Hmm okay so you disregard the movie's opening crawl and 3PO's line about being doomed because they no longer have the Republic fleet. I guess we disagree then because I have absolutely no problem with letting those two elements of the film stand as authorities on that aspect of the story.
I disregard that line in the opening crawl of TFA because the premise of much of the movie, and absolutely everything I've come across that LFL/Disney has put out after that, ended up making the line utterly incoherent. If I don't disregard that line, I'd have to disregard all of the novels, the reference books, and other supplementary material that directly contradict it. More importantly, I'd also have to disregard a logical premise for there being a Resistance in the first place, and for their desperate need to bring back Luke Skywalker. Leia wouldn't need a Resistance, or Luke, because a Republic (and their army) aligned with her agenda would negate any such needs.
The Threepio line is a different deal, though. That line is one he could've easily delivered had the Hosnian system not been destroyed. Upon merely learning of the destructive potential of Starkiller targeting them, and knowing that the Resistance had no support from the Republic, Threepio could have easily still opined that: "Without the Republic fleet, we're doomed."
I didn't infer from Threepio's line that the Hosnian destruction led to the entire Republic fleet being destroyed along with it. It was a *galactic* Republic; so for their military machinery to all be centralized on one system of five planets would be absurd. There would also likely be a chain of command in place that would go into effect following the destruction of their central command/Senate. I presume (maybe wrongly) that the Republic wouldn't be stupid enough to centralize everything and leave the much larger galaxy unchecked and unprotected.
Somebody had to give Leia all her X-Wings, and her base, or at least the funds to purchase them and the opening crawl states point blank who is supporting her so in my mind the film fits together just fine in that regard.
The Resistance is basically recycling a lot of old Rebel resources, in much the same way that renegade opposition forces get their resources in real life. There's a lot of X-Wings, A-Wings, and other Rebellion-era vehicles that would likely have been decommissioned by the New Republic in favor of newer models. Funding could've come from a multitude of sources, including the individual senators sympathetic to her cause (made clear in "Bloodline"). But not from the Republic as one official governing body; again, that wouldn't make sense.
Leia also recruited old Rebellion allies like Ackbar and Nien Nunb who no longer had roles to relish in the New Republic. That was in addition to also recruiting young idealists and dreamers who were loyal to her from her time in the Senate; or who were loyal to the idea of defeating a galactic threat that the Republic was doing nothing about, but that Leia was convinced needed to be stopped. I've enjoyed the novels and reference books that have touched on this early formation of the Resistance, and how Leia started sniffing out the First Order. There's some pretty good stuff in there.
But again that lack of reliability only gets magnified if you focus more on material *outside* the film more than TFA itself. And if focusing on such materials makes you dislike the character of Han Solo then if I were you I'd ignore that stuff. But of course that's up to you.
No, it's very much even TFA itself. Again, the search for Luke was a key plot point to the entire movie. If Leia could count on the Republic to do anything but sit on their asses, she wouldn't be so desperate to bring Luke back. The Resistance is pinning their hopes on Luke because they'll be defeated easily otherwise. And why? Because they aren't being backed by the Republic. The deleted TFA scene proves that JJ's Leia is desperate for the Senate to come to their senses and change their official position. Why would she want them to change their minds if they were already supporting her? That makes no sense.
They obviously had some sort of effed up family, for all we know he figured that his son was like his ex-wife, who he claimed "doesn't want to see me." So maybe he thought that just the sight of his own face would push Kylo away even further. Who knows. Lots of leeway in justifying why Han did what he did IMO.
Sure, there's leeway. Just like there's leeway to believe Han felt that Leia didn't want to see him because she'd be angry that he abandoned her, abandoned any effort to save their son, and abandoned the good fight against the FO.
What I rely on is context. There's the context of Han and Leia in the OT, and the context offered in TFA. Han had evolved into a steadfast hero by the end of the OT; willing to sacrifice whatever he needed to in order to protect what mattered to him. Most especially, to protect Leia. When we see him in TFA, though, he's needing someone like Maz to point out that he's being derelict in his duties and obligations. Instead of supporting the fledgling Resistance, or helping find Luke, or working with Leia on how to save Ben, or doing anything the way we'd expect . . . what did we find Han doing? Smuggling rathtars and swindling death gangs.
When he reunites with Leia, we see how she treats him. There's no insufferable hostility. Leia's incredibly gracious to Han, and clearly wanting him to "come back home." In part, because (as she says) she always hated watching him leave. But he'd clearly left anyway. He left everything he'd built. Left everything he would have died to try to protect in the OT . . . in order to return to smuggling and swindling. That's the context and exposition I saw, and what I had a problem with. But that's just me, and I can compartmentalize it enough to still enjoy TFA.
But with Han I just see him as being taken out of the fight due to emotional damage. And for me that becomes a more forgivable, even relatable, offense. I put Luke in the same category.
Khev, you're actually preaching to the choir; but in an unsuspecting and unintended way. As I've mentioned here before: I hated the TFA idea of Luke leaving everyone to fend for themselves too.
A major reason why I appreciate TLJ so much is because it did the best it could to make Luke's abandoning seem selfless and aimed at doing the right thing. By the end of TLJ, Luke had realized that his effort to do the right thing was misguided . . . but it was still him trying to achieve a right/good purpose all along. Han clearly wasn't trying to do anything noble in the couple/few years prior to TFA.
JJ didn't seem to mind that Han and Luke would lose their nobility, so long as they find the righteous road eventually. I understand how some think that's perfectly fine; I get it. But, for me, that kind of logic flies in the face of their characterizations in the OT. Han, Luke, and Leia were largely defined by their willingness to sacrifice selflessly for the greater good. Any story that has either of them acting purely selfishly all of a sudden, and without any heroic motive, is one that I'd have issues with every time. Not to the point of hating the story, but definitely to the point of being disappointed.
