The prequels released when social media / youtube were just catching on.
I had limited exposure online back then, but things like hating Jar-Jar, being bored at the politic scenes, or being antagonistic to the excess of CGI were common sticking points before Plinkett existed. But you could argue that it helped it go "viral".
"Practical effects!" was a oft used marketing point for episode 7.
The thing is that the fan backlash towards Disney Wars and a very healthy meme community helped the prequels get back in the good graces of the common public (that and people that were like 12 years old in 2005 never really hated them in the first place).
I know a few people that are just like Rich Evans in that they still hold a visceral disgust over the prequel movies, and those snappy derisive comments were bound to piss people off, EFAP or not.
Despite the NOOOO memes, people liked the Prequels till the Plinkett review of Episode I.
The entire reason why people hate the prequels is because it's not like the OT, which is something people born into the era of Clone Wars don't really understand until they get over the mania of their own childhood fandom. The OT was limited in terms of material, but was expansive in the imagination of its fans. Now the opposite is true.
Let me give an unrelated example:
People didn't like Ghostbusters 2016 because it strayed far away from what made the original good. What was once practical, became digital. What was once a bunch of goofy men and a sarcastic lady became a bunch of goofy women and a stupid man.
The story of the original was adult, took place in a realized world, and the comedy/emotion came from the characters. The story of the 2016 one seemed to villainize a loser fanboy, with characters that had nothing to offer the fans of the original except perhaps flanderization.
Dan Akroyd (Ray Stantz) was hyperbolic, sensitive, verbose, and fearful.
Harold Ramis (Egon Spengler) was a serious nerd who lacked social skills, but was very ordered in his methods.
Bill Murray (Peter Venkman) was a deadpan lothario who was just trying to coast through life and hook up with women until he fell in love with a client.
I'm not going to mention Ernie much, because its quite clear that Winston was supposed to be played by Eddie Murphy which makes the character seem a bit diminished in the final product. But Ernie Hudson's character is quite simply "in it for the paycheck", and is the straight man of the bunch. He's not unwelcome at all.
Now in 2016, every single character is goofy, unfunny, and seem to be a parody of all the original characters at the same time.
They're all obnoxious blowhards that are overacting even when they're trying to underplay a situation.
This is chiefly because Ghostbusters (1984) was a very well written and directed comedy with great special effects and pretty good cinematography.
Meanwhile Ghostbusters 2016 was shot like a cheap television show, and was filled with unfunny improv that didn't advance the plot.
Now the reason I'm mentioning Ghostbusters 2016, is because it exemplifies the issues that most of these 20-30 year sequel/prequel/reboots have.
The original Star Wars is this gritty, beautifully rendered story steeped in mythological foundations. It has great in camera effects, aesthetics, and characters. Just like the original ghostbusters.
Every character is a great example of a particular archetype, and distinct in terms of the story. The young hero who loses everything, but joins the mentor on an adventure with the scoundrel who really has a heart of gold. The rambunctious princess who wants to fight. The evil strongman and old tyrant who want to control everything. Faith, tradition, and nature vs technologically driven tyranny for the sake of power. It is a product of its time, but it is also relevant to any time period the viewer comes from because of its mythological concepts.
In my opinion, the only thing that the prequels kept were familiar characters, locations, and concepts. But, the new digital techniques, the new characters designed for young children to connect to, the removal of grit, and the lack of polished scripting was obvious from the get go. The mythology and mysticism of the force in the OT was spiritual in nature, while the PT introduced a scientific explanation with a measuring system defined by technology similar to Dragonball Z power levels, thus demystifying the force.
Plinkett didn't have to say any of this to be true, it's just that Mike Stoklasa was able to explain these things in such detail at such a length at the time.
You could wax poetically for hours about how amazing the PT's themes are, or how bleeding edge the film techniques are, or how great the ideas are. But, 20 years of fandom was based around a specific set of characters, factions, and the methodology behind the production. It is entirely possible the prequels could have been made in the same sensibility as the originals, but that wasn't what George wanted to do technologically or artistically. Or maybe the restrictions he faced on the first two movies in particular were why the movies came out as well as they did.
The point of all of this, is that for a sequel/prequel/reboot/spinoff/etc. to be considered good by the fans, it has to be formed in a similar manner. This is why to me, movies like Top Gun: Maverick are so well accepted by fans and general audiences, even if they're derivative. On the other hand, this is why stuff that attempts to alter too much from the source or the original fall apart. For all the shit talking I've seen about Critical Drinker, this seems to be his central thesis in almost every video. The same problem with Ghostbusters 2016 is in Shane Black's Predator movie. It's in Star Wars. It's in Star Trek Picard. It's in The Dark Tower. It's in modern James Bond. Hell The Hobbit movies are just like the prequels. Overly focused on CGI, bloated with silliness, overacting, and underwritten to boot. There are very, very few sequels worthy of their franchise and this has never been more relevant.
My example of Top Gun: Maverick coincides with a movie that Joseph Kosinski, the director made in 2009, Tron Legacy. While taking place many many years later, the movie gives respect to its characters, and the legacy of the franchise. Its in the very name of the movie. While it has different techniques to accomplish its mission, its aesthetic fits the concept. And though it is derivative, it is still faithful to the spirit of the original. This to me, is why some franchises are praised while others crash and burn. You're either adding, subtracting, multiplying, or dividing the fanbase. If you care about the lore, if you care about the techniques, if you care about the fan's expectations and desires then you're on the right track. If you use a well loved, established franchise to make an independent artistic statement, or want to change the material for new audiences that aren't the same as the previous, you're not only shooting yourself in the foot, you're shooting the franchise in the heart.
The abject disconnect in terms of quality and sensibility between the three Star Wars trilogies is part of the reason why I've completely given up on Star Wars, and really is emblematic of nerd fandom in general being left behind by copyright holders who crank out whatever they feel like. What has happened, is these large corporations have realized they have painted themselves into a corner. They have to make everything for everyone knowing that people will complain on twitter regardless for all sorts of reasons. They have to be woke, but they also have to sell to saudi arabia and china. They want new young fans but they also want to get the whales and the nostalgia. They want to make something new but they also want to use the old franchise's brand and story to construct these things.
And in the end, while the artistic integrity and depth of interest starts to recede as the material itself becomes more shallow, the studio knows that their system works to keep the engine of production oiled up and working...You see that producer, that costumer, that grip? They're just glad to be working.
