Dropping the really broad terms might be for the best, the larger almost philosophical level of discourse to be had about what defines art or an artist may be worth having as its own conversation, but far off the beaten path from the initial point. We need words that we can all agree on their definition, there’s so many splinters where we will inherently feel differently, about death of the author, auteur theory, “movies” vs “films”, etc. Sincerely I have softened my own view a little, I really don’t like being the bully and though Disney is a powerhouse empire themselves which often makes it feel like punching up, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to hold the new movies themselves to the impossible standards that is recapturing the lightning in a bottle that was the OT. That said, fans like myself comparatively do feel the invisible hands of corporate takeover muddying the waters, remember Disney had that whole thing about not wanting to see limbs getting chopped off, as well as the underlying sense the new property holders would much rather rest on their laurels and print what they knew worked when they bought it than truly expand into more original material, such as decades ago when the original founding studio heads like Jack Warner retired and sold their companies to Coca-Cola and so on. Course that’s a rock and a hard place, as Dave Chapelle put it, “where art meets corporate interests…” but I think both ends here have a biased starting premise: either that the new films cannot and never could have been truly authentic within the context of their creation (center cannot hold), OR that the means and ideas are inconsequential so long as the execution remains high. Both can be true, from a certain point of view.