Oh, that does not bother me at all, and is the first time i've thought about it as a 'thing' that might be considered a negative. Sometimes 'coincidences' happen (and many books and films use that vehicle to impart relevance and importance to their story).
Hmmm. Probably because the films are competently acted, with strong direction and editing that the story just feels natural and flows? But yeah, never had an issue with Vader being Luke and Leia's Father, it's just part of the 'set up' that has a pay off over the longer arc of the story.
But i also have to reject the weight of one being the 'right age' at a point in time to enjoy it to it's fullest. As i've mentioned in detail in discussion with Stigbob, while that has an element of relevance you have the bigger weight on if a film is 'actually' (as in can be judged) a 'good' film or just a 'bad' film. The whole Citizen Kane aspect. This is a completely ageless metric that spans any part of film industry and is how films are rated as all time classics (like Citizen Kane) or just throw-away rubbish (like maybe B movies, or in the case of Star Wars, the Prequels and New Star Wars
).
This is a 'standard' that many things are judged by to get a rough 'best of' ranking. In games i rank the original X-Com very highly, for example (and it is critically respected in the history of games), while CivIV is my favourite Civ game (despite Civ 1+2 being more of the era when i was a heavy gamer).
Or cars; I loved an old mini cooper (before my time) as a 'fun' ride more than many cars from my era (18-30ish). I also love my new Fiesta eco-boost which is a model a few years old (and won critical acclaim in the wider industry).
All these kind of metrics on the 'worth' of something have little to zero bearing on how old you were when you first watched/played/drove it etc. They are 'good' films/games/cars in a more widely regarded sense.
If somehow i could have my memories completely wiped of Star Wars and sat down to watch all the films again, i'd give my self very high odds of picking the original trilogy as the series 'high point'. They are just measurably better films (Scripts, acting, direction, editing, story, interesting characters etc).
===============
To drag this back on track (i can get easily sidetracked in ANY Star wars discussion), it is slightly ironic that while Solo is unlikely to be my cup of tea (in what I would like to see done in a Solo film), i can accept that out of all the New Star Wars era stuff (TFA to Solo) it might not be the 'worst' film so far.
Still this is New Star Wars and it sits around the level of the prequels in terms of relative Star Wars 'goodness'. After TFA i have very little desire to see any more of them, BUT i might get Solo on DVD sometime (if i can find it super cheap).
The main issue is the principle actor while not bad just does not look or 'feel' like an actual young Han Solo to me, and that is a BIG part of what any Solo (or origin) film has to nail 100% right. It's the whole issue of doing any origin story arc after an older film really.
