See how context can actually make the story stronger? I take it that all of this information about Leia and the Resistance came from ancillary sources like books and such. Had any of it been in the movie it most certainly could have given audiences context as to how and why these things were playing out the way they did.
Again, I think we're dealing with real world problems here. There is limited time (2-2.5 hrs max) in a typical film to tell your story. I said repeatedly, in the wake of TFA, that I wished the film had cut maybe 20 minutes of action sequences and replaced it with 20 minutes of exposition. I think it would have made a
huge difference to all of the storytelling going forward. I, for one,
hate the notion of "Oh, just read the novel/comic/web blog/tweets from JJ/whatever" to address issues relating to worldbuilding. Your story ought to be self-contained enough to do that on its own, without having a footnote that says "See, TFA: The Novelization for more." You also shouldn't be building "mystery" into this unless it's relevant to the story. Snoke's identity and how he managed to create the First Order isn't relevant to the story as a mystery. By that, I mean it's not a plot point or something that anyone in the films is trying to figure out. Therefore, there's zero reason to leave the audience in the dark about it, except for JJ's lazy "mystery box" BS as a means to manufacture audience interest, and a desire to keep the action sequences going instead. (Side note: one thing I actually really appreciate as a difference between TLJ and TFA is that TLJ bothers to take its time in telling the story it's trying to tell. One may dislike that story and the direction that it went, but at least the film isn't saying "NEVERMIND THAT, HERE'S RATHTARS!!!!! RUNFORYOURLIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!").
So, yes, I think the new trilogy does have a major weak spot in terms of what it does to "set the table," so to speak. Hell, you could've done a wordier opening crawl and it would've helped tons.
That said, I think that, again,
IF you can accept that the off-screen events happened as described, then it makes sense that our characters are where they are. The problem is in making the leap from the state of the galaxy at the end of ROTJ to the state of the galaxy at the start of TFA. Unlike the state between ROTS and ANH, TFA is seriously jarring in terms of "Whoa...how the hell did we end up
here?" As I've said before, I blame JJ in a big, big way for that.
With regards to Luke, I'm sure most people would hate themselves after something like that, but again it conflicts with what we know of Luke from Return of the Jedi. He spent that entire film redeeming Vader who was far more evil than Ben ever was. What could Ben have possibly done that was so bad that he couldn't be redeemed? Luke only attacked Vader when he was provoked by him and it was because he threatened to turn Leia. When he realized what he did he stopped himself and threw away his weapon and refused to give in to the Emperor. Again we are missing context in TLJ. Luke says Snoke got to Ben. So what? The Emperor succeded in turning Vader and he was able to come back to the light. What fundamentally changed in Luke where contemplating killing his nephew was even an option?
TLJ explains that Luke had a vision of the future and Ben being this galactic tyrant. This is actually in keeping with what we know of him from the OT. Luke has always been someone who thought about the future at the expense of the present. Yoda says this to him when he reveals his own identity to Luke in ESB (The "Long have I watched this one" speech). It happens again to Luke when he races off to Bespin to save his friends -- based on a vision of the future and his desire to control it. I would argue that of all Luke's flaws, it makes perfect sense that this one would be his achilles heel and the thing that ultimately destroys the good he builds. (Plus, science fiction and fantasy have long treated prescience as a curse of sorts.) So, basically,
IF Luke witnessed a sufficiently bad vision of the future, then it might make sense that he'd have his moment of weakness, only to immediately hate himself after it....but it's too late.
Again this idea was one that George Lucas came up with from The Phantom Menace days that actually changes the context of the Force itself and turns it from an Eastern idea of impartial metaphysics and into a concrete Western deity with a conscious will. If you're going to have a series you can't just change the structural rules halfway through to suit your poor writing choices. You can expand on the original ideas but to change the rules themselves only conflicts with what came before and will likely upend your fanbase who is following it based on the rules you established in the first place. Having established boundaries is what sets Star Wars apart from Star Trek. It's what sets Lord of the Rings apart from Harry Potter.
