The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Star Wars Prequels were significantly inferior to the Star Wars original trilogy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2016 Category: Movies
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 642 times Debate No: 84500
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (2)




First a disclaimer: I am new to this site and it's customs in terms of structure and style of arguments, as I came here to specifically argue this point, so my argument structure may not match the norm of this site. I want the first round to be just opening statements, with the second and third being rebuttal and counter rebuttal, and the last being concluding arguments.
Also since we will be discussing events from six, full length movies I would like to organize the structure of each individual argument into 6 sections as to not get jumbled and difficult to follow.
They are as follows:
1: Characters
2: Plot
3: Battles/duels
4: Writing
5: Settings
6: Summary/Closing

I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate, and as a disclaimer I do like to go into a fair amount of detail in my arguments and would appreciate someone who has the time to put the same depth into their own statements.

Opening statements

Characters: In general, the characters of the prequel trilogy are very plastic, and uninteresting, when compared to the original trilogy. Characters like the fearless, proud R2-D2, who doesn't even speak, are more interesting and fun to watch than characters like the monotone, expressionless Qui-gon, or the emotionless, static Mace Windu. The only characters that held any kind of interest were the ones carried over from the original trilogy, and even then their effects were significantly lessened

Plot: The central plot of the prequels, being the story of Darth Vader, was the only thing interesting to watch after getting bored of George Lucas shoveling CGI animation down your throat. Even then, his story doesn't even start until the second movie and is interrupted by a love story that was so poorly written it was painful to watch. The war, and politics around this story end up just getting in the way because very simply put, we didn't care.
In the original trilogy, people cared about the rebels in their fight against the unstoppable force of the evil empire that blows up planets for fun. A seemingly endless supply of clones fighting a seemingly endless supply of droids over a seemingly endless supply of planets doesn't warrant the same amount of sympathy, especially when we know that both armies are just Palpatine's pawns.

Battles/duels: CGI worked for and against the prequels in this one. The massive scale space/ground battles looked stunning for the time period, but again, we don't care about what's happening, therefore there is no tension, and the plastic look of everything removed the grittiness that is needed for it to feel realistic.
As for the duels, both series' take a different approach. The original series uses each light saber battle as a form of symbolism, with each one showing Luke at a different stage in his journey to becoming a Jedi. The problem with the prequels is that they abandon any of this symbolism to their duels, which are just carefully choreographed dance scenes.

Writing: This one is more example oriented, so here are examples of some lines that made absolutely no sense and/or were used solely to keep the plot together
1: "They must be dead by now. Destroy what's left of them."- Nute Gunray, Phantom menace
2: "Don't try it Anakin, I have the high ground" -Obi-Wan, Revenge of the Sith
3: "I'll try spinning, that's a good trick" -Anakin, The Phantom Menace
4: "Go to the planet Mustafar, you will be safe there" -Palpatine, Revenge of the Sith
5: "She can't do that! Shoot her, or something..." -Nute Gunray, attack of the clones

Settings: Much like the characters, the settings are uninteresting, which is ironic because of the heavy dosage of CGI they get. George uses almost exclusively dialogue to move the story forward, and it is painfully boring to watch, because he does it in the most simplistic way possible. Almost Every dialogue scene is shot with everyone either sitting at a table/couch doing nothing or walking aimlessly down a hallway. As an added bonus, the characters are all in small rooms on planets we don't care about.

Summary/Closing: One of the main issues with the prequels is that they are supposed to be space adventure movies like everyone had expected because of the originals. They just don't feel like exciting, adventure atmospheres with how boring the vast majority of them are. Because of this, there really isn't a clear target audience. They certainly aren't targeting children, what with the beheading, murder of children, and long political debates, but then, why are things like Jar Jar, and a kid main character in the movies?
it is my assumption that Lucas not only rushed through the writing of the scripts, but also was out to get as much money as possible, leading to the splash of hundreds of characters, vehicles and places that all came together in a heap of incoherent plot, which he used to spawn hundreds more toys, video games, backstory novels, and more.


My opening statement is going to start off with the plot.

