Which is ultimately tantamount to an appeal to majority and means nothing. I'm referring to him because it's his review. And that, again, is simply wrong on several levels. There is no requirement to do only what is "necessary", whatever that means. The midichlorian content does not further explain the nature of the Force itself, other than in establishing that it has a will and can become unbalanced. What it further explains is the nature of how users connect to the Force. It should not be construed as killing whatever one might have found special about the Force as presented in the OT, because it takes none of that exposition away and mostly avoids describing the Force itself. We'll have to agree to disagree. I think film criticism that dispenses with fact to such an extent is of questionable value. Which is a strawman in this context, because my argument hasn't been predicated on any EU sources. You seem to be trying to have it both ways, and it's not working. If we take him seriously when he says "I don't like things that are different", we're missing a funny bone or two ( also known as the "I was just joking and you have no sense of humor" defense ). Yet somehow "I don't like when Star Wars is different" is no joke at all - it's called fair criticism. It is nothing of the sort. It is only a resistance to new information. That in itself does not constitute meaningful criticism. It merely illuminates the nature of the so-called critic.