That said, I enjoyed it more than I remembered. The film grew worse and worse in my mind as a memory, but rewatching I appreciated it more and was mentally prepared to block out Jar Jar Binks from being quite so annoying.

Phantom Menace: 'The Liam Neeson One'
The Clone Wars: 'Sappy Love Crap'
Revenge of the Sith: 'Genocide is Cool Now'
A New Hope: 'Ooh Brown Hair Harrison Ford'
The Empire Strikes Back: 'The Ending is Crap'
Return of the Jedi: 'Blowing up the Death Star... Again'
The Force Awakens: 'Black Guy' OR 'Some Whore'

"Is Phantom Menace full of racism?" - You are hypersensitive with regards to seeing racism everywhere. The real villains in Star Wars are, after all, evil cisgendered white males (even though they may be wearing facial prosthetics/masks and lots of makeup). Or stand-ins for the obese (Jabba the Hut) or self-employed entrepreneurs (Boba Fett).

"Favourite film?" - Empire Strikes Back, of course.

"Are the prequel trilogy really much worse than the original trilogy?" - Yes. Of that, there should be no question by anyone with any genuine taste or sense.

It's all about the original.

Haha, I'm glad Tolstoy is here to close down the discussion with the correct opinions.

I completely agree the Origunals are far superior. The prequel almost feel like American TV movies, particularly Episode II. But it'd be nice to hear from anyone who can make a case for why they really enjoy them

I never did really get into the prequel trilogy.
Samuel Jackson was the highlight for me.

I'm very excited about TFA. I think Abrams did an excellent job with Star Trek; I expect Star Wars to be just as good.

The only enjoyment was it continued the series. Most likely Disney butchers the continuation of the series. Not that the films won't be enjoyable to watch at least once, but they could ruin the name.

"But it'd be nice to hear from anyone who can make a case for why they really enjoy them" To find a person such, impossible it is.

Ha. Probably true, that is.

I agree with able, I was really impressed with the Star Wars reboot (timeline issues aside), I think TFA will be and so far looks great.

Yes, the prequels sucked. Young Anakin was a better actor but was portrayed poorly. Even WITH the force, how many 10 year Olds can build droids like a boss, accidentally pilot a starship and score a huge victory as a result and win the affections of a much older girl.
Anakin was a whiny wuss, obnoxious and had poor acting skills.
The movies had the only forgettable prophecy ever, the Gungans were only there for horrible comic relief and made me hate Gungans entirely, Jar Jar was more than horrible and the movies as a whole were geared toward a 10 - year-old mentality.

#3 was better, although I'm REALLY looking forward to the new ones. I know Ford, Hamill and Fischer play supporting roles but all I gotta say is that I believe Abrams will focus on the more adult viewers, and THAT in itself is enough to draw excitement.

@Tolstoy

I think there are a few 'convenient' themes. The Jedi as American peacekeepers. Strong, but not able to stop all the evil. The blockades on smaller countries can easily refer to problems in the Middle East or Balkans or China. Remember this was made in 1999. The gungans could be parallels to african tribes, but they could also just be: Tribes. that's a bit more of a stretch. The corrupt EU is seen, BUT THEN AGAIN, that could just be congress, and this film could be from a Conservatives point of view. Altogether, it's less racist than it is playing on a few stereotypes. and stupid.

Empire? really? I like Hoth, but the rest of it is so... down. 6 is a fun one, and so is 4, it's one of those 2 for me.

the original 3 were a teeny too melodramatic, but not bad. If Lucas had decided to actually start with episode 1 (poorer quality in graphics, but perhaps a more refined story), then episode 3 would be hailed as the greatest shock of all time. Still, as they were made, the originals were better

I'm just really glad George Lucas isn't directing The Force Awakens.

I finished watching the full prequel trilogy. It wasn't as bad as it had grown to become in memory but, still, so much of the acting was C-grade TV melodrama. Ewan McGregor gave an interview on Friday where he effectively blamed George Lucas' terrible directing for actors not delivering: I thought there was also far too much focus on CGI characters and not enough use of the really experienced actors they pulled in: Christopher Lee's Count Dooku could have been used and expanded to be so much better; equally, Samuel L Jackson should have had more to do; it seems like Lucas just relied on Samuel L turning up and doing Samuel L for small segments of each film.

"I'm very excited about TFA. I think Abrams did an excellent job with Star Trek; I expect Star Wars to be just as good."

You just invalidated every opinion you have about movies in my mind.

