Ok, I'll play, too. Here's a few for ya.
1. TLJ sucks. No, it doesn't. It's a fantastic film with a ton of interesting messages in it. However, as a sequel to TFA and as the middle chapter between TFA and TROS, it's really, really out of place. It didn't have to be, though. That film threw down the gauntlet and challenged the people in charge of the franchise to think bigger than just reiterating what's been done before. But they chickened out and went with recycled plots, and we got TROS. TLJ was great because it laughs and tells you that all the build-up that JJ Abrams created in TFA was a bunch of meaningless chicanery with no soul. TLJ purposefully broke down all the conventions of Star Wars films and cleared the ground to start again with something new, stylistically, structurally, and even in-universe for the characters. It was incredibly ambitious, but the producers flinched in the wake of irate fans who want their heroes preserved in amber
2. TROS sucks. I mean....not exactly. TROS was a rushed, slapped together rollercoaster ride...but it would've worked better if it had been the capstone to an entire trilogy of JJ Abrams films. I don't think I'd have liked them, but they'd have held together a hell of a lot better as a trilogy. TFA is a roller-coaster, too, which made sense as the re-launch of the franchise, but it fell victim to the whole "mystery box" nonsense that propels a lot of Abrams' material. But those two films -- if connected by a similar middle roller-coaster film -- would've "worked" as sequels better than the stylistic and narrative whipsawing we get with TLJ in the middle.
3. More is better. No, it isn't. More is just more. And much of the time, more is worse. Stories should have endings and not go on forever. Settings can go on forever, though. That's how franchises should be handled. They aren't the continuing stories of XYZ set of characters; they're settings within which you can tell tons of different stories. And if they can't work as a setting, because they're too focused on a character? Then don't turn them into a franchise. I mean, I love me some Bond films, and can find things to enjoy in all of them (yes, even Moonraker), but they are the perfect embodiment of a franchise being more of a "setting" than a character. You can make Bond a character, but then his story needs an end. (Which it seems we've come to with the latest one, and I'm fine with.)
4. The Star Wars EU was good. No it ****ing wasn't, and it didn't deserve to be preserved. It was, by and large, garbage. The initial Zahn trilogy was great and captured the vibe of the films. The Rogue Squadron books were decent, too. Beyond that? Pretty much just crap, at least up to when I stepped off that merry-go-round. The books were really never good. You just liked them because you were 14 and your taste was crap back then, and you were just happy for "more of the same" and because they were all the Star Wars that you could get back then. Because that's really all those books were, for the most part: more of the same. It's fine. You don't have to feel bad about it. My tastes were crap then, too, and I gobbled that stuff up. But in hindsight? It was crap. The best part about it wasn't the stories, but rather the setting and worldbuilding, and the vast bulk of that had nothing to do with the novels at all, but rather with the good people at West End Games going all the way back to 1987.
5. DS9 is better than Babylon 5. Hahahahaha, no. No, it very much isn't. Babylon 5 is an actual story and is a monumental achievement in television history, having been written almost entirely by one guy who remained showrunner for it's entire 5-season run. DS9 doesn't grow a story until about 3/4 of the way in. It's fine for Star Trek, and better than some other Trek stuff, but it was in no way better than B5.
I thought Stranger Things 4 illustrated that perfectly. To me that was literally the equivalent of putting a full book on screen. Loved it.