Plot: George Lucas wanted to tell a different story In a different. The main difference was the ERA the prequels started out in a time of peace while the original started out in an oppressive state. The original was a constant adventure cause our heroes were being hunted down. The heroes here got to relax a bit more. Okay now that, that is out of the way, I can say the plot is closer to lord of the rings. LOTR our heroes set off on a journey to mordor, but much like the prequels they try to warn other nations of the imminent danger, ones being the sith the other sauron, now either nations didn't take them seriously or they just didn't care. Which were those nations downfall. The Story telling was different we got to see more of the universe as well as learn more about the force and their abilities, we got to see what the big deal actually was and the threat a force user possessed. This brings me to the battles

The battles were actually better, we really got to see what it was like to fight as an actual Jedi, they ran faster, is jumped higher, they accomplished feats on the battlefields that would be close to impossible for a Normal person. We get to see the bad a** that was yoda. You could say the original focused on spaceship battles where as the original focused on force duels.
The force duels in the original was more of a joke. Darth Vader who's supposed to be the number two can't even kill a guy who's barely learning about the force. It's like a Paige being on par with the black knight. Then we get to palpatines dearh, palpatine who's supposed to be the strongest force user in the galaxy gets picked up by Vader and tossed over a guard rail. He couldn't like say? Force choke or force break his arm before getting tossed. You're supposed to be able to pull down an entire starfleet with the force yet you get tossed over the rail? Even if Vader prevented it with his own force he should have been able to survive that fall with the force.

Characters and writing would be a matter of personal opinion, like we can all agree jar jar was a bs character.

You also give quotes on writing but don't give any context, The only one I can refer 2 is number two which shows how wreckless anakin can be.

The main issue with the prequels isn't that it's supposed to be a space adventure movie like the original trilogy. It's the fact episodes 4-6 came out first so everyone knew who would survive. The prequels was the telling of legends while the original was the showing of an adventure. Lucas didn't rush he knew exactly what he was doing. Except for jar jar
Debate Round No. 1


Rebuttal to plot: What you said was the main problem, we get to see the heroes relax. No one wants to see our heroes relax on a couch for half the movie, we want to see them in constant, varying levels of danger in order to provide tension, and therefore interest to what they're saying and doing. You can argue that the massive battles and duels provide tension, but I never felt my prequel heroes in any danger when cutting down dozens of battle droids with seemingly no effort. In the original trilogy the constant impending danger, coupled with our actual caring for the characters, made us emotionally involved with what was going on to them and around them. I just never felt the same emotional connection when characters like Mace Windu and Qui-Gon died, because they were such static characters.
I apologize in that I have never seen the LOTR movies and therefore cannot make the same connection you did, but you say that the prequels weren't intended to be a space adventure, and you are perfectly right, so then why, when I look up the prequels, are they listed as action/adventure scifi movies?

Rebuttal for battles: While the battles were naturally better looking with the CGI and choreography, they lacked any form of substance, because again, we don't care at all about what's happening. Take the opening scenes from episodes III and IV, which are the only two that have comparable aspects. In episode IV the opening scene is symbolic, giving us an understanding of what's going on. The pathetically small rebel army was helplessly running away from the far stronger imperials. That gives us all the explanation we need, once we see inside the ship, for the entire backstory of the original trilogy. As for episode III, the opening scene is just a garbled mess. Once again we are watching two armies we don't care for. It's impossible to tell who is winning, so there is no tension, and our heroes are on their way to kill a new character we don't know or care about, but is also somehow instrumental to the war. The CGI effects are indeed quite good, but so what. Entire movies are made to look quite good using absolutely nothing but CGI, so there's nothing special about this scene at all, as well as any other CGI scene in the movies. Now let's take an example from a different movie, Avatar. We are made to care deeply for the Na'Vi and their plot, so when James Cameron films the entire movie using a green screen, it's more powerful. Because we care so much about the Na'Vi and they're home, we become fascinated with everything around them that contributes to their culture. We don't care about the Wookie culture, or the gungan culture, or the cultures of any of the dozens of planets shown. Therefore the CGI effects have no other meaning than to just show a place.

