[Akalabeth Angel]

If you think about things for two seconds the movie falls apart and it basically walks all over the originals.

Well maybe if you think about things for more than two seconds, you'd realize that comparing the falcon's capabilities and han's piloting skills from ANH, to the gazillions of changes the falcon certainly undertook in 20 years and the vast experience han has gathered in that time, puts things in perspective.

Gazillions of changes? You mean sitting idle on a desert planet for years after being stolen by one person after another?
After all look at all the tech advances in the empire and "resistance". Still using X-wings with same lasers, same protons, and still using Tie Fighters which have for some reason got doused in ugly sauce.

As for Han, so is breaking the laws of the universe a skill?  Did he have to go to Correllian Community College to learn that?  Yeah, horse****.

Again, noone here is denying the movie has issues. We just acknowledge them and move on to appreciate the good things and the potential this movie has brought to the new continuity.

Except you just spent 5 minutes denying two issues I brought up while simultaneously ignoring the fact I touched upon several positive things.

And what potential exactly? The potential to remake a movie from 1977? This movie hasn't added anything to continuity.
Some twerp wants to be Darth Vader
Luke fancies himself Yoda
New Jedi except she's a girl.
New Mystery hologram bad guy.
Rebellion is now the Resistance
The Senate is destroyed, again
The Empire is pretty much still the empire.

We've already seen desert planet. Forest Planet. Ice Planet.

It's not adding anything. If anything it's trying it's hardest to keep things as they were and start the cycle again.

Next movie we can see a ground battle with some new imperial walkers and Rey getting trained by Luke.  Maybe Luke can turn into a ghost too and give Rey advice from time to time

[Crashdown117]

Well maybe if you think about things for more than two seconds, you'd realize that comparing the falcon's capabilities and han's piloting skills from ANH, to the gazillions of changes the falcon certainly undertook in 20 years and the vast experience han has gathered in that time, puts things in perspective.

Surely tech improvement is something that also takes place in the Star Wars universe and 20 years are quite some time but still: How superior must technology be and how much experience must a pilot gain to make impossible things possible? Even those that aren't explicitly stated to be impossible like jumping to Hyperspace within the hangar or passing a shield (and a gravity field for that matter) by jumping past it? I know that Sci-Fi often is a bit about bending the laws of physics (and sometimes those of logic, too), but that seems a bit too much to me.

[Galemp]

I think it's more about technobabble and handwavium worming its way into Star Wars, and  introducing something that makes previous entries in the canon nonsensical. There are rules, and if the rules are casually ignored, it breaks the willing suspension of disbelief. If hyperspace can take you from a ship's hangar to a planetary surface, that's not a mode of transportation, that's teleportation, and there's a huge loss of dramatic potential as Akalabeth Angel pointed out. This would have rendered large portions of the OT moot.

[Akalabeth Angel]

A universe, even a fictional one, needs to have some internal consistency. It doesn't matter what new rules for the universe are introduced, just so long as those rules are followed consistently. This is true even in worlds governed by magic not science.

JJ Abrams basically doesn't care about any rules in either Star Trek or Star Wars or the real world for that matter as he basically ignores whatever he wants whenever he wants.

The movie itself even has huge inconsistencies with itself.
-The crazy monsters on the freighter for example kill everything on sight except when they catch the black guy, in which case the death ball wants to take him somewhere for, no reason.
-Po's X-wing is both disabled and subsequently destroyed by only a few hand blaster hits, yet the Tie Fighter they steal later is shot many more times with no effect. Later on in battle, neither Xwings nor Tie Fighters seem to be more survivable than the other.
-Speaking of the TIe Fighter, when they escape the star destroyer, the ship dispatches guys to find the droids and yet when they take off in the Falcon the destroyer is apparently no where in sight. They know what ship they stole, they know who's on it, yet they're not near the planet to bother catching them despite being completely focused on finding Luke Skywalker. This is the story of the first half of the film and yet their ship is no where to be found.

And as with the Star Trek movies, any sense of scale or time is irrelevant.  The air battle is raging around the power regulator station all the while they're trying to sabotage it and they leave on foot, later the regulator explodes and shatters the surrounding area for probably a couple of kilometres yet the people who are on foot, in the snow, are no where near and have already traveled far away from it to some nebulous area.  Bear in mind that one of them is both shot and bleeding.

