The prequels had story, but lacked characters. The sequels had neither. That is why they are objectively the worst trilogy.
Huh? Literally no part of that makes any sense. Both trilogies had story and characters, whether good or bad, and “objectivity” can only rarely be applied to art (and certainly not here).
And again, this is not about your personal feelings regarding the sequel trilogy, it’s about what makes the most economic sense for Disney to do. I have plenty of issues with the sequels, don’t get me wrong, but box office numbers don’t care about your feelings.
The prequels prevailed in it’s story but lacked in it’s depth of the characters. But the films built and complimented on one another, and had a clear vision for the audience to see. Therefore, they succeeded as a trilogy. The Sequels lacked in all structural departments, and crumbled in on itself with director’s fighting eachother’s vision and disregarding eachother’s structural development of the story. Even the character’s changed and/or lost character traits from one film to another, some even so much that they went from a defined, serious character to a comedy character or even main character to sidekick.
If I build a bike that doesn’t work, but it’s funny to ride it because it looks funny and entertains people, then it’s still a bad bike whether people find it entertaining or not. But it will always objectively be a bad bike that failed in its execution.
As a trilogy, The Sequels are objectively bad. But they might be subjectively good individual pieces of cinema. In other words, you can like the films both as a trilogy as well as individual film(s), but they’re failed installments in a trilogy structure with a beginning, middle and end that builds and compliments on one another. Objectively badly structured, subjectively good and/or bad as individual films (in an objectively badly executed TRILOGY).