It's not surprising that the same people who attack the prequels are always unversed in real film or anything artistic, and that the people who praise the prequels (Zizek, Paglia, Brody, etc) are always literate, educated, and versed in real film.

https://www.vice.com/read/camille-paglia-believes-that-revenge-of-the-sith-is-our-generations-greatest-work-of-art
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-the-seven-star-wars-films-reveal-about-george-lucas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibkmh72_1pw

The fact that everyone points to Plinkett as the authority on why the prequels are bad speaks volumes. Mike Stoklasa is one of the least artistic people on the planet - he can't process movies outside of the conventions of Hollywood films, his approach to narrative is tempered with the same surface-level requisites listed on tvtropes.

Any complaint that people have about the prequels illustrates a weak grasp on film. How many art films would they claim has 'too much sitting and talking'? They would watch the end of Breaking the Waves and whine about dated CGI. Their sensibilities for 'good dialogue' in what is intentionally pulp comes from bad pulp, ie, the original Star Wars, the only pulp they've ever seen. They would similarly view any homage-driven art film and miss the entire point.

Lucas' only mistake in the prequels was doing something daring, original, artistic and literate, not realizing that the manchildren conditioned by the original SW trilogy to loathe anything cerebral would lash out against his cinematic risks.

>>>/tv/

>>22838064 (OP)
Okay

>>22838064 (OP)
there is a satirical review of the prequels on youtube which is more entertaining than the prequels themselves

the prequels are goated because they were all I watched. never watched Mark Hamill wailing like a bitch on tv

>>22838064 (OP)
III is the best because action though

>>22838064 (OP)
Trvth nvke
The only people I see hating on the prequels are smarmy ugly millennials, the group of people you should trust least of any

>>22838070
bitch what are you talking about. millennials were the target audience for the prequels. I would know.

>>22838064 (OP)
btw it's more like

- original Star Wars (later called ep. 4-5-6): Lucas at his best, perfect alchemy, cool stuff, cult sci-fi movies of the late '70s and early '80s (original versions without CGI added)
- prequels: Lucas tried his best in good faith but he had lost his magic touch and made boring, mediocre high budget movies
- sequels: Disney tried to milk the Star Wars franchise in bad faith and made trash movies that aren't even worth watching (note: I didn't watch the sequels)

moral of the story: things have their own natural duration and it isn't wise to keep them artificially alive for too long, for love of for profit

Star Wars is an excellent saga of movies that reflects the "space opera" genre of the late '70s but in the late '80s it was already perceived as old and it should have been left as it was: an excellent triolgy of sci-fi movies of their time.

>>22838064 (OP)
Attack of the Clones is high kino

>>22838064 (OP)
>prequel fag obsessed with Plinkett
>bongistani
Wrong board and you outed your self, Prakash Muthusamy. Screencapped for use on /tv/.

I don’t care for the prequels that much, I mean they’re okay, the cgi is really dated looking, and I find them kind of goofy/silly. Anakin is sort of too much of a merry is like ridiculously over powered one minute but then loses his arm to count dooku in a fight

I think that diagram/image is kind of BS because the sequels were actually pretty deep, I spent a lot of time analyzing them going over the meaning in the films