Things are taken for granted. The battle on the trader world, the Rebels are attacking the empire forcing them to retreat and yet when they retreat those x-wings are no where to be found! What the rebels didn't target any transports?  You're evacuating in the middle of a battle and you just walk onboard? You have time to carry some girl from deep in the woods to your transport in no time at all? The Rebels are after the data, the don't know where it is, yet they just let the empire go? Don't disable their transports? There's no sense to the battle whatsoever.  Why not destroy the transports on the ground, strand the empire and capture Darth Doofus or at least create some desperate evacuation where the empire is trying to escape or vice versa.

JJ Abrams is only concerned about setting up one sequence of shots to the other. He doesn't seem to give two ****s about creating believable worlds with any sense of time or space.  Just imagine how a geographic-focused movie like Lord of the Rings would have turned out with him at the helm.


EDIT
And the biggest problem with this movie, is the fact that the Rebels are still Rebels and the Empire are still Empire. They've been given new names but their roles are the same. Evil stormtroopers and ill-equipped rebels fighting against the odds. Not only that but characters are unchanged as well. Luke is still a loner. Han and Chewie are doing the same **** as ever. Leia is still a rebel leader.  This static dynamic completely invalidates everything in the original trilogy. What the **** were they fighting for?

Even the prequels, which I hate, at least added something to the universe. This movie didn't add anything except a couple of new characters.

[Crashdown117]

If hyperspace can take you from a ship's hangar to a planetary surface, that's not a mode of transportation, that's teleportation, and there's a huge loss of dramatic potential as Akalabeth Angel pointed out.

On the other hand you could do things with that similar to what they did in nuBSG, where the FTL could literally bring you from location A to location B in virtually zero time (Remember when Galactica was falling through the atmosphere launching her vipers and then departed just before she would have hit the ground). But that wouldn't be a Hyperdrive anymore, as Galemp just said, yet what the Falcon uses to travel is one, and therefor it would not be Star Wars anymore as well.
Imagine that ship overrun by those deadly creatures being torn apart by the Falcon jumping away. Would be pretty JJ, wouldn't it?

A universe, even a fictional one, needs to have some internal consistency. It doesn't matter what new rules for the universe are introduced, just so long as those rules are followed consistently. This is true even in worlds governed by magic not science.

Most definitely. That TFA doesn't follow the rules set up in the previous movies (including even the prequels here) is my biggest and almost my only real problem with this movie.

[jr2]

Well, if the Falcon's been around for 20+ years, it's possible the old dog was taught new tricks, so to speak.

They may have come out with either better nav computers, better hyperdrives, or both.

Chances of those being a bolt-on replacements in a ship as old as the Falcon... slim to none.

Chances of Han jury-rigging it in anyways... much better. 

[Macielos]

New Star Wars is basically a clone of New Hope. Rebels fighting a huge evil force capable of destroying planets, a desert planet, droid carrying important message, smugglers, hidden rebel base, discovering ancient powers to fight evil... OT atmosphere from beginning until the end. OT fans will find it pretty enjoyable, for sure and that's the goal JJ wanted to achieve.

What was good:
- Main characters. Rey's pretty, has interesting history and complex personality. Well-written character I really liked throughout the whole movie. I also liked Finn, his personality and his sense of humour, although I feel his desertion from FO could have been better motivated.
- Return of old characters in new roles. I liked Han having returned to smuggling and his attitude to Leia.
- OT atmosphere. Nothing to add, I think.
- Space battles and generally special effects - as usually in today's productions.

What was bad:
- Third Death Star - seriously? That was an absurd. And again it's blown up from several X-wing shots.
- Plots from EU present, but too episodic. I truly expected it will be fleets of Mon Calamaris, Nebulons and Corellian Gunships to be the ones beating the First Order in the end (I think it's a Freespace deviation ). Instead, we see New Republic in one scene, only to be hit by the Third Death Star. And the DS itself is attacked by... X-wings only. No bombers, although we saw Y-wings in a previous battle. Why is the New Republic separated from the Resistance at all? Why is Leia not with the New Republic? I hope we'll see more of it in episodes 8-9.
- Bad guys. Kylo Ren hysterically smashing the imperial destroyer with his lightsaber looked pathetic and childish. Boring redhead imperial-style officer. And Snoke, guy with silly name looking like Uruk-hai.
- Stormtroopers can shoot only in first scene, when they shoot random peasants - but it's also OT classic .
- Storyline is utterly predictable. I knew Kylo Ren will kill Han a moment he walked onto that bridge.





