What exactly are the problems with the prelogy?

Bad directing of actors, and in fact bad actors (with the exception of Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor) …
OK, but can not we say the same thing about the original trilogy where, honestly, Mark Hamill is as convincing as a ficus, and Carrie Fisher owes her aura only to the returns that Harrison Ford gave her?
Unbearable character (Jar Jar), only intended to please children …
OK, but frankly, are the Ewoks more acceptable? I remember, in 1983, being very disappointed by the Ewoks, I thought it was a heresy from George to close such an important work with teddies. I was a lot more shocked by the Ewoks than by Jar Jar 16 years later.
Poor scenario, script errors, weak dialogues …
OK, but can not we say the same thing about the original trilogy (except from parts where Harrison Ford had to rewrite his texts, or where Irvin Kershner imposed his vision of things)? Can not we say that George has no inspiration since 1980?
Inconsistencies and illogisms with the canon …
OK, but the original trilogy is also incoherent with itself (unless you accept that stormtroopers and AT-ATs, designed to kill, are destroyed by teddy bears with wooden logs …)

What I want to say here is that, IMHO, we like the original trilogy not for what it is but for what we were when we discovered it: children or teens amazed by an unprecedented cinematic experience.
And we do not like prelogy for the same reasons: we were then jaded adults knowing every corner of Star Wars by heart, and nothing could impress us or find grace in our eyes.
But for me, the original trilogy is far from being a masterpiece, and prelogy is far from being a disaster.