The Problem With Prequels 

You credit the Hobbit book as a good prequel at 17:19 but it came out before LOTR. The trilogy was a sequel to Hobbit. It wasn't a prequel to the trilogy. No malice intended, just an observation.

wow, you shun all the best movies that I have scene.

The Hobbit book came out first.

I was aware, I meant it more as an example of what a good prequel should look like.

@@CenterRow OK Keep up the good work.

Yes!

Disney: cat goes prrrrrrrrrrrr

I like that better, I never grew up in the comics, I was born in 2002 so I like that type of thing better

I never grew up with the comics but him losing his eye it a cat is stupid as hell

Idk i liked the cat

I was going to comment this but checked to see if someone else have.

Hence why it works so well!

@@CenterRow But the book still isn't a prequel man.

Damon Lawson Yeah but what is he meant to do, ACKNOWLEDGE his mistake? You expect too much from your average RU-vidr

Yep. It's was also written like 20 years before the the fellowship of the ring, and has a very different tone than lord of the rings, being somewhat less serious and more comedic. Calling the Hobbit book a prequel is like saying the Sorcerer's stone is a great prequel of the deathly hallows.

Agreed!

Which is why I always recommend that you should ditch the old theatrical release order and instead watch them in episodic order, as they were intended

My god that's a simple yet genius aspect!

@@BatTCK which is a good idea but when studios pump out prequels after you've watch a sequel....xD

Moses Hrangbung I understand old fans loving release order because they saw the sequels (OT) first, but a huge pet peeve of mine is when people introduce new fans to Star Wars using release order. If they’ve never seen any Star Wars before, show it to them in episodic order, the order it’s supposed to be viewed in Edit: I do understand your statement, but now that all of the Star Wars films have been released and there’s no real barrier (other than OT purist gatekeepers) preventing new fans from watching the films in episodic order, I don’t think it’s that strong of an argument

Hopefully!

Hasbro confirmed it’s a reboot.

@@shinndig1293 Good

It's a confirmed reboot. That's why the timelines don't add up at all. In the original live-action Transformers franchise Bumblebee arrived on Earth in 2004, not sometime in the 80s. The Bumblebee movie is completely separate from any other Transformers films, hence why it ignores all the lore that was built up the last 13 years.

Bumblebee was good because Michael Bay had nothing to do with it.

Couldn’t agree more

I love it as well! But it has some issues I feel are common to prequels.

I always loved all three of the prequels

Noooooooooooo

Much like Monty Python it’s been memed so much that it doesn’t feel like it’s worth watching again.

Thank you!

But with a sequel, you can take what people loved about the original and add to it, with advanced technologies, new discoveries, higher stakes. With a prequel, the goal of "going bigger" and the goal of "going backward" clash.

As Gary Kurtz put it when discussing prequels to Star Wars he basically said he dislikes the idea of a prequel because you paint yourself into a corner trying to get the story to where it has to end up (paraphrasing).

I personally think sequels are better than the original.

Prequels typically suffer considerable more restrictions than sequels, though, so their track record is much worse. Sequels have the option to expand upon the original, usually laid right before them. Prequels, however, have a laundry list of things they have to address for continuity reasons before they even start to work on new material. (Unless they find a way to insulate themselves considerably from the original.... which some of the good ones in this video actually do.)

He specifically calls the book a prequel at 17:20

He was talking about the book, not the films (of course the films are bad prequels, but not the book that was completed over two decades before the LOTR books were finished). Fun fact, In the original publication of The Hobbit book, the ring was just a magical ring that made you invisible, and nothing else. (aside from a plot device that Bilbo used to get out of a jam). The ‘one ring’ story hadn’t been devised by Tolkien yet, so in the later publications he added some stuff in subsequent printings of The Hobbit to give it more gravitas and link up to the larger narrative he was coming up with for LOTR (like Bilbo lying about how he escaped and about having the ring, because he was already becoming possessive of it). Tolkien himself adapted The Hobbit a little bit to fit in as a prequel to LOTR after the fact.

The book is not a fucking prequel, stop defending a lazy person who fails to acknowledge their mistakes.

Yeah lotr was released like 20 years after the hobbit

Yes, but it serves the function of a prequel well so it's an example of how to do one properly

@@CenterRow Sorry, I don't buy it. You're saying that the way to "do one properly" is to have already written it years before. A good "proper" prequel, IMO, would be "The Magician's Nephew" as prequel to "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe."

