First of all, I’ve noticed that a lot of crap from Marvel employees and freelancers is usually the result of provocation from sections of the fanbase, who can be downright hostile, if not verbally attacking and harassing people simply because they do not like comic book X for such and such reasons. Now, I don't think that some professionals are that well-behaved in the first place (Dan Slott is not, even if he does get a lot of harassment) and the internet seems to easily bring out the worst in people, but, at the end of the day, I don't think the fans are really the victims here, or at least are part of the problem.
Secondly, do the majority of buying readers really care that much about the online theatrics that go one? Frankly, I'm more worried about whether I like the actual comics made and of my favorites stay in print, more so than what the drama queens are screaming about.
Also, it seems like the definition of "treating fans like [bleep]" is very fluid. It can be defined as anything from a writer making an impolitic comment online to the writers killing off someones favorite character, to the point that it seems like a lot of people think "if I don't like it, it's bad and Marvel/DC/whoever are trying to hurt the fans by doing it." The mindset also seems to assume that all fans have the same monolithic opinion and want the exact same thing.
Not exactly, there are a
lot of differences. Pretty much everything post-ROTJ doesn't fit anymore and a lot of stuff from between the movies has also bee invalidated (
Shadows of the Empire was overwritten by
Moving Target, pretty much everything we knew about Palpatine's motivations was changed by the
Aftermath trilogy and the
Tarkin novel,
Clone Wars completely changed the Mandalorians -- albeit
Rebels has been skewing a lot closer to Legends in terms of the bigger picture, etc.). You want to go big,
Rogue One is nothing like the various versions of the Death Star plans heist from Legends.
Elements have come back, yes, but I think, big picture-wise, Legends and canon are very different beasts.
True, but his role is a lot different; he went from being the head of the revived Empire that operated after the original movies to being an important Imperial officer between the original trilogies.
There were a lot of characters named "Finn" (all listed
here) and I'm not seeing one that matches your description), but the idea of a defector joining the good guys isn't exactly a rare plot trope, so I'm skeptical that Finn was based on any specific Legends character, much less Katarn or the Hand of Judgement squad from that little duology of books. As I recall, the Finn character was created when the movie makers were hashing things out and got the idea that making of the new leads a stormtrooper would be an interesting idea.
Now, a lot of random Legends stuff has been brought back, biggie stuff like Thrawn, to really obscure things (the Order of the Terrible Glare is canon again, as is it's leader Rur, albeit with the latter now connected to a new group, the Ordu Aspectu, instead). World-building is also gradfathered in a lot; technology is often the same, a lot of worlds are still around, even if their histories are altered, names of movie characters only established off-screen are more likely to stay around, too.
However, Legends characters are very rarely brought over, if at all and the overall sweep of history has been very different. The nature of the Force and Kyber crystals also seems to have been changed a lot, as well.
I guess the way I look at it, to use an RPG analogy, both campaigns are using a lot of the same background fluff from the source books, but the gamemaster is telling a totally different story. For some people, that might be close enough for "Legends being streamlined into canon," but I don't see it that way. (Fair enough if you do.)
With pretty much all of the pro-Legends groups, refuting that seems to be a common mantra (right alongside "it was always canon"). To hear them, Legends being a continuity mess is lies and propaganda; it was very internally consistent. As someone who followed Legends for years, no, it was a mess; while it's true a lot of mistakes were fixed, the answers were often found in obscure RPG books or online articles and sometimes, those answers were worse than the problems (Legends had a fixation on including
everything rather than just picking one and decanonizing the rest; hence why half-a-dozen mutually exclusive versions of the Death Star plans are welded together and there are so many bounty hunters on Ord Mantell). Also, there are many problems that were never fixed, like the chronology of the Clone Wars and little details here and there.
Say what you will about new canon, it
has been far more internally consistent and much more well-planned out and integrated together cross-story and media in a way that Legends could've only dreamed about.
I agree that Ben Skywalker was a far less interesting character than Rey. However, Rey's parentage has not been confirmed yet. In fact, looking at canon as a whole, I'm
I've found most of the active groups in the Legends movement are very nitpicky. Most members and official statements have outright said that they don't care about Legends stuff being incorporated into canon; all they want is Legends brought back as a continuing side project. (Some of them seem to think that the Legends stuff being used in canon is solely to appease them, which is kind of self-absorbed of them, but whatever).
It's all on a spectrum; I'm a Legends person who transitioned to canon primarily (I do like some of the old stuff, though), I know some who like both. However, the original point I was making, is that I don't think the Legends movement has the traction needed to accomplish their goals. And, unlike in the case of pre-OMD Spider-Man fans, where there is a continuation of sorts being provided (RYV), Legends is basically dead except for whatever gets borrowed for the movies. It's harder to generate new fans of it, which is what's needed for the Legends movement to survive.
We'll see. To be totally honest, if the MCU Spider-Man story is only going to be a trilogy, I don't think they have enough time to make Michelle a temporary love interest and then introduce a "real" MJ (or whoever) to be the one Peter actually gets together with. I don't know if the plots could be developed that much in two movies to come off very well. Frankly, I was of the mind that Liz should've been the leading lady for the whole series; I think having only one love interest across the whole series worked better for the Raimi and Webb movies, since they were able to actually develop the relationship onscreen over more time. Besides, Liz may have already played the role as the first girlfriend that didn't last long-term. Do we really need a second one?
Now, obviously we don't know the full plan much less if Michelle is going to be the new girlfriend character (I'd still like to see Liz come back somehow). I'd kind of prefer them introducing a more traditional MJ, but if they want to go with Michelle, I'd rather that be the endgame. Besides, regardless of whether she was meant to be the MCU's "real" MJ or not, I could see it being an interesting dynamic on its own terms and I could compartmentalize it from the other versions of the mythos as its own thing.