Ok, I'll be in a minority here, but I can't see why people hate Prequel Trillogy so much. It's like hating Heroes V just because they are not Heroes III. I like OT, but aside from technical aspects that are obviously better in PT as it's newer, I find PT much more deep and thrilling because:
- There is no such strong black-and-white separation that drives us through the whole OT. We see PT galaxy as evil, cruel place where "good" republic is corrupted and unstable, various groups of interests clash and exploit the weak for their own benefit and beyond Republic's borders slavery and barbarism takes the upper hand over civilization and law.
- Palpatine - IMHO one of the best antagonists in whole SciFi. He hides in the shadow, manipulates others, poses as a good guy, starts a civil war to make peace-keeping Jedi generals, sends them to the frontline, slowly weakens the Jedi Order and diminishes its position within the Republic only to turn the clone army against its Jedi commanders in a crucial moment - for me it's a masterpiece that fighting evil Empire by a group or rebels can't be even compared with. Also the way he manipulates Anakin and risks deconspiration to seduce him to the Dark Side - it was thrilling.
- Bad guys win - watching Jedi making their stand trying to resolve a plot and discover Sith's identity knowing they will ultimately fall was great. Both in prequels itself and the Clone Wars which did a great job expanding PT universe.
- Anakin - a complex character in whom both good and evil are present and clash each other as plot goes forward. His seduction to Dark Side was a result of multiple experiences that struck him and altered his personality and the choices he made under influence of Palpatine.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Ok, I'll be in a minority here, but I can't see why people hate Prequel Trillogy so much. It's like hating Heroes V just because they are not Heroes III. I like OT, but aside from technical aspects that are obviously better in PT as it's newer, I find PT much more deep and thrilling because:
- There is no such strong black-and-white separation that drives us through the whole OT. We see PT galaxy as evil, cruel place where "good" republic is corrupted and unstable, various groups of interests clash and exploit the weak for their own benefit and beyond Republic's borders slavery and barbarism takes the upper hand over civilization and law.
- Palpatine - IMHO one of the best antagonists in whole SciFi. He hides in the shadow, manipulates others, poses as a good guy, starts a civil war to make peace-keeping Jedi generals, sends them to the frontline, slowly weakens the Jedi Order and diminishes its position within the Republic only to turn the clone army against its Jedi commanders in a crucial moment - for me it's a masterpiece that fighting evil Empire by a group or rebels can't be even compared with. Also the way he manipulates Anakin and risks deconspiration to seduce him to the Dark Side - it was thrilling.
- Bad guys win - watching Jedi making their stand trying to resolve a plot and discover Sith's identity knowing they will ultimately fall was great. Both in prequels itself and the Clone Wars which did a great job expanding PT universe.
- Anakin - a complex character in whom both good and evil are present and clash each other as plot goes forward. His seduction to Dark Side was a result of multiple experiences that struck him and altered his personality and the choices he made under influence of Palpatine.

Well one thing I'll say is that, oddly enough the Force Awakens made me appreciate the prequels because at least they added something new to the universe. Except for a couple of characters I don't see what's even changed in TFA. The political dynamics and roles have completely reset. Han is not an old character in a new role, he's an old character in an even older role. So is Leia. Only Luke is arguably doing something new but then it's only new to him, not new to the series, since he's just pulling a obiwan/yoda.

As for the prequels. I hate them because of their execution. While the elements of a good story might exist, the execution is terrible with gag-worthy dialogue, bad story-telling, boring characters, boring battles, etcetera. It's another set of movies where if you stop and actually use your brain for 2 seconds, things don't make much sense at all.

Like do you realize that Padme marries Anakin after he confesses to murdering an entire village? He literally goes and kills like 50 civilians and her only response is "to be angry is to be human". Wtf? Maybe if she were some psychotic murderer herself I could get behind that relationship but she's supposed to be some do-gooder championing peace.

The other problem is that nearly everything that is said in the OT about the past doesn't match up with the PT.  Something simple like Leia's mother dying when she was young is portrayed incorrectly. Taken as a part maybe it's no big deal but when nothing matches up at all, it simply feels wrong. This is exemplified by the fact that Lucas has obviously changed the story in order to appeal to fans and by doing so is also trying to rewrite the original trilogy as well, saying its really "about Darth Vader destroying the Sith" (horse****).

Far as I'm concerned the OT is still 3 movies that exist on their own. I'm  waiting for the blu ray release of the theatrical originals.