Well said.

Center Row It’s literally not a prequel in any way. Stop doubling down & acknowledge you got it wrong, you’re just making yourself look dumb.

Haha fair enough

@@CenterRow I have a theory about the eye scene. I view it as more than just a cheap gag (which is its by the way). In Captain Marvel, we actually learn that Nick Fury isn't the badass he pretends to be. His is an ordinary person in a world with shape shifting aliens and a woman who shoots blasts of energy out of her hands exist. He also lost his eye in a rather humiliating way. So the whole attitude is him compensating. He is scared. He hides this behind an act of toughness. If the story behind how he lost his eye was the same as the one he told Captain America in Winter Soldier, it would be less satisfying for me. That is because said reveal would have been what I already knew. However the cat reveal in my mind adds depth to the character. He is an ordinary person in a world of titans. His eye patch is a reminder of this.

Bobby Ranger I still think it undermines the character he was set up to be... I’d rather not ruin such a brilliant moment from the winter soldier showing a hardened man leading a gobal security agency in fields like espionage and intelligence. This moment in captain marvel, while it’s actually an interesting idea the way you talk about it, is still an extremely disappointing “subversion of expectations” from what nick fury is established as. This would have been a good move if the character wasn’t so well established in the series; explore a softer side of him, show he’s just human. However, Nick fury as we see him through the mainline avengers story is a battle hardened, intelligent man, who has learned from experience not to trust people. This line in winter soldier helps to reinforce how SERIOUS a character nick fury is, how he has to be ruthless and cunning in his world. The fury we see in captain marvel seems more like his happy go lucky younger brother than the fury we have in avengers. I don’t think him losing an eye to a space cat, which is a plot point almost out of a cartoon, leads to him not trusting people in the deadly arena of international espionage. It’s an undoing of his character that shows a charming and friendly side of him, a side I like, and a side that just doesn’t match what we know nick fury to be. Maybe this could work, but there has to be more explanation into how he changed from this silly Everyman into the hardened head of shield, and I think that if a movie were to explore this, it would have a more serious scenario that damages his eye further (this might even be a good moment to show that he must adapt to a serious, dark world... take his eye for real rather than just the scratch from before, it would actually be an excellent character moment)

@@willmungas8964 this is what i had in mind

>anti-climax Le sUbVeRsIoN Of eXpEcTaTiOnS XD

exactly!!!

ToolTime agreed. *looks pointedly at Kathleen Kennedy*

Clone Wars is indeed a great show that fleshes out the prequels in amazing ways. The issue being, a lot of what's there should've been in the movies first.

Yeah, I really enjoyed it and all, but I still think it would have been better if Rebels came after. It's still a testament to the show that I was on the edge of my seat even though I knew how it would end; however, I think it would have hit home a million times harder if it weren't for Rebels.

@@Zakatak-mf4iq True, it would've been so much better if I hadn't already known who was going to live and die. Still, I'm pretty sure Siege of Mandalore was already planned before they made Rebels, it's just hat the show as cancelled. So in that case, it's the fault of whoever decided to cancel the show, not the fault of the writers.

Red Dead 2 is amazing.

Gaming has a lot of great prequels.

I’m playing red dead redemption 2 right now and had no idea that John was the main character of the first one, not Arthur

(Watch the ending of the video)

Even if there are lots of ways to tell a great story with a prequel, it is inherently limiting your creativity. A story has millions of options. Good or bad. A prequel, having to have some things end a certain way limits your creative options. You can tell a great story in a regular movie. You can tell a great story in a prequel. But your options are limited in a prequel that they aren't in another movie. Example: What can we do with Chewy? Lots of different options. He can die saving Han. Nope can't do that because he has to be alive in A New Hope. That's a limit. Does it mean you can't still write a great story? No. But the statement is that it limits your creativity.

Did you even watch the video?

Porfirio Rubirosa it is limiting to some degree - even if it is a small one. Because there are SOME things absolutely cannot do with the story. Even if it’s only a few things it’s STILL a limit.

@@misterfaust1 Honestly, I see that as a boon. Creatives make their best works when limits are put on them.

True!

Center Row that The Hobbit isn’t actually a Lord of The Rings prequel?

@@thevfxmancolorizationvfxex4051 To both statements.

