Oh? Then why are you watching Star Wars?
What you are missing, I think, is that both TFA and TLJ are commentaries on Star Wars as a cultural phenomenon. There's also some other messages in there, about how we need to resist the fascists and their fanboys, how we need to have hope and make hope even when it seems we can't have any, but the core of TFA and TLJ is about Star Wars. TFA is, very intentionally, a sort of retread of A New Hope: It retells that story with slightly rejiggered roles not just to serve as an entry point for contemporary kids, but also as a nostalgia boost for people like us who saw the original films as kids. Han says, in TFA, "It's real. All of it.", and at that point, he's talking to you, the middle-aged viewer and is telling you that yes, Star Wars is still magic, can be magic again, even after all that prequel nonsense.
TLJ, in its rejection of several of the oh so important plot hooks TFA set up, is saying "Yes, we can have that magic back, but we shouldn't try to remake the old. Instead, we need to rebuild it, excise the flaws that one George Lucas put into it in the 70s and 90s, and make it matter to us, as we are right now.
I suppose being a millennial who didn't watch Star Wars back in the day discounts me from the intended audience then. I watched all of Star Wars within the last 2 years. I can appreciate the original trilogy for being the first successful space opera film, but otherwise thought it was just "ok" in the end. So for me, there never was any magic.
By the way, I watched Star Wars because people just won't stop talking about it, and generally speaking, it is within human norms to share interests, including things such as talking about movies everyone in the group has seen.
I would argue that imperialistic fascism is a relevant topic for today, purely based on how much of it seems to be making a resurgence lately, but that's neither here nor there.
Fair. This is outside the scope of this discussion, although I maintain that is a very relevant factor in how viewers perceive the work.
I think that a film about how the bad guys are a menace, yes, but an ultimately pathetic and weak one is a good message if we look at current politics around us. Hux is a buffoon, caught up in cosplaying as something intimidating he vaguely remembers from his history lessons. Kylo Ren is a mess of anxiety and parental issues, who has retreated into a power fantasy (urged on by a father figure that is in turns abusive and nurturing; the very image of a really toxic relationship there). We are asked to laugh at Hux and empathize with (but not exactly forgive or let go) Kylo, and I don't really see what's wrong with that. Neither of these characters are as intimidating or formidable as Tarkin or Vader were, sure, but that's the point. It's not a flaw in the movies or their writing that these people don't seem as grand as the old villains: That they aren't on that same level despite making every attempt at it (just like certain tiki-torch wielding idiots aren't on the same level as the people they're emulating, yet still a thing we need to take serious and combat lest they get real power) is their tragedy.
Again: TLJ and TFA are movies about Star Wars, about how we've talked about Star Wars over the years and how these films have shaped our expectations and realities. If the prequels as a whole were a deconstruction of the Jedi mythos as set up in the original films (which is a theory that isn't without merit), this new trilogy is shaping up to be a reconstruction of it, an attempt to give Star Wars its mythological qualities back that got lost in all the midichlorians and trade federations and bouncy ball Yodas. As commercial artistic endeavours go, this is much more valid than most other ways I could think of to continue the Star Wars saga.
There is a bit of dissonance here when we make that comparison, along with a portrayal that I feel betrays the comparison it wants to make. If the argument is something along the lines of a little bit of evil, even if seemingly less competent than the grand evils of the old days, is a threat and must guarded against, then a rebuilding of the prequel would make more sense. Why not emphasize how fragile and vulnerable the New Republic is to corruption, nepotism, and economic hardship? Why build up this whole First Order? When I look around at the politics around me, I see disgruntled people trying to navigate a world that they don't understand anymore, desperate to the point that they turn to naive and misguided beliefs. I see misinformation from all sides, where everyone thinks they're right (and to a degree, they all have a point) but no one is willing to reach out and reconcile for truth.
But I suppose if the real intent is commentary on Star Wars its impact on people and all these themes about the socio-political climate is secondary or even tertiary to the film, then I'd just have to say it's not for me.
If we want to argue that the new trilogy is good art, then it needs be relevant to the context of its time period
No. Good art doesn't need to be relevant in the context of its own, or in fact any, time period. Whether or not it is is a factor in how popular a given work is on release or afterwards, but popularity and goodness aren't exactly related.
I'd argue all art is a product of its environment, and that appreciation of art requires some environmental context on the part of the viewer. This is why art tends to get aggregated into different eras. Sure, some works might not fit exactly, but applying that to Star Wars would be bizarre given that is practically a metric for contemporary pop culture. In fact, the argument that the new trilogy plays on the previous film is entirely a contextual argument. I'm trying to imagine what that would even be like.
Nowhere did I discuss popularity as a factor. I have a different can of worms that I won't open in regards to how I think the film sold itself to increase viewership at the expense of pacing and flow.
If we take the position that the arcing turbo lasers and not B-17 bombers are all intentional callbacks to WW2, then what exactly is it invoking? How does this tie into the intended themes and direction of the modern films?
I disagree with this in the context of The Last Jedi, which is not at all afraid to move things in quite a few new directions with Rey and Kylo Ren in particular (and indeed the entire "Last Jedi" plot).
And I do feel that "Powerful political faction trying to return to an idealized image of what once was", as is the First Order, never really ceases to be relevant, but here it is used in particular to contrast both Luke and Rey's motivations: The First Order wants to return to "what once was*", Luke wants to burn it all down, whilst Rey takes the old (or, well, steals it from under Luke's nose but okay) and strives to build upon it in a better direction. It takes three distinct approaches to our world: The New Order's regressivism, Luke's radicalism, and Rey's incrementalism, and clearly picks sides for Rey.
Sure, I can somewhat agree to this, but I'm judging the work on its merit as a whole. Maybe if Rian Johnson started this from the beginning, we wouldn't have The First Order, a republic that gets wiped out instantly, yet another deathstar, or the resistance being a thing again. But that's not how it turned out, and I'm writing a critique of the work and not about what-ifs. I'm not so sure about attaching those ideas behind each of the factions. If it were true, I don't feel the films did an adequate job of supporting those notions. IIRC, Kylo Ren is also part of the bandwagon to destroy everything about the past, which puts him in Luke's camp then no? Then there's the question of why we even have that whole casino planet segment, or what is the significance of Finn as a character in relation to all of this.