I'm not saying you're wrong, quite the opposite really, but I do want to point out that Hayden Christensen's portrayal of Anakin got way too much flak when the movies were still fresh. Yes, his dialogue (especially with Padme) was the cringiest thing in Star Wars at the time, but honestly I think that fits his character. He was a slave boy, not even ten years old, taken from his mother (with permission), had the closest thing he had to a father die very shortly after, and was then raised by a religious order who put "minimizing emotion" as one of their core tenets while also letting it be known that he was probably 'the chosen one'. Didn't help that they assigned him to Obi-wan, he was literally still a Padawan when they met and therefore had zero experience in training one of his own (plus they weren't too dissimilar in age). It's no wonder Anakin grew up not knowing how to talk to girls, getting into fights with his Master who never passed up an opportunity to belittle him (from Anakin's perspective), and doing emotional, impulsive acts of bravado to prove himself

Plus Darth Maul is awesome

The Prequels were during Bush II's wars. They were relevant then as well.

I always got the sense that Lando only worked with the Empire because he was forced to; "They arrived just before you did". He then betrayed them at the earliest opportunity and never did anything for their side afterwards. Yeah you can make the argument that Tibana Gas was being sold to both sides but that in itself wasn't really shown.

I still agree that the older trilogies did a MUCH better job at exploring their ideas. The sequel trilogy really felt like they just wanted to make audiences giddy by referencing the older properties first. Everything else--characters, story structure, dialogue, any potential deeper meanings or staying power, etc--were all put on the back burner just to try to get the most amount of laughter and applause during opening night