I frankly don't think the prequels are that bad and are at the same level of quality as the ~~sequels~~ original trilogy, precisely because the ~~sequels~~ original trilogy was just as corny and cringe. That being said, I enjoy both.

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

This is something I've struggled to articulate: both are corny, both are cringe, but each carries the corniness and cringe of it's time: the prequels still carry early 2000s vibes (more earnest in their dumbness, more optimistic about technology, more inclined to introduce New Stuff) while the sequels are suffused with late 2010s cornycringe: whedon/marvel dialogue, more cynical, nostalgia bait/remember this thing, they fly now, and a both in-movie and meta-movie inability to move beyond the circumstances and dynamics (and same fucking characters, even) that were put in place by those who came before. Seemingly more of an aversion to New Stuff.

Neither is great, but it's interesting to look at the tree rings to determine the different ways in which they're not great, and when the microplastics started to seep in.

[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 4 points 2 days ago

Oh, maybe I misspoke because I'm not huge into Star Wars.

I meant Episode 1-6 are the same to me. I'm not talking about the recent Disney ones. I thought the original 3 were called the sequels.

[–] lil_tank@hexbear.net 7 points 2 days ago

I agree but I'm biased because I grew up with them. I understand both positions, in fact I don't really care, in fact maybe no one should really care about treats that much