Kurgan said:

Mainly I agree with the claim that the characters in the OT were more likable, and their onscreen chemistry was better. The story was more upbeat (generally) and hence lent itself to that adventure theme that reminded you of having fun at the cinema. I'm not saying a dark, political feel was wrong for the Prequels, but that "deadly serious" atmosphere mixed with random cartoonish "humor" just didn't work well. The characters were too stiff and there were too many of them to keep us caring about any of them. Too often Lucas dialed down the suspense to give us self-indulgent moments of ships landing and goofy aliens doing slapstick. It's like he just wanted to play in the world and remind us what an artistic genius he is, rather than tell the story and get us to identify with the characters and their struggle.

Love this post... you make a lot of good points Kurgan.

Kurgan said:
I think the Star Wars name works against the Prequels. Had they just been a set of sci fi films set in a different universe, I don't think they would have been so harshly criticized, but the catch 22 is that I don't think they would have made as much money, since so many people went to see them out of obligation as fans or in expectation of seeing something approaching the "magic" of the original trilogy.

Funny, as I read this I kept thinking how exactly the same is true about the new Star Trek film.

Kurgan said:
FYI: I avoided spoilers like the plague for all three prequels. I actually wonder though, if people who "spoiled" themselves silly for the movie beforehand were more disappointed or less than those who avoided them?

I was spoiler-free for Episodes I and II, but spoiled myself rotten for III. Ultimately, I disliked most of TPM, liked AOTC better, and really liked ROTS, so not sure what that says regarding the correlation between spoilers and enjoyment of the films.