@☺: Do you dislike Star Trek XI and XII? Apart from the the timeline issues, I thought Star Trek XI had a lot of strong positives, so I'd be interested to know why you dislike it.

The Star Trek remakes were entertaining but routine action movies; inoffensive, almost to the point of being boring IMO. Into Darkness was especially boring since the plot beats basically matched the first one in a glaringly obvious Save the Cat fashion.

I can definitely see that, they certainly weren't high cinema, but Star Trek XI were a breath of fresh air after Insurrection and Nemesis. Better than average narrative complexity. Witty/funny script. Stylish and well shot. Very high visual value. Good enough for fans but also engaging enough for non-Star Trek fans to get into.

I agree that Star Trek XII wasn't adding much depth or new material though.

If you actually look at the cast for the prequels, the acting talent there is huge. Christopher Lee, Samuel L Jackson, Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, Natalie Portman. Huge names who are very, very talented. Consensus is that Lucas was such a horrible director and wrote such a horrible script that there was little the actors could do to save it.

That said - I think the 3rd movie by itself is quite a good movie. I think it sets up the OT very nicely. But that's just me.

Favorite of them all? A New Hope

Lucas is known to be a terrible director. In the originals, he was so focus on the special effects (which he is great at) that he had to offload the script and directing to others. For the prequels, he could have others do all the CGI and he was too big a name for people to stop his shitty directing.

@goldfiner: Indeed, I have "actually" looked at the cast. The 5 names you mention are of course huge. But I think some of the supporting cast did not deliver, partly through poor directing, poor script, but also their inappropriate casting.

Star Trek XI was decent. A solid movie.

Into Darkness was the worst of any of the Star Trek movies, Nemesis (which was pretty bad) and Insurrection (which I liked a lot) included.

To be clear, I won't go see another Abrams Star Trek Movie.

I tried re-watching Into Darkness the other day and it was so mindblowingly awful and an insult to everything I like about Star Trek that I had to stop.

For me, the original Star Wars was easily the best, but of all the Star Wars/Trek films, for me the one I enjoyed most was VI, The Undiscovered Country; it was by no means perfect, but in the context of the ST universe it shifted perspectives.... Best series was TNG 3, where the interplay between Guinan and the principals created a continuing dramatic subplot that always intrigued. In Voyager they felt the need of a similar 'Outsider' character and thus Felix appeared. For the record, I hated any episode with Q in it; don't put gods into a science fiction movie, it just doesn't bloody well work.

Smiley is generally correct in his assesment of the Abrams Star Trek reboot but for one thing: none of them were quite as bad as Star Trek V.

The new Star Trek movies aren't Star Trek movies. They're J.J. Abrams lens-flare-masturbation action movies, which is fine, but it's not really star trek anymore. Star Trek was always better suited to a television format, so I can comfortably ignore them, but if Abrams does the same thing to Star Wars, I'm gonna be angry.

I disliked the Star Trek reboot, and I think Lucas and Disney jointly killed Star Wars by obliterating the Expanded Universe. Overall extremely disappointed in how both of them went, and have very low expectations for VII.

Go to http://www.originaltrilogy.com and download Harmy's release of a 1080p digital version of the ORIGINAL Star Wars. This is the version that won 7 Academy Awards and was chosen for inclusion in the National Film Registry - which doesn't have a copy of it because Lucas refuses to give them the original, and they won't take the altered special editions, because THAT ISN'T THE FILM THAT MADE HISTORY.

@Tolstoy:

Is V the one where they meet God? Yeah, you might be right on that one. V was just bad though, it wasn't actively insulting.

I think it is amusing to the same director who rebooted star trek taking on star wars. I presume all this re-use of old franchises makes a lot of financial sense; guarenteed audiences and the 'brand' recognition. Perfectly sensible, but having the same director for two different ( and arguably competing ) brands just feels odd.

Not to say he wouldn't do a good job...

In what way are ST and SW competing? If anything, I'd say they are complementary.

I don't know if it is SW without Lucas. More like Disney's fanfic hour on the big screen imo.

Favorite Film: Revenge of the Sith and no I don't think EP1 is racist, come on lol.

@ND: Lucas is still there as Creative Consultant.

he met with them like once though and in subsequent interviews he said they aren't using his ideas.

Thank god.

Competing in terms of fan-base; yes, complimentary Sci-fi / Space Opera genres, which fans tend to see as in direct competition for attention and adoration (secondary market merchandising and convention revenues?)

Star Trek is most definitely not space opera. I also think the idea that there's some dichotomy between Star Trek and Star Wars fandoms is ridiculous.