As for the force duels, Vader was not ever trying to kill Luke, otherwise he would have blasted the ship he was on as Vader sensed Luke fly right past his star destroyer on the way to Endor, which would have also ended the rebellion, so why didn't he? He was trying to convert Luke to the dark side, which was said multiple times throughout the films. Vader just toyed with Luke's attempts at killing him until they're final confrontation, where Luke was at a level of training at which he could have beaten Vader, which he did. Now as for Yoda, I personally think giving him a lightsaber ruined his character. In the original trilogy, Lucas' first depiction of Yoda was a crazy, tiny hermit, so it surprised us when we say what he was capable of doing. it showed us that being a Jedi, and being one with the force had nothing to do with physical attributes. Giving him a lightsaber and forcing him to comically bounce around just to fight. Yoda, like Obi-Wan, had already shown himself to be beyond such things. I do agree that it was cool to see Yoda as a bad***, but not when he was using a lightsaber.

Now, finally I will address the final duel of Luke with Vader and Palpatine. First off, we are told in episode IV that force tricks only work on the weak minded, and are even given an example of this in the new episode VII, so no matter how powerful Palpatine or Vader were, they still would have had lots of trouble manipulating Luke at this point through the force. We know this because there are many parallels from the two trilogies we can draw from that give us an idea of Luke's skill, and the lack of power the force has. take the Darth Maul duel. Darth Maul, being a sith lord personally trained by Palpatine, should have easily been able to just force push Obi-Wan, the padawan/jedi knight, down from the whatever he was hanging on to, but he doesn't, and he is genuinely surprised when Obi-Wan pulls his little stunt, resulting in his death. If Obi-Wan can kill a sith lord at his stage of training, then Luke's must be at an equal, if not higher level to be able to beat Vader in a lightsaber duel.. In addition Palpatine loses to Mace Windu and needs Anakin to save him. Only when Mace lets his defenses down due to his surprise at Anakin, is Able to force push Mace off of the building. Since we see both Palpatine's weakness, and Luke's relative strength, we can assume that Palpatine was unable to just force pick up Luke and throw him off the edge when he refuses to turn. the only time when he could have killed Luke was when he was using his lightning, which was not intended to kill Luke but to torture him for not turning toward to the dark side. It was at this point when the emporer felt absolutely assured of his victory, with the rebels being obliterated and Luke not being a problem anymore, so imagine how surprised he was when Vader picked him up. Just like Darth Maul, he was unable to react in time to the situation and was killed as a result, with his own lightning seeming to be the thing that causes the explosion that kills him.

Characters: Although writing can be made out to be personal opinion, characters can not. there is no argument that can be made that shows characters like Queen Amidala, any of the Jedi council, Qui-Gon, or just about any other minor character that had a speaking part, as having any sort of emotion or depth.

Closing: The main problem with the prequels is that people view them with a pair of nostalgia goggles on. They think going into the movies that they will be great because Lucas directed them and they are Star Wars films, so when they watch them they seem great to them. But take the original trilogy out of the equation and the prequels alone are just bad movies, with the only people that enjoy them being the ones dazzled by the special effects and nostalgia.


The heroes got to relax but it wasn't a day at the spa kind of relaxation, it was them trying to convince other nations to join their cause. It would have been easier if you saw LOTR but I'll try to explain how the two are similar, both heroes try to rally nations to their sides, trying to convince everyone of the imminent danger, while the nations weren't convince right away they'd get attacked by the villains. However because we all know anakin will soon become Vader and kenobi survive, the writing style wasn't to convince us that they may die. But the nations they are tryjng to convince will.

You continue to say you show uninterest and don't care about the battles but you get what you put into it. Even though you know if someone is already going to survive or not, you can still enjoy the battles for what they were. Showing us the true threat of the force. The original duels were just light sabers clashing, while the duels of the trilogy was more intellectual, as they use their lightsaber and were using the force at the right time to turn the battle in their favor. If they used the force at the wrong time the duel could be lost. Sure Vader toys with Luke but after a couple tries it's time to admit he's not turning. Like a persistent guy trying to ask a girl for her number, that gets boringness and redundant. you said palpatine was in danger from losing to mace windu in the original palpatine. I'm glad you said that because that shows that palpatine truly convinced you that he was in danger, he is trying to convert anakin so this is a test to see if anakin would help him or not. If anakin wasn't there w would have easily killed mace. We are talking about the man who killed Darth Plagueis after all. Yoda I guess it's also a personal opinion, however the force allowed him to jump around as he did and fight count dooku. We are always told how strong yoda is how great of a warrior he is, however we never got to see it until now.

