Here is how I work on legacy code:

1) I don't look at the whole picture because there are too much details, so I prefer to attack little by little.
2) I quickly check what I can rewrite in order to optimize the code. If I have no idea, I run a profiler, and take a look at the routines that take the most time.
3) once I understood or rewrote the most consuming parts (sometimes it's heavily optimized, but most of the time, I can make a real improvement), I decide what most important functionality I would like to add, and I just focus on that.
4) if I really need to have robust code, I write tests for the routines before optimizing them, so that I can validate if there are regressions
5) whenever possible, I use "assert" and put some bound-checking tests, in order to validate the ranges of certain values or conditions.

The important thing is to start by taking ownership of a small part of the code, then a bigger part, etc...
Take one slice at a time, not the whole pie.
And one last point: knowing every little detail is useless, concentrate on what is important for you: performance, functionalities, ... ?

Yes, you got that right, but I don't see any defeatism.
It would be defeatist only if you believe that you can change people.

I have no evidence to back my arguments, only my personal experience and feelings.
But I doubt you'll ever find an evidence to prove the contrary, because change is a natural process.
The change is so natural that you are not even conscious that you change, only others can tell you.
And the change is so subtle that only close friends may notice it after a long time.

But hey, prove me that there is a method to change, and I'll gladly hear your arguments.

Rational or emotional arguments can only provoke some reaction, but it won't last in the long term.
An evidence for that is dieting.
People believe that taking some diet will make lose some weight, and when they realize that they cannot sustain it, they blame their own willpower ("I didn't try hard enough").

By the way, it's very easy to notice when people stopped the flow of change.

No, no and no !
And I'll explain why.

First, look at yourself.
How do you think you can change ?
Do you think that integrating a new idea changes you ?
Do you think that change is an incremental process, and that you can change after accepting a few ideas ?
You are totally wrong !
Change is always here, it happens naturally, and you can accept or refuse this natural change.
Nobody really wants to change, because they are in a local optimum, so they put all their efforts to remain in this local optimum because any immediate change will worsen their situation.
Perhaps a small change could lead to a better local optimum, who knows ?

In fact, your problem is that you believe that you can change yourself with your thinking process.
And you also think that since you are able to change yourself, you can change other people.
But I can assure you that you cannot change anybody, even yourself !
Reason or passion don't change people, but it makes them react.

So how can you change yourself ?
Let the change happen !
And stop dreaming about changing others, you can just accept them, in the hope that they'll change one day.

While I agree with you that it's better to divorce than living miserably, I would like to add that you should not expect your marriage to be happy, because it will probably not be happy.
In fact, the most stable marriages are arranged ones, because people don't have a choice, so they tend to adapt to the situation, they can only accept the other.
Meanwhile, people who marry because they love each other do only accept the other as they are at a given moment.
But people change, and after a few years, the change can be so dramatic that the new situation is impossible to stand.
Love becomes gradually hate.
I like to say that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.
The real love is accepting the other as he/she is, and encouraging him/her to become a better person.

Hum, do you remember the election for the leader of UMP between Fillon and Copé ?
The vote was done with paper ballots, but there have been massive frauds anyway, since Copé stole the election.
The fraud was so massive that Fillon rightfully complained, but since we are talking about politics, they settled "peacefully".

What this proves is that UMP leaders abuse the voting system.

Good point !
But in a sports team, the manager has some other players on the bench, so when he sees that a guy doesn't do his best, the player will be replaced instantly.

As I explained in another answer, what is important in a team is the sense of power.
If every member thinks that he can produce something significant (like in a sports team), then everybody will be motivated and will do their best.
If somebody thinks that his effort will be insignificant, he'll quietly reduce his effort, and sometimes that means doing nothing !

I think that you were lucky.
Luck has a great importance in software projects, but of course, luck is not random.

I think that the most important fact that you don't mention is that everybody in your team was motivated, they felt that they had some power to do things.
When you remove the sense of power, people lose motivation and produce some half-assed work.

Then, I believe that you are an ex-programmer, and most of the managers I know pretend to be able to code, but when I check, I see that they are pretty bad.
Organization is an art, and I really met only a few people able to organize correctly.

Finally, you optimized the bandwidth of your team, and that is what managers don't know how to do.

Now, in your current project, you don't have luck, so you are discovering what happens when nobody has power in a team.

No, you are totally wrong, usually people don't bother communicating, so you don't lose a lot of time on communication.

It takes longer because of Ringelmann's effect, and this had been measured in 1914, by measuring efforts.
Here is the original article in french: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k54409695.image.f14

When you have 1 guy, he works at 100%, but when you add 1 guy, you get 93% of their combined force.
Here is the table from 1 to 8:
1 => 100%
2 => 93%
3 => 85%
4 => 77%
5 => 70%
6 => 63%
7 => 56%
8 => 49%

With 8 people, you get the results of 4 people !

In fact, when you add people in a team, everybody reduces his level to the supposed level of the group.

If I'm alone, I think I'm the best, so I'll work at my best level.
If there is another guy, I'll work according to our common level, so I'll reduce my effort.

When you have a team, the team works at the lowest common level.
You can also see that when people walk in groups, they walk together at the slowest speed.

Why don't you try writing a demo in Java ?

It'll develop the creative part and help you discover Java in depth. And it's easier than writing a game !

Here are some examples:
http://pouet.net/search.php?what=java&type=prod&x=0&y=0

You define success as something external to yourself.

For me, success is something internal, not external.
Your model of success is based upon celebrity, which is not a good evaluator of success.

Thanks, I didn't know the term !

There is no guilt in this process, it's just to lessen the impact of a losing decision.

It's like when you want to propose something tough to your employees, you first propose to fire a few of them, then once they protest, you propose something like reducing their salaries.
The employees will believe that if they refuse, they'll face the firing.
So between these 2 false choices, they'll take the "lighter" one.

In fact, this proposal will probably be refused.

But this is a strategy:

1) propose a tough law
2) wait for its refusal
3) propose a "lighter" one

Since the lighter one will appear innocuous and since the first one has been refused, the second will be accepted.
And you can bet that they wanted to propose the "light" one first, but it would have been probably refused if submitted first.

No need to tweak anything.
Just change the compiler and the optimization's level, and the malware will be undetectable.

Do you mean that success is "social success" ?

I can disprove all your arguments easily, since my definition of "success" is quite different.
For example:
- why do you suppose that you cannot succeed alone ? In my experience, the best success is achieved alone, since you deserve all the credit.
- who does not make irrational decisions ? Everybody has a lot of magic thinking in their thought process, like superstition or weird habits.
- what is a waste of time ? I suppose that you watch television, which I consider a waste of time.

While I don't disagree with your arguments, please define what is "success in life".

From my point-of-view, success comes from luck.
Why would luck be linked to any sort of intelligence ?