Well, it's finally happening. It's no secret that I and a few others who hang around these parts haven't been so enamored with the Prequels. Opinions are opinions, no one is telling anyone else to like something or not. So that's not the issue, so please don't take it that way.
So what's going on? At first, our negative comments about the Prequels were met with a hearty volley of defensive rebuttal suggesting that the Prequels were in fact written and made very well and were every bit as good as the Original Trilogy films.
Well, that tactic didn't work so well as most of us haven't changed our minds and I've also seen some recent "converts" who have begun to see the light, as it were.
In any case, there's a new tactic in town that I'm finding to be really interesting. It's the suggestion that for all the superficialness and convenience one can point out in the Prequels, an equal serving can be shown to exist in the Original Trilogy. Put another way, this new tact rather admits that the Prequels have significant flaws and says that the Original Trilogy isn't that great either.
Here's a quick example, though it's not the only one: http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums...894#post225894
Maybe I'm reading this wrong. Maybe we've all been too willing to look past the obvious defects (Parsecs, the Falcon getting to Cloud City without hyperdrive, etc) that make the Original Trilogy films empirically a poorly written story so full of contrivances as to make it fit for a Razzie too. Maybe not. I don't know.
So I guess the topic of this thread is: What's wrong with the Original Trilogy? Based on this new line of reasoning, it sucks too. Let's tear it apart!