Characters. As far as the Jedi council and qui-gon they aren't supposed to show any emotions, because that's how the Jedi's are raised detached from their emotions so that the dark side will not take them over. Lucas did that great because it shows how cultish the Jedi's are and that maybe perhaps their way isn't completely good. While the sith express their angry emotions to the fullest, maybe there needs to be a balance somewhere there. Queen Amidala also isn't supposed to show any emotions because infront of the republic emotions could be viewed as weakness. Just like in debating you must detach yourself from your emotions so that your arguments can't be used against you. E.g I can say your entire arguments are based off your emotional interest because you really wanted the prequels to be similar to the original trilogy so you felt let down, however that doesn't mean the prequels are inferior.

Closing: even if you watched the original before the prequels you should be able to appreciate both trilogy. Watching the movies they are great they are not inferior to the original. Just because it has a different way of telling a story doesn't make it inferior. And if you take the original out of the equations you can appreciate the prequels even more because you don't know how things are going to turn out. The prequels did something most movies don't do. And that's letting the bad guys win. They broke away from the cliche good guy trumps all and are shielded from plot armor. That is definitely a rare find for movies. So if you enjoyed the original trilogy and say you are a true fan, you should be able to appreciate the prequels for what they were.
Debate Round No. 2


First off I disagree that my argument was emotionally involved. My claim that we don't care about the battle scenes was supported by non opinionated evidence. My argument is not that these movies should be enjoyable to every single person, but only that these movies are poorly done for the role they were made for, and that the primary reason people like them are that there is so much nostalgia and CGI that they are distracted from things that make movies unenjoyable. The Worst thing a movie can do is remove our connection with the characters. The point of a protagonist in an adventure film is to be someone we can relate to. Whatever adventure the hero sets out on is likely filled with things unfamiliar to a normal person, such as aliens. If the protagonist is as alien to us as the rest of the characters, then people don't feel sympathy, and they don't care. This is a fact, and is shown throughout any adventure film that features character growth.

Luke is a relatable character because of his circumstance. As a teenager he is forced to stay home and work for his family, when really he just wants to be free and roam the galaxy, fighting for the rebellion. Is that not the story of the vast majority of teenagers? In addition, Luke's emotions make sense in his situations, and because people have related to him (Whether they know it or not), and the situations feel real and have tension, we share a part of his emotions. As he grows in his training we learn more about the force and his personality, which is also highly relatable to most teenagers. By this time people are wanting Luke to succeed, as they see themselves in him. Because of this we feel his anger and frustration to varying extents. This is how characterization for a protagonist is almost always done, and for a good reason. Now we see there is a target audience, and a very well put together protagonist for that audience

Now let's look at the prequels. We know the movies clearly weren't made for kids, and are labeled as action/adventure, meaning we need that same relatable protagonist to feel emotionally involved. Can you, watching the movie now, relate to kid Anakin? I doubt too many people remember what they did at age 9-12, so there is no way to relate to what he is going through, and no one can relate to Obi-Wan or Qui-Gon, because they show no emotion. The second movie is the only time we can relate to him in his attempts to be with Padme, well, at least until he goes on his murderous rampage. But then again in the third movie he goes back to being completely unrelatable with his child killing, beheading, murderous tendencies. The only reason we care about Anakin in these movies is because he is becoming Darth Vader. Standing alone the prequels just wouldn't gain the same amount of interest as the original trilogy, because no one would have any interest or connection with the characters.

battles: Continuing with the theme of relatability, let's look at the battles again. In the original trilogy, each battle not only has our protagonist(s), who we are emotionally connected to, directly involved with the participation and outcome, but the overall war mirrors history, making it relatable too. In WWII, which at the time was a fairly recent event, the helpless British fight against the tyrant Hitler. It was incredibly intelligent (Or lucky) to mimic that with the war in the movies, as many people watching them would remember fighting the same war themselves. Making the hero like them, makes them feel like more of a hero. Where is this kind of deep connection in the prequels?"Where in history did an evil mastermind trick two factions into fighting each other, so that he could manipulate the outcome to eliminate a third rival faction and take complete control? We already have no connection to the characters, and there goes the plot right there, so what's left? if there is no emotional connection then the movie is either a comedy, or hollow. Sure the prequels do a decent enough job at explaining everything, but so could a narrator in a few lines, but wait, that happened through Ben Kenobi, and Vader.

