I’m on the team that favors nuanced takes on the classic Star Wars elements. IG-11 in The Mandalorian should by all accounts just been a cold, ruthless and effective bounty droid based on what we know about IG-88, but they took the time to deconstruct the archetype and deliver an engaging arc for him tale while delving into topics such as the nature vs nurture debate.
I’m not saying SW can’t have nuance to it, I’m just saying that if every creature gets deconstructed there won’t be much SW left.
F.ex. Most people don’t complain about a lack of depth in the orcs in LOTR, and the ones who do are usually given a quick rundown of what they represent and why a mythic fantasy doesn’t need this kind of overanalysis. SW on the other hand, presumavly due to it’s Sci-Fi aesthetic rarely seens to get the same response.
You can give depth to hobbits, dwarves, elfs, heck even the talking trees gets a little bit of nuance, but Sauron, like Palpatine in SW, is a symbol of pure evil, and should never be treated as anything else. Saruman and Vader were both corrupted by evil, they were written to represent this relatable and nuanced human behaviour, that’s their purpose in their respective stories, while their masters represents that corruptible power, i.e. something abstract.
So nuance and depth in SW is great if it serves a narrative purpose and when it is written by somone who understands the mythic structure that holds it all together.
The philosophy of deconstructionism underminds the very nature of SW, as it does all myths and fairytales. All fiction, even fantasy, should, and usually do have nuance to it, but deconstruction tends to unravel it through overanalysis. I understand the purpose of deconstructionism in the real world and even for fiction about the real world, but I think it’s a poor match for fantasy.