So then why is it some can view a "flaw" in one film and say that it's forgivable? But if a similar "flaw" shows up in another film. Not only is that unforgiveable, but it's used as evidence to show that it's a bad film.
This is a silly example. But it illustrates what I'm talking about. I've had people tell me that seeing bombs dropping in space broke the immersion. So I have ask them why TIE bombers dropping bombs in space doesn't phase them? To date nobody can answer me.
This has been answered before but I'll reiterate yet again. The bombs dropping in the zero gravity of space makes little sense and would have worked better if they added a two second shot showing that each bomb had some thrusters or some sort of propulsion device to direct them at their target. It's a nit pick to me, but I can see the validity of people's gripe with it. It was merely supposed to evoke the bombing raids of WWIII era films. I get that and while I rolled my eyes at it, it wasn't what killed the movie for me. It was such a minor thing that I can overlook that because I had other major issues as I watched.
Here's why the TIE bombers worked in ESB and no one questioned it. It was because the ships were flying in very low orbit and consequently within the gravity well of the asteroid itself which would naturally pull the bombs down. Simple. Effective. It doesn't need explanation.
Again as you yourself stated it's a small example but illustrates, to my mind, a better understanding of how to evoke a WWII image but do it in a way that wouldn't have people questioning how it worked.
And this is the crux of why people like me are more forgiving of the OT's flaws because I feel that those films were better executed and the flaws were minor enough to forgive. Partly because I think the people making them had a better understanding of how to translate those ideas to film, and more importantly because I was FAR more invested in the characters than I ever was with the ST characters.
For example: Return of the Jedi is criticized for having a second Death Star space battle at the climax of the film and being repetitive of that idea. The first movie's entire plot was focused on blowing that thing up, where as the entire plot of Return of the Jedi is actually focused on Luke defeating the Emperor by saving Vader and turning him back to the light. So while blowing up the Death Star 2 is important to the plot, it's a subplot meant to give Luke a finite amount of time to save Anakin and get off that thing before it blows. Plus that space battle is so cleverly shot and framed that I enjoy it for that element alone. It's effects and subplot in service of story. It moves the emotional narrative forward effectively by setting the stage on which the characters play out their roles.
Another aspect of that film that people don't care for is the Ewoks. I grew up loving them and still do. While I can concede that it would have been much cooler to see Wookiees in the battle instead I also know George was also concerned with getting a cut of the teddy bear market and wanted to sell toys. Though from a story perspective he'd established Chewbacca as a more sophisticated creature and he was no longer the primitive type that he envisioned so he cut them down in size and changed the name to that end. What worked for me was having the Ewoks using their environment to take down the Empire's war machines. It was a powerful visual metaphor which showed that they weren't just idiotic creatures, but also exposed the hubris of the Empire in thinking they were indestructable. It's effectiveness was then two fold.
Contrast that with the Gungans who left their environment and had no reason at all to fight off the Battle Droids when they'd never even invaded their underwater city or had any impact on their way of life whatsoever based on what the film actually showed us vs. what the characters said. It didn't make much sense.
These are just a few specific examples of why I can forgive some flaws in the OT and accept the movies at face value, where I find that some of the flaws, when poorly executed in the new films, or used to prop up characters I don't care about, take me right out of the movie and no longer suspend my disbelief.
There has to be an inherent logic to the story and the more far fetched the premise, the more believable the characters have to be in order for the audience to buy into that premise. Plus the way the story is told is important too. If you are constantly intercutting low brow jokes and juxstaposing that with emotionally heavy character development, you lose me because the tone switches too fast for me to follow and it feels unnatural. Am I supposed to laugh or am I supposed to be contemplative? You can't jump back and forth and expect an audience to understand what they are meant to be feeling in that moment.
I feel like often I've delved into things like this before, but perhaps these more specific examples might help you understand where I'm coming from.
Is that fair?
Don't go into anything about the constraints of shooting on Earth. If they'd deemed it important enough, there are easy ways to simulate low gravity on a soundstage.
