10 Reasons You’re Wrong About The Star Wars Prequels

1. A Smart Plot

The overall plot of the Original Trilogy can be summarised thusly; a farm boy becomes a hero of the rebellion, trains to be a knight and manages to bring his father back to the good side. It's expertly executed, but the classical inspirations of the original Star Wars are clearly visible. Here's an area where the prequels actually best their older counterpart; it may not be brought to the screen with the same skill, but their overarching story is the more intriguing.

Although the front and centre narrative drive is Anakin's fall from innocent idealistic child to youngling-killing menace, what's really important to the galaxy as a whole is what's going on with Palpatine. The Sith Master Darth Sidious manipulated his way into power, overthrowing the previous Supreme Chancellor and positioning himself as the ideal successor. From there he orchestrates an entire war to get himself complete control of the Republic, eventually springing his trap and killing all who could stop him.

It's a properly large-scale villain scheme that slowly unfurls over three films, yet is surprisingly overlooked when addressing the prequels, taking a backseat to petty gripes. Fair enough people moaned relentlessly at all the talk of politics and trade routes in The Phantom Menace, but it's essential groundwork to this story.

What's particularly noteworthy from a filmmaking perspective is how the film deals with the ambiguity of Palpatine's allegiance. There's enough there to satisfy those who knew Ian McDiarmid was the big bad (Darth Sidious is never named in the credits), but it's not overt enough to ruin the twist for those in blissful ignorance (believe it or not but the Sidious reveal in Revenge Of The Sith shocked a lot of people).

What do you make of the prequels? Are they unfairly overlook or do you think they're the worst thing since the Holiday Special? Join the discussion down in the comments below.