All these ideas about incorporating things into the OT come from viewers seeing the two trilogies as a series of chronological events instead of films that are trying to tell a story. This is made evident by the many fans who say the films should be watched in chronological order because that obeys the timeline in which the events occurred. That's so backward from a storytelling standpoint I simply don't understand the appeal of it.

Could you sit a Star Wars virgin down and show him the films in chronological order without ruining the dramatic tension of IV, V, and VI? The answer is no. The impact of "I...am your father!" is reduced from a revelation to a "Well, duh!" moment for the audience.

The original Star Wars trilogy has nothing to do with the prequels from a narrative standpoint. IV, V, and VI tell a story on their own--the story of the rise of the Rebellion and the fall of the Empire. The prequels tell their own story also: the fall of the Republic/Annakin and the rise of the Empire/Vader.

The two trilogies present two completely different narratives, and the actions and events in each shouldn't be intermingled in a lame attempt to tie them together. The prequels would've been much better had they been treated as a distinct story without so many homages to IV, V, and VI. Natural connections between the two stories would've developed instead of the manufactured connections we had thrown in our faces like Vader building 3PO. Could it be any more contrived?

The prequels don't stand well on their own, and the same forced connections that make the prequels lame are poisoning the original trilogy. Hayden in ROTJ? Yoda in ANH? Just stop it already!