You can't change the rules halfway into the game and expect people to want to continue playing along. The Force can't be both things at once and work as a guiding element of the story. Either it's a deity of some kind that has a conscious will and can make choices of who can tap into it, or it's an impartial energy that can be accessed by people who are sensitive to it. Those two ideas are diametrically opposed to one another. It's the reason why people were so annoyed that Anakin was result of a virgin birth by the will of the Force in TPM and why the idea of a Chosen One and a prophecy seemed to not quite fit with what we experienced of Luke in the Original Trilogy. Besides, if the Force is a god of some kind with a will of it's own, because let's face it you can't have a will if you are not conscious, then why would it choose people to be able to tap into it's power rather than use that power for it's own ends? See how that idea muddies the waters?
By and large, I agree that you can't just up and change the rules mid-game....except when you can. But if and when you do it, you need to take the time to explain why the new rules work and should be treated as new rules or a newer understanding of the rules. For example, Lucas' introduction of "midichlorians." I hated this when it was introduced, and thankfully, it was left by the wayside immediately after. But the notion of the "will of the Force" or a dichotomy between the "cosmic" and "living" Force, I think, fits. Basically, I think the Force is bigger and more complex than was described in the OT or slightly expanded upon in the PT. The Clone Wars cartoon sort of dealt with this as well, but it's kind of a confusing portion of the show, and it's not really dwelt upon. Suffice to say that I think the notion of "balance" is really essential, and that a Force out of balance may in some ways "act" to rebalance itself. But this is less than, necessarily, turning the Force into a Western, anthropomorphic deity with sentience, with consciousness and clear will, and is perhaps more like how water will seek to find its own level (at least when gravity acts upon it). In that sense, water's "will" is to be level, but it's not like water is sitting around saying "Hmm...how can I be level? Let's see...." Or arguably the "will" of the "living" Force is something that's kind of beyond comprehension, and we only see the effects.
I think there can be a light and a dark side, clearly, but that one is not necessarily intrinsically good or evil. Rather, they are made up of different impulses which, depending on how they are experienced by an individual, can be good or bad. And that brings us full circle to the king of yin/yang of Eastern philosophy, rather than the good/evil of Western philosophy. You could argue that the nature of the Dark Side is such that it is very often used
for evil, but that the Dark Side
itself is not evil per se. Think of it this way. Is love good or evil? I would argue that depends on how it manifests. Love can be the joining of two people to work together and bring the best out of each other, without stifling the other or stifling the self, which is good.
Or love can manifest as putting your partner on a pedestal, almost in kind of a worshipful way, which denies them their own personhood and makes them almost an object of your affection, rather than a real person. This may seem "good" at first blush, because it is less obviously harmful, but it is still harmful -- to the self, and ultimately to the relationship with the other person. First, nobody is capable of sustaining themselves on a pedestal, and that kind of worship can all too easily turn to bitterness when the other person fails to live up to the fantasy of the person placing them on the pedestal. Second, that approach to love tends to deny the self, by placing the other person so far above you and in front of you, that you neglect yourself, suppress your own desires, and make yourself less than a person in service to this other person whom you claim to love. That, in turn, sacrifices both your happiness
and the other person's (assuming they want you to be happy, too), and ultimately the relationship, which is not exactly "evil" but is definitely not good.
Or love can manifest as cruel possessiveness and manipulation, all in a desire to hang on to something, to possess it, again like an object instead of treating the other person like a person, which is much more obviously "evil" or at least bad. (Evil in its worst manifestations, certainly.)
So, is love evil or good? It's neither. Love is a force, and how it manifests is what determines whether it is good or evil, helpful or harmful. I see the Dark and Light Sides of the Force as simply being aspects of a force like love. Neither is inherently good or evil in the western sense, but rather what matters is how each manifests. Pure "darkness" is just as bad as pure "lightness" the same way that pure "devotional" love is just as bad as pure "possessive" love. Neither is good when manifesting in their absolute sense.