Global Opinions writer Jason Rezaian and I are arguably the two biggest “Star Wars” fans in The Washington Post’s Opinions section. So after we both saw “Solo: A Star Wars Story” at an early press screening, we knew we had to talk about it, in extensive and plot-filled detail — if you decide to read on, be forewarned! Our conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

Alyssa: Before I ask what you thought about “Solo,” I was curious about your “Star Wars” origin story. When did you first watch the movies? And what have they meant to you over the years?

Jason: Alyssa, my “Star Wars” story starts …  A long time ago in a …. Sorry, that’s super cheesy. I am 42 years old. I was 14 months old when “A New Hope” came out. My brother is almost six years older than me, so “Star Wars” was a huge part of my childhood, like so many other people my age. It continues to be a big deal for me, but I am very much an original trilogy — and its extended merchandising — sort of guy. My mom claims I knew all the characters’ names (and the names of the actors who played them) by my second birthday.

Alyssa: Oh, man, that’s amazing. I grew up largely isolated from pop culture, so the summer I watched the “Star Wars” movies with my cousin was kind of a revelation. I still have such visceral memories of how our TV room was set up, the heat of the summer day, all that cheesy stuff. And there was a great sci-fi/fantasy bookstore in my home town at that point, so I went out and started buying the “Star Wars” Expanded Universe novels. I was pretty much a goner after that.

Jason: I lined up a couple of days before “Phantom Menace” came out at our local theater, which happens to be George Lucas’s favorite cinema and the opening scene … honestly I thought I was being punked. I was 23 years old. I think the last remnants of childhood evaporated that day.

Alyssa: What about the new movies? How have you felt about them so far?

Jason: Because of that experience, my expectations have been pretty low. I am now way less invested, so I just try to enjoy them for what they are. I’ve liked all four of the recent movies better than any of the prequels. I think that is probably a shared sentiment with people of a specific age group who grew up with the original movies and kinda feel like they’re ours.

Alyssa: I can see that. I like “Revenge of the Sith” a fair bit, in part because it feels like a movie about actual grown-ups with actual adult problems: anxieties over the birth of children, the criminal failure of a mentorship, etc. And the violence in the climax is genuinely frightening in a way I think is rare in modern blockbusters. But while I think the prequels have some good ideas, that’s not the same thing as feeling like they’re affirmatively on par with the original trilogy.

Let’s talk about “Solo,” though. It left me feeling … particularly bad, and it didn’t seem to light you on fire, either.

Jason: I enjoyed it. Can’t say I loved it. Wasn’t bored, but I had that same feeling that you did, of a “smaller” Star Wars story. And I think a part of that smallness that I felt was pettiness. I’m still thinking about it a lot. Trying to place my finger on what it is. It seemed appropriate for the times. As if we can expect a spin-off of everyone and everything that happened. Just because it’s possible and they can make money at it.

Alyssa: And yet while we’re getting more and more “Star Wars,” I feel like we’re not actually getting deeper into the world, right? The ethos of the new movies seems to be “The Empire is bad, and so are criminals, but hope is constantly on the horizon.” But we never find out, for example, why there are so many powerful crime lords running things, or whether the Imperial Navy and Infantry are successfully pacifying these various planets that we basically see in montages. We don’t know why the Empire works, if in fact it does, or why it’s failing other than “People like freedom.”

Jason: Totally agreed. It’s not very deep. One thing I loved was that moment at the border control when they tried to bribe the officer. I wish she had taken the bribe and not turned them in. That’s how the world works.

Alyssa: Yes! That’s probably the most interesting moment in the entire movie, when we get an individual who stands out from the system, not because she’s virtuous, but because she’s a little greedy and ethically flexible.

Jason: I need to clarify: I wanted to love that moment. I was thinking, “Yes, yes they get it.” But no. And here’s the other thing, the lack of actually virtuous people.

Alyssa: I want to explore the point you made about the lack of virtue. I don’t write about international relations the way you do, but it’s struck me that we live in a moment where no part of the world seems to be working particularly well — or at least, no place in the world is working particularly well because democratic norms are functioning effectively. “Solo” seems to be set at a moment of similar institutional failure, but without the depth to explore that very well.

Jason: This is what I’ve been thinking about most. They had the opportunity to delve into it, but Disney/”Star Wars” movies aren’t built for that level of granularity. Which is why a smaller “Star Wars” story can work. I think if you look at it like that, it holds up better.

Alyssa: Did you find this to be an effective exploration of Han Solo’s (Alden Ehrenreich) psychology and origins, though? I’m not sure I did.

Jason: I don’t think so. You know for years I’ve had a problem with James Bond movies. I think the Pierce Brosnan years sort of set us up for what would happen with “Star Wars” and any other remake or continuation of a saga. The jokes, the characters, the foreshadowing lacks any kind of subtlety. It’s boring because you don’t have to think. So Han Solo is an orphan. Big deal. Darth Vader was a slave! I thought the relationship-building with Chewbacca might have been where they succeeded best.

Alyssa: There’s a hint of something more interesting in there, when we learn that Han’s father worked in the Corellian shipyards building ships like the Millennium Falcon. But that’s literally a single line in the movie, when it could have been the backstory in a way similar to the destruction of the Vulture’s business was in “Spider-Man: Homecoming.” Instead it’s this very generic Dickensian-poverty-plus-a-girl shtick.

Jason: I didn’t see that “Spider-Man” movie, but I agree that they could have done that. Should have done that. And really could have trimmed the action/chase scenes in half in exchange for developing these guys.

Alyssa: I think at the end of the day, this is a huge problem for the new “Star Wars” movies; they all feel the need to be action movies (or at least heist movies), when that isn’t necessarily what the core of the franchise is.

Jason: Yes! Thank you. The original films had a tug between good and evil. Choices to be made. Things to consider. And some action thrown in to keep the story moving. This is the opposite.

Alyssa: So much of the early movies is just people talking. They talk during long hyperspace trips! They talk while repairing ships! They talk while jogging in the forest! They get caught meditating with their helmets off!

Jason: Exactly. Anyone could connect with that. That was the appeal. Now it’s just a matter of preying on the sentimentality of people in their 40s who want their kids to be into what they were into so going to the movies doesn’t suck so bad. On that score I think it works.

Alyssa: But man, if that’s the standard, it makes me sad that our mutual love of “Star Wars” has come to this.

Jason: I can remember being 6 or 7 and really thinking about what Yoda was teaching Luke [Skywalker (Mark Hamill)]. And also being offended that Obi-Wan [Kenobi (Alec Guinness)] lied to Luke, and that it being true “from a certain point of view,” didn’t sit well. There’s none of that in the new movies. Maybe it’s because I’m not 7 anymore.