Johnny Ringo said:
the ONE thing they really should have taken from the OT was to introduce a core group of characters - and stick with them. Introducing background characters purely to be fodder later on is a bit weak. A lot of the Jedi never spoke onscreen or were referred to by name, yet we were meant to feel something for them when things went pear shaped.

Number20 said:
Instead of so many throwaway villains, they should of stuck with one or two and carried them through. I remember that it was suggested on here back in time that it would of been better if Grevious turned out to be Darth Maul. At least then there would of been a connection between TPM and ROTS and a reason for Obi-Wan to really be after Grevious.

Another waste of great potential was Dooku. He started out with so much potential, then killed off in the first 10 minutes of ROTS. Why not carry him through to the end, or maybe have him turn out to be genuinely good, and the only one who realizes what is really going on, and nobody else believes him, turning him into a tragic character?

Ah man, ain't it the truth? I think it would have helped if the same actor had at least played Anakin throughout the series. I think that Yoda was too involved, and we didn't see enough out of Palps or Bail.

To top it off, we don't really have a figurehead villain, like we did in the OT with Vader. Maul, Jango, and Grievous could have easily been one character. Plus there wasn't much point to Sidious. Dooku should have looked like the mastermind of the prequels, until he got offed in the last one and it turns out he was a puppet to begin with.

That being said, I was thrilled by the prequels (at least when I first saw each of them). Looking back, they weren't masterpieces, but they could've been worse. Actually, I kind of prefer Phantom to the other 2. Hehe.