You've raised an interesting question that is decidedly difficult to answer. I, like you, am a Trekkie as well as a SW fan - and proud of it - and I think of these things some times. I would have to say that no, I wouldn't be as into SW if it were a TV show, like ST is.

SW is a movie thing, I've got to admit. The story was meant to be a series of movies, and I honestly don't think the Skywalker-Vader plotline (which is the movies) would have worked on TV. That's not to say that the new TV show isn't going to be absolutely amazing, but I think the story that was in the movies is different than that of the Clone Wars upcoming series and ST.

CONT'D

The same goes for Star Trek itself. The shows are awesome, and they work on TV, where they were meant to be. The movies are also good, but in my opinion they will never be as good as the TV shows... it just doesn't work as well for me. Why do you think there have been 5 series, all but 2 lasting for seven seasons, with a grand total of over 700 episodes, and only 10 movies? I think the shows are just better.

CONT'D

Would Vader be right?
I'm still not even sure if he's right, in the movies! With the PT, we obviously see that he had good intentions, what with Padmé and the kids, even though he became the 2nd most evil person in the galaxy. I don't think we would have gotten the emotional resonance in a TV show that we got in the movies. But if I did watch Vader's story unfold on TV, I probably would have thought he was totally twisted and evil, and that no matter what his intentions, the outcome was too grave, and that he was totally unjust in his decisions and his life.

Well, I've been rambling! I hope I gave some good insights! MTFBWY!!!

??

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.

Interesting question to ponder. It is hard to consider because Star Trek has some basis in reality, Star Wars is completely from the imagination of George Lucas. I think that as series Star Trek had a lot of time to develop characters (Deep Space Nine did this well, Voyager and Enterprise failed at this). So, could George further develop each of the characters? Yes, we've seen it in all of the EU books. On the other hand, Trek was introduced on t.v. and SW on the big screen. Trek is predominately t.v. based, they only made the first movie because of SW success.
This could take a lot of thought and debate ...
Great entry!

Hey Voyager did a decent job of developing characters, they just developed too few.
Any how there are still major differences between SW and ST. The story set-up is completely different, never mind the actually content. The main idea of SW is a long, continuious storyline, where ST is a bunch of stand-alone stories. Any given episode of ST could have been omitted and the viewers wouldn't have missed a thing. Imagine if EMP had simply not been made... we'd all be wondering "how'd Han get turned to stone" and "what happen to Luke's hand". Oh and "Vader's Luke's WHAT?!!!". when'd he find that out. Had the last ST movie or show never been made we'd never know the difference. That's why they work in their own niches.

Sorry I meant ESB not EMP. I was just watching The Matrix, lol.

Yeah, I'm a Trekkie too, and, while I've always felt that the Star Wars saga was a very film-specific story that would be downright impossible to tell any other way (imagine the per-episode budget...), I think a Thrawn Trilogy Star Wars miniseries would rock...
But that's more because I love the Thrawn Trilogy than because of any rational thought process.