There is space between "flawless" and incompetent. And if the Order is "deeply flawed", to again echo Peelee, how did they do so much good for so long? If I want to make a villain look good, I don't make the heroes they beat chumps. It is lazy at best. The Worf Effect sucks. What works is having Drago beat the life out of someone that was an equal match for the hero. What works is having a villain mastermind actually mastermind something and not just have the hero hold the idiot ball (I actually think the PT did a decent job with Sidious' plan, so not complaining on that one...but it is undercut if the Order is openly mockable for being such puppets). What works is John McClane and Hans Gruber trading wins and losses across a 2-hour movie that pays off the idea of them as opposite but evenly matched. If I want to show a once-potent organization becoming more fallible with age, or even becoming decrepit or corrupt I need to set the stage for that a little better and pay attention to presenting that via a character that is an invested member of that organization.
The perception that the Order was incapable of change played nicely with the hero-turned-arch villain because of the teen angsty rebellion angle, but I think the potential stagnation of the Order is another conversation.
There are lots of very successful film and book franchises that have organizations that are very, very good at what they do that don't seem to suffer from lack of viable conflict. Instead, they simply have well-written adversaries, clever plans, or believable twists and turns of fate. Lucas' idea for the rise of Sidious is one of the quality elements that I think often gets overlooked because of Jarjars and baby Anakins. The Order wasn't incompetent so much as they were beaten. Sidious was literally seconds from losing and got a lucky break.
- M