No, I understand why people are
frustrated/disappointed/angry/upset/let down by the film.
I'm wanting someone who had a strong negative reaction to TLJ to hash out even an inkling of what it means to have a film that handles the lore/characters/backstory in their preferred way. E.G., I hear a lot of how ROTJ is supposedly invalidated. Either because it throws away the idea that the rebels achieved a lasting victory, or because the character of Luke is betrayed by the portrayal of his fleeting moment of wanting to kill Ben.
I mean, first of all, to quote Adam Savage from the Still Untitled spoilercast "they feel conflict about the central conflict of the film? Achievement unlocked."
What's Luke's role supposed to be instead? Do folks really want to see an older Luke Skywalker dueling with the new bad guy? If Luke would never raise his saber to Ben in the first place, what does he do?
One of the reasons TLJ resonated with me is the way they handled the 'legend' of Skywalker. It reminded me a lot of a John Wayne/Jimmy Stewart movie called The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Long story short, Stewart's character gets credit for shooting a notorious outlaw, and then becomes a politician turned senator. Except it was Wayne's character that actually made the shot, so Stewart's character held a deep conflict about it. He tells the story to the town reporter, who tears up his notes. "This is the West, sir. When legend becomes fact, print the legend."
And that's what Luke realizes. The legend of Luke Skywalker can still save the Resistance. It was such a poetic act of self sacrifice.