RogueLeader said:
Honestly I think even a different director would’ve led to things being different

I don’t think time of production and release would have made any difference. Prequel fans have had a strong online voice for quite a while. I do think, however, you’re right on the money with it being the choice of director.
A different director, one who wasn’t trying to correct Star Wars, could have made a big difference. Also having a solid narrative throughout the three films would have made a world of difference. That weird approach to letting each person continue where the other person left off is a very weird business model.

If anything, I think the more forgiving view of the Prequels may be a direct response to the sequels being a sort of “careful what you wish for” moment.

Mandalorian, Rogue One, and several of the Visions episodes are proof that great Star Wars stories can be told. The Sequel Trilogy, to me at least, is proof that it isn’t a given just because it has Star Wars in the title.

Edit

And while I’m thinking about it, what is the weird, almost addiction, to everything having to be a trilogy? Star Wars was a single story in 1977 and it worked perfectly. Each of the Visions entries is a single story, the characters’ journey in Rogue One are also a singular story. Hollywood is replete with singular great films. If anything, forcing things into trilogies has often been a bad idea. There is no shortage of terrible and unnecessary sequels to truly great films. More doesn’t guarantee good. But I digress.

The sequel story could have also been great if it were a solid single film - again, with a better director, studio, story, etc. Disney deciding it had to be a three-film series did not help matters at all.