Are the Star Wars Movies Prequels or Sequels better?

The Star Wars Prequel movies have a more iconic factor than the sequels do

Question: Are the Star Wars Movies Prequels or Sequels better?
Position‹2 of 2: The Prequels are better than the Sequels
Argument‹2 of 3›: The Star Wars Prequel movies have a more iconic factor than the sequels do

The Sequels are rather forgettable, while the Prequels have lodged their imagery into the imagination of Star Wars fans across the globe. Love it or hate it, iconic elements such as characters and setting make the Prequels more memorable.

The argument

There are so many aspects of the Prequels - sights, sounds, characters, and places - that have become icons in the Star Wars canon. Take the iconic fight at the end of The Phantom Menace, with two Jedi facing off against the menacing Darth Maul as "Duel of the Fates" plays in the background. Or think of the epic double showdown of Anakin versus Obi-Wan and Yoda versus Sidious, with more of John Williams' magical score accompanying them. These and so many other things - podracing, villains like General Grievous, the horrific Order 66 - are remembered fondly more than a decade later. Even the not-so-great parts, like Jar Jar Binks and some of the clunky dialogue, have at least been immortalized into jokes and memes. What will fans remember from the Sequel trilogy a decade down the line? The Force Awakens was just a rehashed A New Hope; The Last Jedi had Rey dally on an island and Finn in a casino; and The Rise of Skywalker's macguffin quest ended on a generically "evil" planet with Palpatine dying. Again. Their new characters don't hold a candle to Obi-Wan. Their fights can't match the duel on Mustafar. And their music doesn't come close to Duel of the Fates. Fans have remembered the Prequels for years, both the good and the bad. But when they look back on the Sequels, if their attitude is no longer that of anger, it will simply be that of apathy. There is nothing of note to recall about the Sequel trilogy. Or, if there were, it would pale in comparison to the characters, music, and moments of the Prequels.

Premises

[P1]So many of the Prequels' sights, sounds, and characters — the Darth Maul duel, "Duel of the Fates," podracing, Order 66 — have become icons of the Star Wars canon. [P2] Even their weak points, like Jar Jar Binks, have at least been immortalized into jokes and memes. [P3] The Sequels, by contrast, offer little memorable — a rehashed A New Hope and characters, fights, and music that cannot match the Prequels'. [C] Therefore, because the Prequel movies have a more iconic factor than the sequels, the Prequels are better than the Sequels.

Counter-arguments

This is largely a subjective argument. There is no objective way to measure how iconic a movie is. This argument simply lists favorite moments from the Prequels. By the same token, the Sequels also have plenty of iconic moments to praise. Plenty of people enjoyed the lightspeed ram scene in The Last Jedi, or the throne room fight from the same movie. Or how about the gut-wrenching moments between Han and Kylo/Ben in the first and last Sequels? The Prequels have had a decade for opinion on them to soften, and for nostalgia to cover them in a favorable light. One cannot argue about what will be memorable about the Sequels when they have just come out. Time will vindicate the Sequels, and illuminate the gems they have to offer. The Prequels don't have a monopoly on icons post-Return of the Jedi.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] "Iconic" is doing all the work here and is never defined. As the counter-argument notes, the premise is a list of the author's favourite moments, and the Sequels support an equivalent list — the throne-room fight, the lightspeed ram, the confrontations between Han and his son. [Rejecting P2] Counting Jar Jar Binks in the Prequels' favour proves too much. If being remembered as a joke qualifies as iconic status, then any conspicuous failure qualifies, and the measure stops tracking quality at all — which is what the position needs it to track. [Rejecting P3] The comparison is not like for like. The argument asks what fans will remember of the Sequels "a decade down the line" while treating the Prequels' answer as already settled after twenty years, and it concedes the mechanism that makes the comparison unfair when it observes that even the Prequels' weak points have had time to be reappraised.