Top 10 Most Overused and Annoying Critiques of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy

Prequel trilogy fans, unite! The prequel trilogy has been ridiculed for decades, and while much of that hate has dissipated, the prequels era is often still used as a baseline to determine how bad (never how good) Star Wars content is. For example, "That was so bad, worse than Phantom Menace!" or "At least it's better than Attack of the Clones."

I think it's time to tackle the most overused and overbearing arguments made against the prequels and give this series the love it deserves.

1. "The CGI is garbage"

   1. They were made in the 1990s and early 2000s. Of course the CGI isn't going to look like Avatar: The Way of Water or a modern Transformers movie. This is like criticizing a movie made in the 1940s for being in glitchy black-and-white.

   2. The only reason we have the CGI technology we have today is because of filmmakers who were willing to make some sacrifices of the visual quality of their movies and experiment with the technology that they had. They were able to accept that their movies were less than perfect and became pioneers for future movies.

   3. Watch the movie Labyrinth (1986) and then watch Phantom Menace (1999). Both involved George Lucas. I think I'll let the drastic differences in CGI quality speak for themselves. To get moderately good CGI, we have to start with bad CGI. To get bad CGI, we have to start with terrible CGI. Don't tell me that the prequels had trashy CGI until you've seen some really old CGI first.

   4. Do you animate? Do you animate using a computer from the 1990s? You don't? Take a seat.

   TLDR: The CGI in the prequels is not "garbage," it is dated, and without the pioneers who developed the technologies used in the prequels, we wouldn't have much of what we have in movies today.

2. "Jar Jar Binks is dumb"

   

   And my jalapeño peppers are too spicy.

3. "Anakin and Padmé's romance is awkward"

   Yes, it's awkward, but isn't that how many relationships between young people turn out in real life, when trying to impress not just a person, but the one? Anakin is trying to get closer to the one he has strong feelings for.

   TLDR: You try flirting with Padmé Amidala when you're Anakin and you have no idea what flirting is.

   You try dealing with fake-faced politicians all day and try not to be charmed by awkward honesty.

   Just because Anakin trained under Obi-Wan doesn't mean he learned Obi-Wan's flirting skills. He's 19-20 and he's probably never seen romance (he was raised by a single mother and later the "no attachments" Jedi), so of course he's not going to know what to do about having romantic feelings for anyone.

   Then you add in the fact that he isn't just trying to express his feelings to just anyone. Anakin, who is already a fish out of water in this setting, is trying to express his feelings for PADMÉ AMIDALA.

   Padmé Amidala, in other words, Natalie Portman in elegant dresses, and they are alone together at a gorgeous lake house. He's going to be nervous enough as it is, but with the scene set so elegantly, he's bound to feel a lot of pressure to live up to Padmé's romantic expectations.

   On top of all that, Padmé isn't just gorgeous, she's strong and intelligent. Padmé is a brilliant politician, so she will see right through you (and turn you down) if you try to put on a "suave" facade. Even someone good with words and familiar with romance should be intimidated by Padmé's ability to see through lies.

   This last bit is what could be seen as the key to Padmé's attraction to Anakin. Padmé has been in politics for 10 years. She knows a liar when she sees one, and she spends all day dealing with fake smiles and is probably sick of it. Then Anakin shows up and he's the exact opposite. He's awkward and honest. Not only that, but he was no longer the little kid she met 10 years prior, he now has the face of Hayden Christensen. I like to think you can pinpoint the exact moment Padmé's brain goes "Oh no, now he's hot" when she first sees Anakin in Attack of the Clones.

4. "The dialogue is awkward"

   The dialogue is a meme goldmine.

   "I don't like sand" (Anakin was correct in his little speech, by the way. Sand stinks.)

   "Let's try spinning, that's a good trick!" (I could 100% imagine a 9-year-old saying this.)

   "This is where the fun begins"

   "Hello there!"

   Sit back and enjoy the comedy of it all.

5. "Jake Lloyd was an annoying little kid"

   

   Jake Lloyd was a kid in a movie made for families. He was going to act like a kid in a movie made for families. If you go into a movie featuring a child actor and expect that child to have abilities on par with James Earl Jones, you're going into that movie with unrealistic and absurd expectations. He's a kid. Being awkward and jumpy is what kids do.

6. "They aren't as good as the originals"

   Doesn't make it bad. In fact, some have argued that ROTS was the best of the franchise.

   "Not as good as ___" does NOT mean "bad," and it certainly doesn't mean deserving of hate.

7. "The politics are boring"

   People say that like the first 25 minutes of A New Hope aren't 90% desert. Wow, so interesting, the desert. While some Senate scenes do last a bit long, they all play a role in the plot. Before the boom-boom-pow, there has to be BUILD UP.

   War is political. It was a given that the prequels were going to be a story about the events that lead to war, not just the war itself. The "boring" political scenes are actually quite interesting if you sit back and let yourself get immersed in the world-building of it all. These scenes also provide a refresher from the constant boom-boom-pow action sequences and allow the viewer to see the conflicts of the films being fought on multiple fronts with a variety of tactics.

   I understand that the politics are not as visually intriguing as the lightsaber duels and space battles, but "visually boring" does not mean bad. It just means that it isn't what excites you personally. While personal reactions are important in film, they are not what should be used in an argument over whether something is "objectively" good or bad.

8. "They ruined my childhood"

   This phrase is a weak argument and poor statement on its own. Not only does it imply that your entire childhood was or is determined by a movie franchise, it implies that the creation of three new movies destroys three old movies. The old movies are still there, and your childhood is in the past. You may look back on it differently, but new movies coming out doesn't change what happened when you were a kid.

9. "The Jedi are evil/deserved to die"

   Oh wow, you said the good guys were the bad guys, how clever. What a unique and enlightened take. You must be so smart, and these movies must be so dumb. /s

   Even amongst people who are more positive about the prequels, there's a concerning lack of simple understanding of the story. It isn't about how the Jedi deserved to fall because of (checks notes) their cautions against attachments or marriage. It's the story of how the Jedi, while righteous defenders of democracy, were not what Anakin needed, and how Anakin was not what they needed.

   It is indeed a story of corruption, but that doesn't make the Jedi or the Republic corrupt. It makes them able to be corrupted, in other words, it makes them mortal and human.

   Some may feel that Star Wars is too black and white in its portrayal of good and evil and, as a result, try to add annoying takes like "the Jedi are the bad guys and that made the prequels bad" to make the series seem edgier or more mature. What they fail to see is that the complex issue isn't the nature of good and evil, but the nature of how good (Anakin) becomes evil (Darth Vader).

10. "The padawan haircut is ugly"

    Wow. An ugly haircut that isn't even that ugly. What a movie-ruining piece of imagery.

    Also, it's Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen. Even the ugliest haircut couldn't make them truly ugly, and if it did, why should an "ugly" main character drive you to diss an entire movie?