Many people claim that we only hate the Sequel Trilogy because we've grown up, that the Prequels were also children's movies we only like for nostalgia, and that the Disney saga will be remembered with the same affection in the future. Others even argue that it's hypocritical to hate the Sequels when we used to think the Prequels were garbage and that "George Lucas ruined Star Wars," so now we only think they're better simply because Disney made something even worse.

To begin with, I always liked the Prequels, even when everyone on the internet was badmouthing them, so I haven't magically changed my mind because of the existence of the Disney Trilogy. Therefore, at least in my case, I can't be called a hypocrite. From the beginning, I've thought they receive excessive hate and I've never given in to popular opinion.


Having clarified that, I find it quite pathetic that Disney fanboys want to defend the Sequel Trilogy with the argument that "Star Wars were always movies for kids and you can't be so demanding of the script." What kind of bullshit defense is that? Are they saying that kids are stupid? That they'll swallow any garbage you put in front of them? Come on.


If you really think the Original Trilogy was just special effects and fun aliens, you never truly understood Star Wars. It was a mythical, timeless story about good versus evil, temptation versus redemption, choice versus destiny. The Sequels only chased trends, spectacle instead of substance. The Disney Trilogy doesn't fit with the Star Wars saga. Not in spirit, not in structure, not in soul. For Disney, Star Wars wasn't a modern myth. It was just a toy line. A Disneyland attraction. A release schedule to ensure quarterly profits. Lucas poured his heart into it, and they turned it into marketing.


“But Star Wars was already a franchise destined to create toys during the George Lucas era; Star Wars was always commercial garbage.”

It's true that Lucas was a pioneer in understanding the value of merchandising. The deal with Kenner and the control of the toy rights was visionary, and it allowed him creative independence from the studios. But the initial goal was to finance the saga and sustain his artistic vision, not to reduce Star Wars to a catalog of products.


Lucas conceived characters, worlds, and stories first as part of his narrative, and merchandising was a consequence. For example: The Ewoks, although criticized, have a narrative role in Return of the Jedi.


Disney, on the other hand, has prioritized exploiting the brand. Characters like BB-8 or Grogu, while endearing, were designed with an obvious eye toward selling toys and figures. It's not that they don't work narratively, but their design is clearly optimized for the market.

With Lucas, merchandising accompanied a central story designed for the cinema. With Disney, we see a fragmentation into series, spin-offs, and transmedia products that, while enriching the universe, also dilute the cohesion of the main saga to keep the content (and sales) machine running.

Lucas sought creative independence and defended his personal vision of Star Wars. Disney, as a conglomerate, seeks to maximize profits through every possible avenue of brand exploitation. Using merchandising as a tool to tell your story is not the same as using the story as a pretext to sell more merchandise.


Lucas opened the door to merchandising, but Disney made it the strategic center of the franchise, with creative decisions that often seem guided more by commercial potential than narrative coherence.


Finally, I don't know a SINGLE child or adult, online or in real life, who likes the Sequel Trilogy. Disney has killed Star Wars, and in ten years no one will remember the last films. So please, stop using that argument to discredit us Lucas fans.

Debunking the "People used to hate the prequels, but the sequels will be loved in ten years" argument