[Akalabeth Angel]

And honestly I think TFA is a just bunch of pandering to fans.
Lucas pandered to the fans by focusing on Vader and Boba Fett.
Abrams is pandering to the fans by using real sets, taking out the clones, putting in lots of OT gags, etcetera.  Puts in a bunch of elements that anti-prequel people will appreciate but at th same time he still cannot tell a new, interesting and tight story.

People are SO desperate for anything not PT and are still riding high on the mediocrity of the MCU that they'll convince themselves this is a great movie despite it being bullet-ridden with plot holes and suspension-breaking changes.  Even Red Letter Media is dumb enough to get caught up in the hype since what I saw of their review seems favourable. The movie doesn't have a story, at least not one which is resolved by its characters.

[Macielos]

As for the prequels. I hate them because of their execution. While the elements of a good story might exist, the execution is terrible with gag-worthy dialogue, bad story-telling, boring characters, boring battles, etcetera. It's another set of movies where if you stop and actually use your brain for 2 seconds, things don't make much sense at all.

I agree that dialogues are bad at some moments, especially between Anakin and Padme in Episodes II and III, but they never disturbed me much in enjoying the main plot. But anyway, I never found OT dialogues very well either. There are certain phrases that became symbolic, like "May the force be with you" or "I have a bad feeling about that", but besides that, they're quite average.

I don't think PT characters were boring. I find Anakin much more interesting than Luke and Leia combined, eg. because he's not a goody-goody, he's got weaknesses and moments of anger, he's unsure of himself. His motives are much less simple than "fighting to save his friends from evil empire".

Generally I find main characters in prequels rather good. Second- and third-plan ones, agreed, are rather simple. It's because story-line in PT includes much more plots and characters that appear only for a few scenes to play their roles and there is simply no place to make them memorable. It's just size of the story being much bigger than in OT - Jedi knights, politicians, Trade Federation members, Separatists, criminal leaders from Tatooine, people from Naboo, Gungans - they all have their places. OT is much more focused on one main plot - fighting the empire, Luke's Jedi training and his connection with Vader.

Like do you realize that Padme marries Anakin after he confesses to murdering an entire village? He literally goes and kills like 50 civilians and her only response is "to be angry is to be human". Wtf? Maybe if she were some psychotic murderer herself I could get behind that relationship but she's supposed to be some do-gooder championing peace.

First of all, he slaughters savages who kidnapped and tortured his mother, not only innocents. And he is frustrated with himself being not strong enough to save her. Padme does not justify his actions, she tries to calm down Anakin's extraordinarily high expectations about himself. Perhaps her attitude would be different if she were there and saw with her own eyes what Anakin did.

The other problem is that nearly everything that is said in the OT about the past doesn't match up with the PT.  Something simple like Leia's mother dying when she was young is portrayed incorrectly. Taken as a part maybe it's no big deal but when nothing matches up at all, it simply feels wrong. This is exemplified by the fact that Lucas has obviously changed the story in order to appeal to fans and by doing so is also trying to rewrite the original trilogy as well, saying its really "about Darth Vader destroying the Sith" (horse****).

Agreed on this one, but can point out more mismatches? Leia's memories about Padme were the only one I noticed watching prequels.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Like do you realize that Padme marries Anakin after he confesses to murdering an entire village? He literally goes and kills like 50 civilians and her only response is "to be angry is to be human". Wtf? Maybe if she were some psychotic murderer herself I could get behind that relationship but she's supposed to be some do-gooder championing peace.

First of all, he slaughters savages who kidnapped and tortured his mother, not only innocents. And he is frustrated with himself being not strong enough to save her. Padme does not justify his actions, she tries to calm down Anakin's extraordinarily high expectations about himself. Perhaps her attitude would be different if she were there and saw with her own eyes what Anakin did.

So killing children is okay just so long as you kill a bad guy too?
I don't think people think that way.

The other problem is that nearly everything that is said in the OT about the past doesn't match up with the PT.  Something simple like Leia's mother dying when she was young is portrayed incorrectly. Taken as a part maybe it's no big deal but when nothing matches up at all, it simply feels wrong. This is exemplified by the fact that Lucas has obviously changed the story in order to appeal to fans and by doing so is also trying to rewrite the original trilogy as well, saying its really "about Darth Vader destroying the Sith" (horse****).

Agreed on this one, but can point out more mismatches? Leia's memories about Padme were the only one I noticed watching prequels.

Um, everything?
Imperial General laughing at Vader's "sad devotion to that ancient religion" - Does this seem like something you would say if only 20 years previous the Jedi had a huge temple on Coruscant with hundreds of Jedi, each of which was fighting in the armies?

