My post that started all of this was in response to someone saying that they didn't do any original storytelling. By the way, I'm also not going to type of my reasoning unless someone asks me to. I'm only willing to spend time defending my position in conversation, not in monologue.
Either way, I think there's two ways to look at originality. One, is the story original? The answer to that question is always no, in my opinion. Doesn't matter what it is. There are details that are different, but the story is the same. Hell, Rogue One is just another "Hero's Journey" story, same as A New Hope. The other side of this is whether or not it's original in the format or setting. That's what set Star Wars apart in the first place. First of all, the space setting was different. But even the character archetypes were somewhat new for the format. I mean, Princess Leia wasn't a new type of female character, but she was a new type of female character for Hollywood. Movies were still developing as an art form, though. I'm not sure they still are. That doesn't mean great movies can't be made. And of course, the techniques used to tell the old stories, essentially through a medium of visual effects that had never existed before... that's original. It's possible to be original in how you tell a story, even if the story isn't original itself.
I think the majority of people who criticize TFA for being unoriginal just didn't like the movie and, for a variety of reasons, want to have a "rational" reason why they didn't. You come pretty close to saying that same thing. You found TFA uninspired... by itself, without any context of originality or even of other Star Wars movies. That's fine and that's what I get at. You judge the movie for what it is, not what you'd like it to be.