Duels: If you had 1,000,000 dollars given to you in a safe, would you hit it with a hammer and give up? Obviously not. In addition the emperor knew he could turn Luke, and he was correct, because he almost did. Luke giving into his anger and almost killing his own father seems like a successful attempt to me. I also feel the light saber battles themselves were on another level as the prequels'. The light saber duels of the original trilogy had meaning. they may not have been the best choreographed scenes but they didn't need to be. In fact that would have ruined the point. there was another layer of fighting with these duels. Not only was each character fighting physically and with the force, but there were also mind games, and important plot points that revolved around each one. The force is shown on many occasions to be more powerful than what the prequels reveal, for instance Luke destroying the death star with an impossible shot. Most importantly though, it is shown to be something that requires extensive training to ever master. On many occasions we see Luke struggling to use the force, and failing, due to his limited amount of time with Yoda. We see the rewards of devoting a life to mastering it appear through out the movies. In the prequels, every Jedi seems to already have these rewards. of course this is explained by them being trained since they were kids, but it ruins our view of the force. When we see characters, that are so unrelatable that they don't even seem human, using the force so easily, we begin to associate the force with being only obtainable by an inhuman character, thus removing any sense of difficulty or relatability with it.

Plot: What is the plot of the prequels, besides the story of Darth Vader? it certainly isn't persuading worlds to join the republic. The only persuading of any kind is done to further Palpatine's power. All of the world shown are just backgrounds to another cool battle scene that Lucas wanted to fit in. I guess that is the plot then. Everything that happened was a direct result of his rise to power. I actually would have very much liked this. Finding out that all of our hero's efforts had been for nothing because he was doomed from the start would have been a great ending. the problem again lies in the relatability. I already felt that each battle was for nothing, except perhaps some untold, uninteresting political or resource reason, because there is no noble cause for the war. No character or event was relatable, so there is no connection, and therefore interest. Neither army ever seemed to be losing at any point, so there was no tension. Standing alone, would they not have been better movies if the war mimicked the originals? Then we would feel more connected, and therefore more emotion as Palpatine manipulated all of the variables. It would make us despise him, and provide an excellent jumping off point for his introduction to the rest of the series, assuming they had been made second. There wasn't really any hate for him as he massacred the Jedi order, because to the average viewer they showed just about as much depth as a battle droid.

Closing: My point here is that relatabilty, emotion, and connection to the protagonist, and other characters are what make a movie good. There are reasons that all of the best movies mimic the concept of relatability the main one being so that we can get emotionally involved with the story. If the sole purpose of the prequels were to tell Vader's story, then I guess they did their job, just not well, and then they surrounded it with junk. This turned into the prequel movies, where everyone was too busy being distracted by CGI and their favorite characters, they never saw through that into the movies, which were at the absolute, very best mediocre.


You say your arguments aren't emotional but you continue to make points starting off with "I felt" the movie wasn't done poorly for the role they were made for. They were made to show us the genius that was palpatine who was the mastermind behind everything. Turning anakin to the dark side to create his loyal warrior, manipulating him as a kid. I disagree that the point of a protagonist is supposed to be someone that we can relate to. You see it all the time, can you relate to James bonds? He always gets the ladies, can you relate to Thor? Tony stark? You don't have to be able to relate to every part of the protagonist, anakin has his moment, his Jedi path or the love of his life. Love makes people do crazy things.

Again I told you why qui-gon and obi-wan tried to show little emotions, we got to see what's it's like to be a Jedi, and that's to be detached from emotions, Lucas wanted to make us think and question, do we want to be an emotionless Jedi? Or have the freedom of a sith? Before the prequel most people wanted to be Jedi's cause they are the good guys, but now everyone second guessed themselves. Maybe a sith isn't so bad. Because of this it brought us so many wonderful games and an expanded universe, you can't be inferior if tv show spinoffs were inspired by your movies.