Wasn't lotr a sequel to hobbit? If we're going by the books

@@PP-kx9ec I believe that LOTR started life as a sequel to The Hobbit, but eventually became it's own self contained story

yeah i think the prequels are a mix of good and bad but the good certainly outweighs the bad in my opinion

Porfirio Rubirosa Rogue One is probably the best Star Wars film Disney have produced so far!

Porfirio Rubirosa Rogue One is masterfully written. Change my mind.

If I made a prequal I'd want it to be a good introduction to someone who hasn't seen the sequels but also interesting for those who have

Rogue One isn't perfect but it's shot and directed brilliantly, and it gets you to care about all the characters even though you know they all die.

@@JohnDRuddyMannyMan The Last Jedi. Don’t change my mind

Well said! I love the story the prequels are trying to tell and I feel if they were executed slightly better they would have been masterpieces.

Center Row that’s why I feel like they have such a weird place in the “prequels are a bad idea” argument. Ironically if they had been executed well they may have been an argument on how prequels can be a GOOD idea.

The Star Wars Prequels also flesh out the Jedi and Sith philosophies, their differences, and their subtle similarities. Palpatine's conversation with Anakin at the theater in ROTS does an excellent job at deconstructing the audience's perception of the Jedi and reveals the unfortunate truth that some heroes deserve their fall.

I actually think Lucas's first pass with the prequel movies made Anakin's fall to evil more realistic and substantive while the Clone Wars TV show retconned Anakin to accommodate people who empathized with him more than other characters. Movie Anakin was always a bad guy and Clone Wars Anakin is never a bad guy. To recap Anakin in the movies: 1) Anakin acts like a put upon victim in Attack of the Clones' first act because Obi-Wan talks down to him off-screen. 2) When Anakin is hanging out with Padme in the field of flowers, he admits he wishes the Republic was actually a fascist dictatorship. 3) When Anakin's mother is kidnapped, he commits a mass murder after rescuing her, including slaughtering a bunch of helpless children. 4) In Revenge of the Sith he murders the unarmed Dooku. 5) Anakin is placed on the Council solely due to his friendship with Palpatine, then he gets angry when his powerful friend can't just give him the role of Jedi Master. 6) When he witnesses a fight between Mace and Palpatine, he cuts Mace's arm off for trying to kill the force-lightning spewing Palpatine. While he originally says it's about justice, he later admits he just wants his power. (This is made more hypocritical by the fact Anakin did worse in the first act of the film.) But Anakin in the TV show is free from canon. You can watch a version of Anakin who never struggles with his constant, pervasive moral failings and is instead treated as a freewheeling space cowboy who plays by his own rules and wants the best for everyone. And that's a nicer character, one who feels more tragic in the long run, but that's not the Anakin from the movies at all.

MrBazBake huh, interesting point. You’re certainly not wrong, but considering how Luke sensed the good inside of Vader and how Obi-Wan described him in A New Hope I feel like, even if it was a bit of a retcon to his portrayal in the movies, clone wars Anakin was who Anakin was supposed to be in Lucas’ mind.

They also focus mostly on new characters. We genuinely don't know how their stories will end.

Quirderph exactly! It’s fun trying to work out the parentage of Jen and Kira’s parentage!

Hence why The clone wars works so well.

The best prequel of all time

Last of us 2 terrible sequel

Man, I wish that had been the case. A mockumentary about fantastic beasts sounds fun.

True! Probably why it's a good one!

Center Row No that’s why it’s not a prequel at all, but sure, keep finding creative ways to not admit you made a mistake.

@@Toribot but he agreed with you. Why you still being rude.

its important to distingush between the book and the film the book is not a prequel and is good the film is a prequel and is not so good

Oh wow, I just started playing it and had no idea!

Totally agree

I disagree with the idea that the sequel trilogy isnt salvagable. Force Awakens suffered mostly from harkening back to the original trilogy too much to try and make up for the complaints the prequels got for being too different, but otherwise was a really well made movie and probably my personal favourite Star Wars movie (Yeah, shoot me). Last Jedi was a really mixed bag where Rey and Luke's plot was great while the other two plotlines were some of Star Wars at it's worst. Rewriting those parts would likely have given us a great Star Wars movie. Rise of Skywalker on the other hand is quite possibly the worst Star Wars movie ever made and should have been redone entirely. Overall the trilogy's biggest problem was a lack of focus, and it's insane that Disney didn't have a concise plan for something they invested so much money into. Had the people leading the projects actually collaborated together we could have gotten a much more solid trilogy.

