I think this is a good example of a misunderstanding between people who have different communication and thought styles. Eliezer is obviously very verbally-oriented and George Lucas is an extreme visual thinker:

Small, shy, and socially maladroit, Lucas was a daydreamer who had trouble reading and writing at school and who gravitated toward mechanics and the visual arts, in which he showed early talent. "I was more picture-oriented," he says. He liked woodworking, tinkering, and taking photos, mostly of objects rather than people. He sculpted and did watercolors and ink drawings of landscapes and sports cars, some of which he sold. Comic books were a passion: He collected so many that his father built a shed for them; Lucas later called them his primary model for terse visual narrative.

Someone like Eliezer watches Star Wars and thinks about how weak the dialogue and plotting is. Someone like George Lucas would look at Eliezer's Harry Potter fanfic and think how sad it was that someone spent so much time stacking and arranging letters.

I think this is part of the reason why--in this overwhelmingly verbal/textual age--people think movies can be "bad," (synonymous with poorly-written) but still intensely enjoy them.

ETA: Movie reviewers are of course overwhelmingly verbal thinkers (Armond White is perhaps an exception.), which is presumably why they became writers instead of visual artists. This is a problem because they often evaluate films as though the visual aspect is just frosting and the only great films are those oriented around tight plotting and dialogue.