>assumes I disliked it
When did I do that? All I really said was that you would have looked for things to nitpick about it, and I have like eight years of history backing me up on that.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y
Also, your odd defense of the repeated elements in this film by pointing to the original trilogy's influences is ridiculous. Pretty much every story in this day and age is going to be influenced by something, but most people - especially younger audiences - would have very little familiarity with spaghetti westerns and those goofy capeshit serials. There's no comparison between a movie being derivative of sources like them and a movie being derivative of one of the most successful movies of all time, which it also happens to be a direct sequel to.
It is not uncommon for the same themes and motifs to continue popping up in the same series of stories. Some would even say it's expected. For a saga like this, that some elements from the original story would be repeated was absolutely inevitable.
Like Rama Set said it's how they use those themes and motifs that matters, and I think the new movie was successful enough in its creation of engaging new characters (characters that really bear little resemblance beyond some very superficial comparisons to those in the original) that it worked.
My main criticism of the movie is that its story depends maybe a bit too much on coincidence on top of coincidence, but that's also been something of a mainstay of the movies in the past, and to some extent to films/storytelling in general, and once the story got rolling it didn't even seem to matter.