Again with the battles you are to emotional about it. You want there to be relatability because you want it to be like the original trilogy when it's set up to be nothing like it. The battles weren't like WW2 because it wasn't so 1 sided. In fact it was prett even until butler attacked Russia and we had the advantage.

Duels: if there was 1 million dollars in a safe but I owned all the worlds wealth, it would be pointless to continue to try to continue breaking it. Vader and Palpatine already had all the power they needed with the deathstar, it was just a greed that didn't make sense. just because Their attempt to turn Luke was almost successful doesn't mean it was. Because obviously they died. If they were successful Luke would turned and they'd continue ruling the galaxy.

The plot of the prequels was to show us more of the universe, what its really like to be a Jedi, and have a unique ending that most films don't do, and that's having the bad guy win.

Closing: just because there is no relatability to the protagonist does not make it an inferior movie. The nostalgia goggles, and the fact it was completely different from the original trilogy is what blinded people from the diamond in the rough. The prequels were good and they did their job. It taught us more about the starwars universe, it made us think, it made us choose sides, Jedi vs Sith which would you prefer? It kept the universe alive by bein so controversial. one of the few stories where the bad guys wins.
Debate Round No. 3


I do apologize with the "I felt" statements. That is more of a force of habit for me than me implementing my opinion. Either way what I said I supported with facts from the movies. As from the story, yes that was of course what the prequels did at their most generalized definition. What I am saying is that the way they went about telling the story was at a much lower level than the original trilogy. Although I haven't seen the Bond or Thor movies, I have seen Iron Man, and I disagree. Tony Stark is someone that is completely unrelatable at the beginning of the movie yes, but that's ok for two reasons. One being there are people around him that we can relate to, and who have a significant part in the movie, and two because he grows as a person throughout the movies, while still retaining his bad***, sarcastic, super computer type of personality that is just fun to watch. We still care about what's going on, and the characters, particularly Stark, are interesting enough that they are entertaining to watch. I'm sure similar conclusions can be drawn from the other movies you listed. The problem in the prequels is that nothing at all is relative, and no character is interesting. This is not opinionated unless the person watching is a cult member, or a homicidal maniac. In addition, I had already said that relatability was something required in adventure movies where the audience cannot relate to anyone else but the protagonist. Would anyone honestly care about two ruthless, emotionless, repulsive looking alien armies with two alien "heroes" leading each one on a planet across the galaxy? People already have trouble caring about many of the conflicts going on right now, such as Syria, because they don't feel like they can relate to the population of the countries fighting. I think you missed my point of the converting Luke situation. The fact that they almost were able to convert Luke justifies they're attempt. It was clearly possible for them to convert him, so why wouldn't they have tried?
Overall conclusion:

Plot: The issue with the plot is that we cannot relate to anything. We wouldn't even care much about anything if we hadn't already seen the characters. Anakin is at best only relative in part of the second movie, and no one else shows any emotion, which in these movies is, apparently and unfortunately a requirement. While the movies tell an interesting story, they do so in the most bland way possible, in that they didn't give anything or anyone any depth. Because we don't care about the clones, droids, naboo, the Trade federation etc. everything about the movie suffers. The only interesting plot line with the only character that can be called relative, is buried under loads of crap that no one finds interesting. it may show us more of the universe, but that doesn't matter if the audience doesn't care about the universe.

Characters: In the original trilogy we have it all. Interesting, relative characters with normal, human emotions that mirror our own throughout the situations they are in. The characters in the prequels certainly aren't interesting, as they are all just different physical representations of the same static character. They aren't normal through their cult-like actions, and they don't mirror the audience's emotions throughout the movie. because of this we cannot relate to anything that is going on, meaning we would not care about anything that is going on if they hadn't already known the characters. This means that watching these movies without ever having seen the original trilogy, would result in a static, boring viewing experience.
Relatability is something seen in any major adventure film because it is needed. If we can't relate, we can't care. if we don't care, then we never feel any tension. If we don't feel tension, then there is no interest. It doesn't matter what cool battles there are, or how many planets we see, or what we leaned about the force. As a trilogy that stands alone the prequels just don't come up to par with even the worst of the originals because all they contain is empty action sequences, along with boring political debates.

