as much as the later trilogy. Though I don't think anyone will ever enjoy Jar Jar.

I have some mixed feelings about the 3 prequels. My least favorite was the Phantom Menace, but it was also very important. The problem was that it was very slow moving compared to all the other Star Wars movies, but that is mainly because the whole movie was a huge setup for how the whole thing started. Just like in real life, things don't start off instant and fast paced. It really was important, but from an entertainment point of view, it didn't work as well. Even though I do love the original trilogy, there is just a special slot for Episode III for me, even though a lot of people out there would love to flame this post for that (not necessarily here. Just people out there). The other two really were just a big setup for all the stuff that goes down in Episode III, and a lot of big things happened there. The near entire slaughter of the Jedi, the build up of Anakin's hatred, the republic finding out that their own army had an secret motive the whole time, etc. And come one, Yoda vs. The Emperor was freaking epic. And the fact that that battle happened during the same time as what was probably the most emotionally tragic fight in the series (Obi-Wan having to strike down Anakin) was the most exciting part ever. I could watch that whole sequence over and over. But as far as the prequels as a whole, they aren't bad. They are just too much of a set-up for Episode III. The original trilogy didn't use the first two as only a means of setting up the last movie. Each movie was carefully constructed to be able to stand on their own as far as watchability. 

Star Wars is Star Wars, so I did like them to an extent. That being said, I feel the original trilogy was far better.

The Phantom Menace--The only two things about this movie that bugged me were
A. Jar Jar Binks and
B. How pitiful Darth Mauls' death was. I mean, come on, really? (I won't give details, on the .0001% chance that it's a spoiler for someone. You know what I mean... Or you should. )

Attack of the Clones--I felt the story was substandard by Star Wars standards, but still serviceable. Seemed marginally cheesy to me too, but maybe that was just me...

Revenge of the Sith--This one was a massive dose of action with lots and lots of plot-line super-glue. Don't think I can sum it up any better than that...

I Actually Don't Like Any Of The Star Wars Movies. I Just Don't Like Many Sci-Fi Movies. But I Have To Say That I Like The Originals Better Because I Can Easily Create Jokes And Laugh In My Mind. 

I like them all. I like every Star Wars movie because it's Star Wars and it's awesome. I like the guns and lightsabers and stuff. I want to use the force one day. Though of all the prequels, I like Episode 2 the best.

I honestly think the Original Trilogy is overrated. They are great films but not the perfection fans make them out to be. 4 is clichéd, the only thing 5 had was the twist and saber fight, and the only thing 6 had was the saber fight. I enjoy and prefer the OT BUT I'm tired of all the hatred of the PT. 
 
    Yes, the PT suffers from poor acting. But that's the only real issues I see in them. The saber fights are amazing, the CGI is great, and the story of Anakin's fall is really done well. I agree the OT is better but it's majorly overrated. I do feel Lucas could've chosen a better actor for anakin though, the way Haden acts is just to bland for me to get invested in the character.

I will give the Prequels this: they each had something about them that I liked. Phantom Menace had Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon. Attack of the Clones had....er....the Geonosis scene. Where they weren't talking. Just kicking droid/Geonosian butt. Revenge of the Sith was actually a good movie, brought down by Hayden Christensen's acting and the whole Anakin/Padme romance having to be resolved to make room for Vader and his kids. Of course the special effects, especially for the climactic lightsaber duels in each, were also incredibly well done.

As for faults...Jar-Jar is a stain on the galaxy, the whole "Midi-Chlorians" thing and "Chosen One" prophecy just made the Force less cool, the way they found Anakin just felt....contrived. It coulda been much better. The Anakin/Padme romance was terrible. It's about a 9-year-old boy that meets a 14-year-old queen, falls in love, and despite not seeing her for ten years is apparently still in love as a 19-year-old Jedi. Yknow, cause you meet your soul-mate at 9 and become so attached ten years of growing up and having Jedi philosophy become your life won't change anything. So aside from the awful premise, the romantic scenes are just...painful. Which just highlights one of the greatest flaws, the actors. Besides Neeson's Qui-Gon and occasional moments of brilliance from Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan and Natalie Portman's Padme, it just doesn't feel right. Which is a shame because I know that some of them, especially Natalie Portman, can be better.

Yeah, so in short....there are a great many things that could have been handled much much better.

Totts :
Jumpman12 :
Oniya :
DarthRambo :
fightorace :
kabenon007 :
WarpStarFerret :
bigNATE :
... and anyone else who thought Jar Jar was a pathetic excuse for a character (above names are people who mentioned him in this thread,) go online and find Star Wars Episode I.I: The Phantom Edit and watch it if you have not already.

It is a fan edit of the film that removes much of what irritated this particular fan about the film. Most notably, almost all of Jar Jar's "antics" and lines are removed as well as lines by the battle droids and talk about "midichlorians."  I am not a fan of the prequels, but the edited version was by far better than the original in my opinion.



Now, on to my view of the prequels in general as a whole. My point of view is simple. I didn't like them very much, and from a standpoint of someone who saw and appreciates the original, unedited version of the first three films from the 70s / 80s, the prequels were nothing more than a way to cash in on a product's fame and never should have been created. So many people hated the films.... but they wouldn't know that if they hadn't seen them, and they may not have seen them if not for saying, "Oh, cool! A new Star Wars movie!" Part of the charm and amazement of the original films has to do with when they were created: during a time when there was no such thing as "computer effects." So much of the most basic stuff done with computers today took many hours of head scratching just to come up with something that might work back then (like using Vaseline on the lower part of the lens to "hide" the wheels to make an object look like it's hovering.)

I see the prequels, in a sense, as an insult to the original films not because of their plots (if you liked the stories, fine) but because director George Lucas then began editing the original three films and re-releasing them so that facts and images matched what the prequels were now showing. The biggest example, I'd say, is digitally replacing the face of Sebastian Shaw -- the actor who played Anakin Skywalker whose face is seen only near the end of the final film -- with that of Hayden Christensen (Anakin Skywalker in the prequels) because Heaven forbid the two face not match up even though these movies were made 16 years apart.


. . . oh yea, and Han shot first (actually, he was the only shooter )


[/end rant]

I always thought that the prequels were okay. But obviously they don't compare to the original trilogy. I think the only one I really didn't like was Episode 2 Attack of the clones.

I've seen all of the Star Wars movies, and I have to honestly say that the original trilogy is better. The prequels I still enjoyed though =P

The prequels were so so.  Great visually, and the story line was alright.  The acting, however, I did not care for.  Ewan McGregor (SP?) got on my nerves (No one can replace Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan Kenobi), so did Hayden Christensen (a bit too moody).  I'm not saying everyone was bad, just those two, mostly... and Natalie Portman, in certain parts.  However, I did enjoy seeing C-3P0 and R2-D2 again

I will always love the original trilogy though

P.S.  I should be going to sleep now but instead I think I will watch a movie... one with Jedi, and C-3P0, and R2-D2... and possibly with a Wookie...

I LOVED both the prequels and original Trilogy. I like Jar Jar because he added humor, an interesting character overall, and the amazing beautiful underwater city. I liked Qui-Gon Jinn, and young Obi-Wan. It might be because I grew up with them so I have some bias but, both the prequels and sequels have a different feel to them.

The prequels were okay.I did like them like the other 3 movies

I hate the Phantom Menace. I do like the n64 pod racer game though. the other 2 were okay.

I actually think Episode I was the best of the prequels, which should really tell you something about the quality of those movies.