The empire made up by clones even though all the bridge officers are obviously regular dudes.

Leia saying "years ago you served my father in the clone wars". Did Obi Wan fight for the Alderan guy? Don't think so. He's just a senator. The Jedi were all military leaders in the PT.

The idea of Jedi vs Sith when the OT only talks about Dark vs Light.

Obi Wan saying Uncle Owen was against Anakin following OW on some "damned fool crusade". Did Owen even know Anakin? He met the guy for like 5 hours.  Obi Wan talks as though they grew up together. Aunt Beru talks the same way as well "too much of his father in him", this suggests knowing his spirit.  You don't know a guy from meeting him for a couple hours.

"That's what your uncle told you. He didn't hold with your father's ideals.  Thought he should have stayed here and not gotten involved."

Furthermore does the conflict in the PT mirror a Crusade? Bearing in mind that the Crusades were expeditions to liberate the holy land. Not the defense of a political state.

Obi Wan saying that his father was already a great pilot when he met him. This is wrong for many reasons. First of which, Obi Wan didn't meet Anakin. Anakin wasn't a pilot, he was a pod racer.  Obi Wan doesn't mention he was a 10 year old boy, something that he realistically should have said.  This dialogue is more applicable to Finn meeting Po for example.  Is Anakin even a great pilot during the show? Honesty Han Solo arguably does more interesting things than Anakin ever does.

Obi Wan saying he took it upon himself to train Anakin. Horse**** he did, he trained him because Qui Gon asked him to. Would a guy not mention this?

Obi Wan saying that Anakin helped hunt down the Jedi. No he didn't. The Jedi all got killed by stormtroopers. Assaulting a temple is not "hunting down".

Palpatine calling the Lightsaber a Jedi weapon.  Yet he uses one in the PT.  Is he a Jedi? No. So why is he using a Jedi weapon?

Even the idea of Obi Wan calling Luke's father a "good friend" is a stretch. They goof around in the movies but they don't act much like friends and they complain about each other constantly.


Now most fans would say "If you think about it from this obscure angle, it kinda sorta makes sense".  No it doesn't. 

[chief1983]

Well, I liked it.  I get the impression that some of you went into the movie looking for a reason to not like it, or had expectations so high (seriously, why would you do that to yourselves?) that no movie could have possibly met them.  I mean, what would a perfect new trilogy be like for you all?

Seems some also forgot that RotJ was also pretty much a clone (pun intended) of ANH, so it's like there's now a series of 4 chronological movies in which 3 of them follow basically the same overarching plot.  And I don't really care.  I liked RotJ, I liked ANH, and I liked TFA.  If the TFA superweapon was maybe, I dunno, not another giant sphere, that might have helped a bit, but whatever.  Really the entire assault probably could have been done completely differently and still been awesome, but I still enjoyed it.  That's really all that matters.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Well, I liked it.  I get the impression that some of you went into the movie looking for a reason to not like it, or had expectations so high (seriously, why would you do that to yourselves?) that no movie could have possibly met them.  I mean, what would a perfect new trilogy be like for you all?

How about having a movie where the events of the original trilogy actually mattered?

Seems some also forgot that RotJ was also pretty much a clone (pun intended) of ANH, so it's like there's now a series of 4 chronological movies in which 3 of them follow basically the same overarching plot.

Demonstrate, through comparative example, how the story of RotJ and ANH are the same.
They have a common story element, the death star, but the events surrounding that element and the lasting consequences to the conflict are entirely different.

[chief1983]

Yeah.  Band of rebels work with someone strong in the force to take down a (spherical) superweapon built by followers of a Sith Lord.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Yeah.  Band of rebels work with someone strong in the force to take down a (spherical) superweapon built by followers of a Sith Lord.

Where's your examples? I asked for comparative examples and you can't even come up with one. 
And what's a "Sith Lord"?  Watched the original trilogy last week and not once did I hear the word "Sith".  Are you sure you're talking about the same movies?

[chief1983]

That is _the_ comparative example.  What do you mean I didn't give you one?  That's the overarching plot, which is exactly what I said earlier.  I'm not trying to defend statements I never made.

Just because the OT didn't mention the term Sith, doesn't mean it's not canon that Vader and Palpatine were Sith.  It is canon, so I'm pretty sure that my statement still stands.  Are you just nitpicking at minor term usage now?

