I agree fully that the first trilogy is superior, however, there are good points in negating the difference between the trilogies.

Acting skill - yes, Hayden Christianson is a whiny little turd, a poor actor etc. However, look at the originals acting. There's a reason Carrie Fisher became an author afterwards. How about certain examples of some of the worst acting I've ever seen from the originals: "Two figh-ters against a star-destroyer?", any line from Porkins (A New Hope, and many, many more.

The Internet Effect - George Lucas was very correct in stating that the internet is the main reason for the uprising against JarJar. When the original trilogy was released people hated C3PO, prissy little bastard. Granted, he had a foil in Artoo, but it doesn't change the fact that people hated him. They just didn't have an effective medium to relay their opinions.

Also, the originals were novel in idea. They were the first effectively done sci-fi space trilogy that was real enough to relate to. At the present time it is difficult to come up with groundbreaking special effects and an original story line (although the architype is classic in its essence). On the same note, the effect of the new trilogy is diluted through the age of its viewers. I was a child when I first saw Star Wars and it had an awe inspiring effect which tweaked the imagination. To watch any movie now, it doesn't have quite the same effect through the eyes of an adult.

Yes. I am a nerd. But an attractive one.