Even if we pursue this Coca-Cola analogy, the recipe for coke as it currently stands isn’t the same as it was when Coke was invented. Coca Cola isn’t Coca Cola anymore either. Things change and evolve and those evolutions tend to be accepted for what they are and the definition of what a thing is (and can be) get expanded accordingly.

For the purposes of this comparison, Coca Cola is still, like Star Wars, about 95% the same thing it always was. There are changes and differences. Your argument falls apart because it needs for there to be the idea that only the name has survived, and everything else that makes up its substance has been jettisoned and replaced, and that’s a pretty alarmist and inaccurate representation of Star Wars and the Sequel Trilogy’s contributions to it.

You’re essentially saying you care more about how a thing is made then whether it’s made well.

The idea that the stories aren’t being executed well and are failing or succeeding on their own merits, I have no problem with that. It’s pretty much the point of interacting with art - you judge the works based on how they worked or didn’t ON YOU. But when your interaction with art tends to hinge more on things like “what brush did they use” “whose canvas is that” “where did they source the paints from” and less on “how did this make me feel” then I feel like you’re not really giving the art itself a chance to work, because you’re more concerned (or distracted) with the trivia behind its creation than you are experiencing the ideas its trying to communicate.