Ferhog I think the only thing salvageable from the sequels is the ideas of the new characters: Rey, Finn, and Kyle Ren, and that’s about it. The first order is a dumb idea and everything else in the story either undermines the earlier works of stories or is just plain ridiculous. My opinion would be to throw that whole series on the trash and keep the characters and change the idea of what happened to Kyle ren to make him evil, also changing the idea that Rey was Palestine’s daughter, unless it would lead to an interesting dark side twist or something. Other than that, the rest needs to be out.

Ferhog I liked TROS more than TLJ and I mean a lot more it was trash although the force awakens was good

I think people tend to forgot how the prequels did a great job of expanding the star wars universe and making the original trilogy even better

Yup!

It’s a good book though, I’m 2/3 of the way through it

@@wormie077 - I’m not a Hunger Games fan, so I’m probably never going to read it. I’ve watched several reviews about it, and there are certain choices the author makes that I consider disappointing. That said, I’m glad you’re enjoying it!

Exactly!

Thats only ONE of them... theres more than just that, as stated on the video and I couldn't agree more with its content.

@@pedroandrade79 There are other reasons, sure, but this is the most important one. At least to me. That's why I never manage to mustered the strength to watched The Hobbit.

Idk, everyone knew how Titanic end, but the journey was what matters. Shakeaspeare began Romeo and Juliet saying the couple would die, but the romance was still compeling. If knowing the end was a demeaning factor, no mo ie would be worth rewatching.

Idk about you but when I watched TCW S7 I was on the edge of my seat for the finale because I was so enthralled with the story. Even though I knew what would happen I was still shocked when that certain thing happened. Even when you know what will happen if the story is good enough you'll become engrossed in it.

Totally agree!

LOTR released nigh-on twenty years AFTER The Hobbit - hence why The Hobbit is simple and childish and LOTR is much more detailed and mature: the audience grew up during the wait.

@@Tedris4 Very true.

True

The LoTR books are a sequel to The Hobbit. The Hobbit FILMS are a prequel to LoTR.

Exactly

They are so good.

Just call it the Ceaser Trilogy

Agreed actually. It's one thing that irritates me often, but like anything, if well written it can work marvelously.

I too am worried

Interesting. I too think this is a better direction

Exactly!

Agreed, it’s probably the best prequel out there. Primarily ,IMO, because it shows Indy becoming the person he is in Raiders. It lends weight to Belloq’s line in the bar “Our methods are so different as you like to pretend. It would take only a nudge to make you like me. To push you out of the light”. That touched a nerve with Indy because he’s only recently left the private collection mercenary archeologist lifestyle behind. So many people don’t even know it’s a prequel, that’s how well done it is!

It is a prequel?

Domino 1650k tbh, I’d not consider Temple of Doom a prequel. Heck, I wouldn’t even consider The Last Crusade a sequel. None of the events of the 3 movies seem to feel connected or are referenced in any way. To me, it’s 3 incredible, fun, exciting adventures with Indiana and some sidekicks.

@@joeyjerry1586 that's the reason I love indiana Jones so much is because they are just fun independent movies

But the difference is Solo and Rogue One aren't canon since neither have Lucas's involvement. I won't accept them as official canon since Star Wars the main story was George's story. Just because he sold the company off (something I know he regrets doing) doesn't change anything. It's like someone taking Stephen King's The Stand and adding a bunch of adventures of Stu Redmond before he meets up with Mother Abagail. It doesn't belong because it's not what the original author intended it to be. That is how I see Disney meddling with Star Wars, it's not theirs to screw with. What should have happened with Star Wars is they made completely new films OUTSIDE of the original 6 films that have no bearing on those 6 films. They needed to start completely new and they wouldn't have had the backlash they have gotten in recent years.

@@LUCKO2022 For canon-only viewers the entire topic is a moot point, so why comment on it at all?

That makes more sense

Well Hasbro doesn't even know what it wants it to be

It's so good

I think Better Call Saul is the quintessential prequel Story. Maybe even better than Breaking Bad.

Exactly!

A Star Wars game from the 2000s actually has this sort of Twist.

Yes. Yes you do.

