I think the question of “respect” for prior entries is kind of academic, or at least beside the point, much in the same way that authorial intent is mostly for nitpicking arguments after the fact and not really relevant to the actual consumption of the art in question.
If the story works and is given punch and emotional import as a result of recontextualizing (whether that recontextualizing is “disrespectful” or not) then that’s a positive, so far as I’m concerned. James Cameron recontextualizing the xenomorph as a giant bug colony could be argued as a “disrespectful” move considering the lovecraftian origins and nature of the creature in Alien, but most people don’t really pursue that line of thought because it doesn’t really matter whether it was or not when you’re watching the movie. Does that storytelling decision work for the movie? If so, then it’s a good call.
If the “Prophecy of the one who will bring Balance to the Force” ends up being reinterpreted (after being more or less invented as a way to recontextualize the OT in the first place) for the sake of making the Sequel Trilogy better overall, I have no problems with it at all. I don’t really care if it can be read as “disrespectful” to previous storytellers or corporate ownership. That’s not really a concern of mine, especially since I don’t work there, and I’m not one of the creators in question. But if that recontextualization doesn’t work within the story, THEN I have a problem with it.
The prophecy is like any other fictional element being used in the pursuit of expressing thematic ideas through story: If you can change it to make it work for what you’re trying to say, then change it. That’s the whole point of fiction. It’s inherently malleable. So fold, spindle, and mutilate as needed.
I don’t really agree, since Lucas is more than just “a previous storyteller”, and I think the creator of this universe has a special place. In other words if major changes are made to the context of his story, I think he should be oke with it.