One of the reasons the novels give for why the Republic didn't realize the First Order was rearming was that Leia never had any hard evidence and that the First Order was being sneaky about it. So the Republic didn't just send a massive fleet once they learned they were training Stormtroopers and building Star Destroyers.

But Rose tells us that hers was one of many inhabited worlds strip mined to fund the First Order war effort and that her people were then used for target practice by those weapons. Also BF2 slightly elaborates that the FO kidnapped the vast bulk of its personal from across the galaxy as children.

Which means its impossible to have kept things like this a secret, especially since Rose would be a credible witness to such activity and its a bit difficult to conceal things like strip mining planets and bombarding them from orbit; killing millions of people tends to draw attention.

Also the FO got most of its military equipment via contacts within the wider galaxy. Did people not wonder who was building all the Star Destroyers that were filling Kuat Drive Yards? How could the FO control the flow of information and prevent the Republic from noticing or the press from finding out. People tend to notice when you are building a 60km ship above the core worlds.

If this was the plot of an animated show like Rebels I'd think it was being silly and that the writers hadn't thought this through. But apparently because Disney has spent a ton of money on this franchise they feel they don't need to bother with thinking this through and are immune from criticism. Hell, Rebels and the Clone Wars are like War and Peace compared to this rubbish.

I mean Rian Johnson has, with a serious face, said that in his 2 and a half hour long film he could not spend 30 seconds explaining who his main villain was. As if we're supposed to listen to the wise film-maker and accept his wisdom. Its nonsense.

Lord of the Rings takes the time to explain who Sauron is in the opening scene and explain its own mythology. That only serves to make the film a richer and more profound experience. Why does reducing Snoke to the level of a generic character we nothing about make him a more compelling character? One they actively pushed in all of the trailer and the previous film?

When many fans were actually engaged and curious about the character Rian Johnson decides he can't spare 30 seconds to provide basic exposition. I think that really does reveal an utter contempt Rian Johnson and Disney have for Star Wars Lore and the fans. Its the complete reverse of how masterfully they have won fans over with the Marvel franchise.

Does Holdo's speech about restoring the Republic mean anything if the film does not convey what a character within that setting would associate that with? The legacy of the rebellion, a government that had existed for thousands of years before. All because neither JJ or Rian have explained what the New Republic meant to people and why destroying it was a terrible thing for these people.

For something to be morally grey there has to be some equivalency between the two sides. This does not happen in the Last Jedi. The Resistance are, as per Admiral Holdo's speech, aiming to Restore the Republic exactly like the Rebel Alliance. This is an unequivocal statement, backed up by her later heroic sacrifice. Po Dameron in the first scene says that he is "Po Dameron of the Republic Navy". So our heroes are trying to restore peace and democracy to the galaxy. In this context the First Orders attack on the Hosnian System in the previous film is an unprovoked assault against the legitimate democratic government. The insinuation is that the New Republic is clearly viewed by our characters as the expression of popular sovereignty; not as an out of touch clique of elites. So the film is definitely not critical of the good guys institutions or radically populist because our goal is to maintain the status quo from an assault by a criminal Nazi regime. Whose soldiers use entire planetary populations for target practice.

A lot of people point at the war profiteering people selling X Wings as an example of moral greyness. There are two major problems with that assessment. Firstly, this does not directly implicate the New Republic. We aren't told this is a Republic world. The people in question are corporate interests. We don't see, for example, corrupt senators who have joined the First Order. Its also a misreading of that exchange. The slicer is arguing that these capitalists can't be so bad because they also sold weapons to the good guys and so is arguing that he shouldn't be loyal out of principle. To me this was part of a core theme of Hope vs Cynicism. You see this over and over again in the film. You are not supposed to agree with this slicers opinion. The fact the capitalists sell weapons to both sides is something that criminalizes them, not the governments who buy them since the New Republic used its military as a citizen defense aimed at protecting democracy. Which means its something inconsequential to the core struggle between the First Order and the Resistance. Meaning it does not make that conflict morally grey.

