I can see that we're never going to agree on this issue. To me, the Anakin story arc was the most interesting one in the SW universe; granted, the original trilogy was slightly before my time. I didn't have any interest in Star Wars until Episodes I-III came out. The movies certainly have their flaws, all 7 of them, but they're epic because of the big picture they present. That is, until the latest episode revealed that nothing has really been accomplished in the universe, despite all the celebration and fanfare at the end of Return of the Jedi. The Empire collapsed only to be replaced by a new empire with a new death star and sith lords. If you're interested in great acting, Star Wars was never the place to look. It's a giant puzzle that analyzes political and spiritual/philosophical ideas in a sci-fi setting That's what it is to me, at least. Leonardo DiCaprio was a rumored candidate for the role of Anakin. He's a good actor for sure, but I don't think he would've been right for the role nor portrayed Anakin's angst any more effectively than Hayden did.
What's interesting about the prequel trilogy is watching his character transition from an innocent idealist with good intentions into a damaged psyche who's capable of justifying the slaughter of innocent people. Revenge of the Sith is more emotionally gripping than any of the other episodes to date, and I doubt future installments will delve into that level of darkness. And for that reason, it was the only one to receive a PG-13 rating, until The Force Awakens, which for the life of me, I still can't figure out. Nothing in that movie warranted a stronger rating than the other episodes...unless we count Darth Solo trashing his bedroom in a fit of rage. A certain character's death, who shall remain anonymous, doesn't remotely compare to Anakin being burned alive. Hayden Christensen showed more emotional range in that one scene than Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher combined in Episode 7.
I don't agree with you completely but I commend you for having the balls to stand against the current of popular opinion. FWIW, I think those of us who prefer the OT look back at it through the shiny, rose colored lens of nostalgia glasses and are all too happy to overlook any inherent flaws. The same could be said for fans who prefer the prequels, but the OT is rarely bashed or harshly scrutinized by the "purists" and older fans, whereas the prequels are frequently treated as a bad dream by fans. All of the films are far from perfect--I can even find flaws in Empire, it's just that the strengths far outweigh the flaws, IMHO. Conversely, a constructive exercise for the OT purists might be to watch the prequels and look for strengths or aspects of them that actually worked well, rather then to lambaste them as pure unredeemable garbage.
It will be interesting to note in coming years how prequel and OT fans might differ in their opinions of the TFA, since it was clearly written and filmed as a throwback to the OT. Even Lucas criticized it as a very "retro" movie. There is some validity in that. Yes, I enjoyed it, but I'd agree with your point that watching it, I felt like little had been accomplished within that universe. Now, had they made this film to be set 5 or even 15 years later, it might work, but nearly half a century on from the destruction of the empire, and it felt like we were picking up right after Jedi, but in some weird time warp where time and events had frozen whilst the characters continued to age.
Still an awesome film, but I think they could've conveyed the transition of time and events whilst retaining some "retro" feel for the oldschool fanboys. IMO that is one area where the prequels did better. III and IV are only separated by 19 years, but the drastic change in the political and cultural landscape of the galaxy is very evident, as it should be, considering what happened after the clone wars. There are 30+ years between VI and VII, yet it feels little has changed or happened aside from the original characters aging, as if there were some weird reverse carbonite freeze effect. I might be overly critical, as perhaps VIII and IX will do a better job of conveying passage of time and events as more backstory and exposition is given. We'll have to see what Rian Johnson and the writers do with it.
Abrams made a retro movie because that's what he's good at. He takes old properties and embellishes the most memorable elements; he is not an innovator (even Lost was a highly derivative series in many regards). I hated the new Star Trek reboots, but the best parts were the nods to the classic Trek universe. Unfortunately, the films were weak popcorn movies, sci-fi lite that couldn't be held together with a few lazy winks and nods to the older trekkies. If he'd cared about Trek and understood it as much as he cares about SW, then I think they would've been fun films that united the old and new fans rather than dividing them and alienating much of the old fanbase. It is possible to make a popular, popcorn Trek experience while remaining faithful to the Roddenberry vision that trekkies cherish so deeply, but JJ never had any interest in doing that.