[Akalabeth Angel]

That is _the_ comparative example.  What do you mean I didn't give you one?  That's the overarching plot, which is exactly what I said earlier.  I'm not trying to defend statements I never made.

Just because the OT didn't mention the term Sith, doesn't mean it's not canon that Vader and Palpatine were Sith.  It is canon, so I'm pretty sure that my statement still stands.  Are you just nitpicking at minor term usage now?

That's not an example, it's simply an elaboration of your previous statement.  A statement which is so far removed from the plot of the movie to be irrelevant.  In Episode IV it describes about 30 minutes of the movie, in Jedi even less.


Return of the Jedi isn't about the Death Star. It's about Luke confronting Vader and the Emperor. 

And unlike in Episode IV where Luke directly destroys the Death Star as well as serving as both retriever and deliverer of critical persons and information, in RotJ he isn't involved at all.
In Episode IV, all of the elements in the movie led to the climactic attack against the station, but in Jedi those elements serve mainly to create and hasten Luke's confrontation with Vader and the Emperor.

Luke saves his friends, proving he's come into his own. He's given information about Leia which is later used against him. The mission requires them to be on Endor, where he turns himself in. The death star battle and Endor serve to make him angry. He attacks, is goaded further into attacking by information about Leia and then wins, surrenders and is saved in turn. All of this would have happened regardless of the outcome of the events outside. The rebellion could have failed to win and both Vader and Palpatine would still be dead.

But you cannot really claim that without Luke present, both Vader and the Emperor would have stayed onboard the Death Star.


So that leads to either two possibilities:
Either Luke vs Vader/Emperor is the main story of the movie in which case the central story line is not the Death Star
OR
Luke vs Vader/Emperor is a sideshow, in which case Luke isn't contributing to the main plot

In either case, your statement is false.


Luke is the main character of all three movies. In ESB the Empire's actions are in direct relation to luke as well, wanting to find the base to find Luke and later capturing Han to bait Luke. So in all cases, the main story line is defined not by the backdrop of the action but through the actions and events surrounding Luke. So unless Luke is doing the same thing in each movie then the plot is not the same because the plot centres on Luke.

[NGTM-1R]

Question, are you serious?

Dead serious. Your argument here is dependent on several things being the way you interpret them (seemingly in accordance with the Expanded Trashcan).

The Falcon did not go to lightspeed inside a hanger in ANH. We do not know why. We only know they didn't. There's obviously a reason, for that time, but we were not told it. Without knowing what that reason was, all your efforts to deny it for TFA are sophistry. You don't even know what you're arguing against. You don't even know what you're arguing for.

You are literally making **** up.

[The E]

Akalabeth Angel's complaints in this regard ultimately stem from the movies not bothering to explain every single detail. Personally, I don't mind this stuff; I don't particularly care why one strategy was used in this film but not used in another. I don't need an in-universe explanation of how every i is dotted and every t crossed because I'm in this for the ride. If I needed or wanted an in-depth explanation of everything, I'd be reading David Weber, not watching Star Wars.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Question, are you serious?

The Falcon did not go to lightspeed inside a hanger in ANH. We do not know why. We only know they didn't. There's obviously a reason, for that time, but we were not told it. Without knowing what that reason was, all your efforts to deny it for TFA are sophistry.

So what are you arguing for exactly?
You're arguing that all of the circumstances surrounding when a ship did and did not enter lightspeed in the previous movies is not explained in full,  so when a ship in the new movie acts completely contrary to that behaviour, all of the circumstance are explained not by logical deduction and observation but by the sudden absence of some third unspoken and not obvious factor?

You know what the third unspoken factor is? A director who knows how to create a believable world.

Akalabeth Angel's complaints in this regard ultimately stem from the movies not bothering to explain every single detail. Personally, I don't mind this stuff; I don't particularly care why one strategy was used in this film but not used in another. I don't need an in-universe explanation of how every i is dotted and every t crossed because I'm in this for the ride. If I needed or wanted an in-depth explanation of everything, I'd be reading David Weber, not watching Star Wars.

No my complaints stem from the movie not making any sense. Not being a believable world. I've said this flat out, why you're choosing to assign a different reason for my compaints can only be taken as a deliberate misrepresentation.

Part of creating a believable world with believable characters is having those characters and that world make sense, for people to act on information, to have them think.  Without giving a character time to think, without giving initiative to their actions they're not a person just an actor reading a script. As someone who's worked for 10 years in animation and studied literature before that I have much keener understanding of story and characters than most of the people here.