As a final piece of consideration, I would like to present review scores for the six movies. These scores are averages from IMDb, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes, which are themselves averages of a large pool of reviews from normal people. This is to show that people who are not critics had similar viewing experience as I did. All scores are out of 100.
Phantom Menace: 60
Attack of the Clones: 64
Revenge of the Sith: 76.33
A New Hope: 91
Empire Strikes back: 90.33
Return of the Jedi: 81.66

i would like to thank my opponent for reading through my arguments, and for the clear amount of hard work he put into his own. This has been a very entertaining debate and i look forward to my opponent's last statements and the results!


It's been a good debate but I'm gonna make my closing as brief as possible.

I'll start off with my main point. Just because a movie is different from your expectations does not make it Significantly inferior.
The Luke conversion was forced to keep the story going. Again there is no point in trying to convert someone when you have all the power in the galaxy without him already nothing will change. Now if Vader was trying to secretly convert him to overthrow palpatine that would have made for an even better story. As palpatine constantly spies on Vader to show that the Siths always betray each other.
People have also related to anakin even though it's not right away. We see he is able to love and risk everything for love. Who hasn't? Again the emotionless Jedi's were on purpose it's not that they should be relatable but to make us think. Are Jedi's really all that good if they are so emotionally detached? While the sith played the role of expressing emotions. The original showed Luke struggling between sith and Jedi, however he doesn't truly become a true because he doesn't Toss away his entire emotions. He is closer to a gray Jedi just.
You say the writing is inferior but I believe it is superior. It's not obvious and in your face like the original trilogy was however it was more subtle with hidden meanings, more poetic. And to be able to pick up the hidden meaning means you are looking at more than just the big picture. Analyze the Jedi's and sith in the prequels and you see that neither is good. The Jedi's were extreme on one end and so were the sith. There was no balance even with the Jedi's in control
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jtp23 9 months ago
Jar jar binks is a sith master
Posted by tajshar2k 9 months ago
The originals were actually rated worse than the prequels. Originally the New Hope was rated 74% on rotten tomatoes.
Posted by TheRealGod 9 months ago
Yea circular I knew that what your argument would have been, I would have rebuttle With how the reviews were bias from the original prequels etc etc
Posted by tajshar2k 9 months ago
The prequels weren't that bad, Episode 3 was the best out of all of them.
Posted by CircularLogic 9 months ago
Well that's my main point, Lucas didn't make a good movie. He just threw as much as he could in order to make money off of action figures, videogames and so much more. The only reason the movies themselves got so much money is simply because they were Star Wars movies. So many people were hyped about them that no matter how good or bad they were gonna be, they were still going to make absurd amounts of money.
Posted by Midnight1131 9 months ago
Really? Cause it did insanely well concerning how much money it made.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 9 months ago
My Dad told me that when the first Star Wars came out, it was so bad and so inferior to local films that he couldn't help laughing throughout the movie...
Posted by TheRealGod 9 months ago
I believe the BOP wasn't to prove the prequels were significantly better but signfacantly inferior, unless you mean originals were significantly superior
Posted by tajshar2k 9 months ago
Rest of the rounds

Con makes the same mistake Pro makes in the first round. Instead of trying to defend his actual claim, this goes on and on, so I"ll not going to cover this, since this isn"t really convincing for either side.

Pro finally makes a really good argument by presenting the scores. he demonstrates that the Originals got much better scores than the Prequels, and the fact that Con didn"t refute this is a huge blow.

I have to give Pro the win, because he argued how the Originals had more story, and how they actual ratings were much better. Con beat Pro on Graphics and Lightsabers, but It wasn"t enough.

Pro wins
Posted by tajshar2k 9 months ago
Round 2 Pro

Pro attempts to try show how characters like Qui Gonn and Mace Windu were static, so we didn"t care about them. Pro doesn"t explain HOW they are static, which does hurt his case.

This is sort of a concession. Pro concedes the battles looked better with the CGI, his analogy to Avatar is kind of pointless unfortunately.

Pro is arguing for something in the story, but the topic was lightsabers, so this is off topic. Also Pro is just arguing more about the story, which isn"t really convincing.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 9 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This vote is from the Voter's Union. Please see comments.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 9 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a vote from the Voter's Union. RFD IN COMMENTS. If either side has any issues with this vote feel free to contact me.