For example, Roses reaction to her people being slaughtered by Imperials is not, to blame the New Republic for not helping her people. In fact she joins a military organization which per film canon in the opening of TFA we are told is supported secretly by the New Republic.

We then have Kylo Ren. Mr Emo himself. "From my point of view the Jedi are evil!". This is a weak man and I find it really sad that the audience is so primed to sympathize with a monster and have such callous disregard for his victims. Yes, Luke considers killing him. Because he rightly see's that Kylo Ren is a monster. Which is validated because he immediately runs out and we are told offhand that he slaughtered everyone in the Jedi Temple; presumably including all of the children. Whilst apparently the characters decision not to murder his mother is considered sympathetic? That's completely forgetting him murdering Han. Plus considering his goal seems to be to slaughter people who want to restore democracy are we really supposed to view him with any sympathy. This thing is an animal, he needs to be put down and I think its almost offensive that Rian Johnson thinks we should spend any time sympathizing with the villain. Its only because Rian Johnson deflects and avoids Kylo Rens crimes, as well as the crimes of the First order more generally, that people are not saying that this is a clear cut moral tale.

Another reason is the supposed criticism of some of the previous institutions in Star Wars. For example Kylo tells Rey to let the past die listing how the Sith, Empire, First Order, Jedi etc should end and a new (Second?) Order should rise. Theres one enormous problem people have willfully overlooked. Rey rejects Rens cynicism. More generally, if a villain is telling you that they hate everything about Star Wars its a bizarre conclusion to draw that they are right. Which I think relates to my above point that Rey refutes Luke on the Jedi having to end because they didn't stop Sideous and is clearly being set up to re-establish the Jedi Order. Holdo tells us about reforming the Republic and Luke that the Rebellion has been reborn. I think people are projecting their own expectations that the film would be grey. Indeed for all its faults I did not feel like it actually challenged the core pillars of Star Wars. If we had then Rey would have disbanded the Jedi, she would have joined Ren, the Republic dismissed as a failure. Indeed the very point is that you hold on to hope even in the face of failure and that the point is a moral principle not a materialist one of "oh I have this massive fleet so I always win. Might makes right!".

Which leads in to another point. Our heroes constantly lose so it must be morally grey. Again this confuses morality with power. You can still be morally right and lose. Just look at Ned Stark in Game of Thrones. Good man, but doomed. Same thing with the resistance. Unless you really believe we are supposed to criticize the Resistance for being weak and that might makes right. They are simply doing the best they can in an impossible situation imposed on them because Disney made the First Order overpowered. I mean considering three small cruisers destroyed a ridiculously large number of FO ships you have to wonder what the NR fleet could do. I mean considering that Mon Cal is considered a cruiser I am guessing the New Repbulic had a few large dreadnoughts of its own before plot device base destroyed it. All this doesn't mean we are invited to criticize the good guys. Where it does in the case of the Jedi the point is that such cynicism is misplaced and that you should always hold on to hope.

Finally we have the populism which people think subverts Star Wars "Monarchist" and "Dynastic" leanings. By making Rey a nobody it makes the stunning revelation that anyone can be a Jedi. Few points. Anakin was a slave in Episode 1 and Luke a farm boy. The Skywalkers are not even an aristocratic family with vast inherited wealth. This confuses family identity and legacy with contemporary issues. The Skywalker legacy, or the Solo legacy IS one of the common man. So its really disingenuous to imply that Rey is any different in this regard or that being from a known family would have diminished this. In fact if she really is going to become a Satele Shan Grand Jedi Master doing twirly wirly with a double light saber then she is going to have a great legacy that will presumably be passed on to her children. So its not deconstructing hero mythology at all. Plus its never been stated that ordinary people can't be Jedi. Ezra from Rebels, Ahsoka from the Clone Wars. In fact the vast bulk of Jedi are not aristocratic, they simply come from across the galaxy and are primarily defined by their role as monkish paladins; not any sort of background. Also how is it morally grey if you are stressing that one faction represents the common people and yet the other represents despotism and tyranny? I do not follow this reasoning.