Indeed! In my opinion compared to breaking bad, better call saul is the infinitely more compelling narrative! Though, I loved it at the time and still hold in high regard... Breaking bad's structure, plotting and pacing almost seems hackneyed next to Saul... Not to mention bad's overuse, and increasing reliance (especially during both parts of the final 5th season) on cheap "last 10 seconds of episode WTF?!! Shocker" tactics... Saul is just the more competently crafted narrative progression.

I'd agree!

It's SO good!

I actually agree. It's one thing I can find irritating in prequels, but when done right it can be used as an advantage.

I haven't played it, but now I want to!

MGS3 and MGS1 are the two best entry points for the series. So yeah you should give it a shot!

Did you read the book?

"...the epicness of both trilogy combined." That's the problem with it. _The Hobbit_ was not an epic, it was a fun kid's book about a stick-in-the-mud character learning to become more adventurous, and trying to cram an "epic" story line into it worked as poorly as it did for the godawful Tim Burton _Alice In Wonderland_ from 10 years ago.

Exactly. He said *most*

Perfect example!

Your right that would make It the best prequel.

It is quite good

It's just so bad

Prediction. It is going to be retconned by making that woman the person they named the snake after.

Run out of ideas? When did they ever run out if ideas? I mean the clone wars and everything was Lucas's vision from the very beginning.

The sequels ran out of ideas or didn’t care to even form a new story. The prequels were a beautiful mess of ideas from George.

I feel the tone of the first half of Fellowship would have fit the Hobbit movies great, I felt they were trying too hard to make it into Return of the King.

Center Row yeah especially the third one the battle was a pretty poorly done but was still more entertaining than the battle in the book

DaVinci, the problem with the Hobbit was the many changes to the story away from the book (if I am incorrect concerning any of these, please forgive me as I only watched them once a couple years ago). 1) The entire goblin fight in the plain. 2) Azog surviving the battle of Moria, and his return. 3) Their stop in Rivendell. 4) Their entire encounter with the Goblins in the mountains. 5) How Bilbo became separated from the group. 6) The riddle game. 7) Bilbo's escape from Gollum and the caves. 8) The entire climax of the first movie. 9) The trip through Mirkwood. 10) Legolas. 11) Love Triangle 12) A Silvan Elf and a Dwarf falling in love. 13) Orcs in upper Mirkwood. 14) Two sides of the love triangle assisting the dwarves by killing aforementioned orcs. 15) Legolas in Lake Town, or anywhere else for that matter. 16) The entire climax of the second movie (maybe I should have just laid claim against the entirety of the second movie since my criticism eliminated so much of it). 17) The death of Lake Towns Master. 18) Bard killing Smaug using his son. 19) The Master's idiot underling. 20) Dragon sickness. 21) Thorin's dragon sickness. 22) Gandalf's imprisonment in Dol Guldur. 23) Galdalf's rescue from Dol Guldur. 24) Sauron manifesting himself as himself in Dol Guldur. 25) Galadriel being sent to Lothlorian for her recovery. 26) The Nine in Dol Guldur. 27) The Battle of Five Armies. 28) Death of Azog. 29) Death of Bolg. 30) Death of Fili. 31) Death of Kili. 32) Death of Thorin. 33) Legolas traveling to Angmar from the Lonely Mountain. 34) The love Triangle issue again!! 35) The death of the Master's servant (though personally I enjoyed it, and it was the most enjoyable part of the battle). 36) Thorin's recovery from dragon sickness. I am certain that I have forgotten some detail or other that contributed to the hatred this movie gets, but these are the major problems where the movie deviated widely from the source material. I am not in disagreement that things needed fleshed out for tge battle as we only have Biblo's point of view, and he is removed from events rather quickly and only hears rather than sees events. However, it was the above deviations that made people upset.

