Would you call DS9 'not really Trek' because it diverged from what Roddenberry liked to push about how science and logic could resolve almost any conflict?
Trek doesn't have metaphysics where an actual supernatural power that binds the kosmos together exists. DS9 doesn't go against the internal rules of the universe it's set in. It does go against the original author's
preferences, but that's not something I've decried regarding Lucas, either.
If Trek suddenly became big into, say,
Dune-type cyclical history and anti-progressivism, that
would make it 'no longer really Trek'. It might create something I'd find interesting, but it would go against a core tenet of the setting (namely a progressive view of history as an 'upward path').
Andor is completely canon complaint, in fact it respected canon (both Legends and Disney) more than most shows have.
I just also showed the realistic take on how Mon Mothma could have ever got the Alliance to the point it was even in Rebels, never mind showing that not all Rebel leaders were naive idealists and were very willing to do shady shit to survive.
No,
Andor is an AU fanfic. It's like inverse of those "ASoIaF, but NobleBright" stories/threads. "SW, but cynical" is antithetical to the source material.
The problem is that it appeals to
your sensibilities, so you want SW to change to accomodate it. That's a fool's errand, and it will only destroy SW. (I think Roddenberry was wrong about basically everything, but I don't want Trek to be a story that appeals to my preferences, either. Because it's not that kind of story.)
--------------------------
How does the Ancient Sith Empire of Korriban fit in then? That was a Magocracy that thrived off violence, yet it was also a glorious civilisation that flourished for thousands of years.
Hilariously, to Lucas, that's not canon compliant either. In fact, he's on record saying that in his view, there were never any long-lasting Sith Empires in history, because the Dark Side is purely self-destructive on anything approaching the long term. (Nor does he think large Sith organisations could ever durably exist, because they'd result in mass back-stabbing events.)
He has a pretty good point, when we look at the nature of the Dark Side. I could see Sith history, realistically, being a Darwinian struggle where they fight each other for dominance, until eventually one is strong enough to force all the others into line-- but then they start winning, and expanding, and the back-stabbing bonanza starts.
Basically, Sith history would be a constant cycle of warring against each other, interspersed with short-lived evil empires that are always destroyed by the self-destructive nature of the Sith themselves, within a few decades at most. And then it's long centuries of turmoil and endless in-fighting again... Long enough for the galaxy at large to forget that those barbarian savages were ever a threat... AND THEN THEY SHOW UP AGAIN.
(An apt comparison, of sorts, might be Chaos in 40K. They rather act like that, too.)
--------------------------
Ok then you have the Jed'aii the original order who viewed the force as two moons and found the balance. Plo koon a jedi used a form of force lightning called electric judgment, Mace windu harnessed the ability to channel his own dark side and the dark side of others into his own fighting style which was canonized as Vapaad in Episode 3. Heck I mean by Lucas's own logic in the prequals Luke having an attachment for his father was him tapping into the darkside and that was all the way back into ROTJ. So even the whole "If it wasn't thought up by Lucas it wasn't canon" argument doesin't work here because Lucas has contradicted himself on details several times.
None of that comes from Lucas, as far as I know. Nor was Vapaad, to my knowledge, mentioned in any way in RotS.
Granted, Electric Judgement is stupid as hell, but the idea behind it is that it's used without malice and is non-lethal. Stupid and silly, and an excuse to "have the good guys use cool lightning powers too!" ...but not an indication of Plo Koon using the Dark at any point.
Mace Windu's thing in the EU is that he goes dangerously close to the edge, putting himself in danger of falling. And that whole idea is based on the fact that in RotS, Mace ultimately
does appear to fall to the Dark, when he is willing to murder Palpatine, at that point semingly disarmed and at his mercy, "because he's too dangerous!" -- which, in typical Lucas style, immediately leads to Windu's demise. Again: in "Lucas world", if you choose to do evil (even with good intentions), the outcome is
always bad.
Your reference to Luke having an attachment to his father is a typical misunderstanding, although Lucas really was unclear on that in the canon. His commentaries clarify: the attachments Jedi must avoid are
possessive feelings. Luke is at no risk, because his love is purely compassionate. (I do personally disagree that avoiding possive, unhealthy feelings should imply a monastic life, but that's another matter.)
Then we have the Je'daii, who are hardly a good argument, since they didn't excactly make it. They existed in isolation, and trying to keep "balance" was constant effort. (They exiled anyone who diverged too much.) When the outside world fell upon them, their artifical "balance" couldn't be maintained for a minute.
In fact, this whole "we can balance Light and Dark" thing constantly leads to tragedy, and most Jedi who fall into evil do so because they think that they are special snowflakes who CAN do it. (Spoiler: they can't.) The Jedi way ("Light, and no compromises on that!") is proven again and again to be the right way.