I don't think I'm oversimplifying it at all, since I still feel that you're making an overly simplistic argument. You're talking about an over 40-year-old case, in which the management of Disney and the financial state of the company were completely different, and in which the defendant was explicitly provoking Disney into a lawsuit with the goal of sticking it to the Man in the name of counter-culture.

That has absolutely nothing to do with creation of new artistic works inspired by existing ones; it's specifically and explicitly about tearing down existing works, in an adolescent, tiresome, Boing Boing-calibre attempt at tearing down corporate hegemony by showing Mickey Mouse fucking and doing drugs. It also has nothing to do with Disney actively seeking innocents to sue into submission; the article says outright that the underground comics didn't get Disney's attention, and they deliberately provoked it to make a statement.

As for Disney's well-publicized attempts to extend copyright, no one's unaware or denying that they're doing that. The company is also in the unique and unprecedented position of having creative works that are almost 100 years old and are still completely viable and profitable sources of revenue. Disney has a Snow White-themed ride coming to its theme parks, and it's still every bit as viable as the attractions based on more recent properties.

However you feel about that, it has little to do with new expression, either. Boing Boing and Nina Paley made a big deal about Sita Sings the Blues, for example, as a testament to the evils of copyright and the necessity of publicly owned culture for the purposes of freedom of expression. (And I use that example because it's actually a good movie, although I think Paley's attempts to say that the original audio recordings she uses were necessary to the work, aren't valid. She could've said what she wanted while keeping use of the material within the realm of fair use). On the other hand, Pogo (the video artist/musician) has done a lot of remixes of Disney and Pixar movies to create new works, with the consent of Disney.

In short: it's disingenuous to take examples of people deliberately provoking IP owners in order to make a point, and then claim that that's a danger to freedom of expression. Either you're making genuinely new works, you're making references or parodies that fall squarely in the realm of fair use, or you're being derivative. It just wouldn't sound as convincing if people had to admit that they're defending people being derivative.

As for the rest of your point, I'm not sure what to tell you. As someone who's worked for both companies and is still a fan of the work of both, I'll tell you that getting tired of or burned out on Star Wars is inevitable, and it's not a bad thing. And while I believe that the prequels are all bad movies, I think that at least some part of the disappointment that fans had in them came from the fact that the movies simply weren't aimed at us long-time fans; they were aimed at kids with the purpose of creating new fans.

I still say that your aversion seems to be entirely based on over-simplified fears of "Corporations are Evil" (when the fact is that corporations are callous, which is better in some ways and worse than others), along with an apprehension over the line where art and commerce intersect. A new Star Wars installment is coming soon after the purchase of Lucasfilm, for the purpose of expanding the audience, and even though it may very well be a good movie, it's tainted somewhat by the fact that their heart isn't in it. But I say that for the people working on the new movie — just like the people who've been working on novels, comic books, TV series, and video games for years — their hearts are in it, and they're making new works with characters they love.