Jay T you are incorrect on a lot of this and I don’t know if you have read the book. You also repeated your self many times to make the list longer. In some scenes they added a bit more action to it just like lord of the rings movies. Other stuff that was briefly mentioned in the book was give more screen time like where Gandalf disappears to because in the book he kinda just leaves. And like I said I really enjoyed middle earth and the lord so I’m not mad that we got to stay longer in this world

@@davinci3478, reread my list again. I did not often repeat myself, and many of their "additions" were direct contradictions of the history of the original tale as told by Tolkien. I own and have read the original book many times since I was a child. Azog was slain before the doors of Moria 90 years prior to Bilbo's birth. Bolg is slain by Beorn. Legolas never appears in the Hobbit, and Killi never has a romantic relationship with an elf. The Master dies in the wilderness after stealing from his citizens. Bard shoots Smaug with the Black Arrow from his own bow. Angmar was a realm to the Northeast of the Shire on the opposite side of the Misty Mountains from the Lonely Mountain. Smaug destroyed the door tge dwarves came through, but he never challenged them in his own halls. Thorin was obsessed with the Stone, not with the gold, to the point he was willing to cut a deal for it. When the orcs, attacked he emerged in full battle armor ready to assist the others. I could go on proving my case instance by instance, and I do not criticize all the choices made, but the movies are an insult to a great many of us because of the more than 30 errors I pointed out. Yes, I did repeatedly mention Legolas not being where he was because he never appeared in the story at all!! Further none of the deaths were book accurate either. I have issues with the adaptation of tge Lord of the Rings, but in general they were more book adherent than the Hobbit. I am not criticizing you for enjoying them, but let us not lie about their quality as an adaptation.

Interesting!

Love me some Reach

Torna: The Golden Country

@ChestHighWalls was it? I thought it was after. Edit: turns out it was being written at the same time Halo CE was being developed. It was published a month before the game released. Wow never knew that.

I honeslty like all 3 hobbits and star wars prequels

I think everyone is well aware of those problems

@@CenterRow Absolutely!! Lol Great video by the way, subscribed!

Scott Napier yeah as a prequel it pretty much only tells of how the ring ended up in the shire for Bilbo to get it. Which is still covered in LotR. Aside from that the events are entirely separate from the story of LotR.

@@scottnapier943 Thanks!

Sometimes I feel like the only person who loves the Last Jedi. It does away with the callbacks that 7 & 9 suffer from.

Yes!

I actually made a video on the subject: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KW_WsE65wr0.html

Ha! Wish I could, feel free to send it to all your famous Hollywood producer friends!

I have a lot of love for them too, but they still have flaws.

@@CenterRow true

Except you don’t even get to see him killing them, it just cuts

Joe R.G well it’s the fact that he did that matters

D.C. Kennedy it was one of the most promising parts of that movie and they cut it

Joe R.G well it do be like that sometimes

D.C. Kennedy it doesn’t have to be though

Overexplaining is a good way to put it

I think those Xmen films where simply trying to tell a great story. The goal wasn't to add more or explain (overexplain) the characters and events we enjoy from the first films. Personally I wish the SW prequels focused more on characters and story rather than showing us Darth Vader actually built C3PO or that Yoda and Chewy were actually friends all this time....

You can still enjoy something while acknowledging it's flaws!

@@CenterRow "prequels freaking suck. Are you thinking about making a prequel? Stop, don't." I understand if you don't like prequels, I respect all opinions. But that statement is very subjective. And in my opinion; you can't be a critique without being objective.

Exactly! I love the Star Wars prequels also among others but I guess jumping on the hate wagon is more fun.

They are bad. It's just you were too young when they came out to know any better.

PasserMontanus They’re not bad. It’s just that you were too old when they came out to know any better. (These types of dumb excuses in debates make you lose credibility and makes it appear you have a lack of information.)

I did love Schreiber in the film. And Ryan Reynolds. It's a well casted film, just not very well written.

Interesting!

I had completely forgotten its existence until I made this

I actually like the movie and that's because I don't know it's a prequel? what's the original movie?

Yeah, that's a fantastic example!

Ooo, haven't played it yet

@@CenterRow I guess I have to mention that it's VR only so only a select number of fans get to play it.

Giffy it is a prequel but it also has some time travel elements so It’s kind of a prequel and a sequel at the same time

Purty much

Rise of skywalker is way better than phantom menace

Joao Francisco, The Last Jedi is so so so much worse and Attack of the Clones is worse than The Phantom Menace imo. At least Rise of Skywalker and Phantom Meance were entertaining and had a clear plot and had some damn great action sequences. The Last Jedi was so boring and did not even have a story and Attack had 2 subplots going on.

SW(ANH) = TESB = ROTJ > ROTS = TLJ = Rogue One > TPM = TFA = Solo > AOTC = TROS

Hydra Spectre Personally I think Revenge of the sith is the best Star Wars movie just barely better than any of the OG trilogy movies, but I know that’s a bit controversial.