Elaborate on the last point please. In what way does Star Wars outdo One Piece in establishing it's characterization? And if so, why does it matter to the larger story?
Maybe another time. It's not a debating point I'm particularly invested in and I'm currently busy anyway. My main point of that was that I didn't see the point of trivia like naming referencing Sanji's intro chapter. It's a layer of meticulousness that is impressive in itself, but not really purposeful to the story. I only talked about the larger aesthetic themes of general groups as a point of clarification.
I don't feel it would be particularly helpful to go into the minutia of SW though. There has been plenty of literature that detailed every single detail present in the SW films, and there's a lot of inference material in the films themselves. And It's a vastly different kind of story than OP is, lets not forget. It's hard to isolate any one element and meaningfully contrast it.
Both Moria's theme as well as Big Mom's are both meant to be arbitrary and important to the characters at hand. One Piece operates in the same structure as the Oz books do in that the characters, the setting, and etc. is full of arbitrary elements meant to invoke the readers to get a sense of nostalgia from their childhood and/or invoke the sense of being generally weirded out by the characters. The focus of the Oz books is by and large the central character (most famously Dorothy) getting placed in strange situations and figuring out how to assess that situation.
Yeah, that does absolutely nothing for me. I've never had an instance within a story that referenced some other external story (or object in general) unless they put that to good use within the narrative of the ongoing story itself, not just in OP, but in any manga, comic, game, book or movie. It's not an effective narrative technique unless you incorporate it properly. Stuff like Moria's theme just tell me "Oda saw Nightmare Before Christmas and decided to play around with the aesthetic", but it didn't meaningfully use NBC elements in itself. YMMV on what is 'meaningful', so you might disagree, which is fine, but I feel like I get a lot less out of what OP does than how SW took the archtype of a samurai, and implemented it's own twist on not just the aesthetic, but the actual characterization to make turn it into it's own identity.
Even real life is full of arbitrary influences. Why did the Greeks wear togas that looked the way they did? Because they could. It could've been tailored differently, but it wasn't, because it wasn't in their fashion sense to do so. Why did people in ancient times believe that turtles carried the Earth on it's back? Because they could. They could've believed it was giant rats instead, but nope.
Uh...no, they all had reasons for that. Reasons that would require me to go hunt down probably hard to find anthropological data that I have neither the time nor inclination to find, reasons that anthropologists may have never even fully discovered, but for every cultural norm, there is an explanation somewhere out there. People don't just 'randomly choose' something as culturally significant as creation myths. Toga's are easier to explain. My guess would be a combination of available material, climate, and ease of making. But nobody just went "Hey, guys, why don't we all just wear togas?!" out of no where, for no reason, and went along with it. That's ridiculous. And it's why I find OP's world to be so unconvincing. Everything just....is, with little explanatory power behind it. It makes for a world with very weak verisimilitude, and as a result it's impossible, despite my best efforts, for me to actually invest in it.
It's more of fun running joke within the One Piece community.
"This number equals x which ties back to y and Oda planned it all bbqftw"
Nothing to take so serious.
Hm...fair enough, I guess, I thought people were seriously going Goda in this case. And, again, don't get me wrong, it's impressive he remembers this stuff, it's just pointless in this case.