Nothing of galactic importance this time, just a couple of random thoughts that I had lately.

First, this recent thread has been discussing whether or not there is a feud between Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans:

http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa?threadID=232165

My position is that, in general, the fans are the same people for both, and while there are a few fringe loons on either side who try to stir up trouble, 90% of fans of either are not in the least bit interested in this so-called fued.

But while I like both Sw and ST myself, I recently had an insight into the differences between them, and maybe now I see why some fans on both sides have some insecurities that make them belligerent.

Let me start off by reiterating: I like both, but that doesn't mean each does not have weak points that can not be discussed by mature people on both sides, which is all I'm trying to do. Again, I grew up with both, and am a big fan.

Yesterday, though, I happened to pop in Star Trek: Generations while my son was taking his afternoon nap, and it highlighted something for me. It doesn't matter how many times I see it - my eyes get a little misty every single time Kirk dies, both the first time and the second. And I realized that there are no Star Wars characters that I am nearly as emotionally bound to.

So my realization (IMHO) is that SW is more consistently exciting and deals with the basic good vs. evil fight. ST is a little slower, and deals with more complex social issues, but the characters are far more developed as well. And of course, the main reason for these differences is screen time. SW has been 6 motion pictures. ST has also had films, but also had hundreds of hours of backstory for the characters and the political landscape of the galaxy in both the original series, TNG, and DS9.

I leave out Voyager, which by the end I liked and was sad to see go, (although it took years to get out of the box and was never a great series) because it took place away from the normal ST setting, and Enterprise, which was never very good and would have never been watched at all if the name "Star Trek" had not been attached to it. (On an aside - why would you cast, for a Sci-Fi TV show, someone who was already well known to the Sci-Fi TV watching world?? Every time Archer got into a situation, I half expected to see Dean Stockwell pup up.)

GL has a reputation for bad dialogue and poor character development, and clearly his characters are more archetypes than individuals, although the PT with Anakin was a successful attempt to flesh out the main character a little more. The point is, however, that this happened 20+ years after ANH, so clearly character development is not a priority in the SW universe - the story and the action and the fight against evil are the focus.

ST, on the other hand, had far more time in the setting of a TV drama to develop the characters and the relationships that keep ST fans coming back for more. And this backstory allows far more complicated and personal stories to be told, which is also logistically possible because a TV show has much less pressure to be dominated by exciting action sequences that will wow movie theater audiences. Therefore, the Kirk-Spock-Bones triad had so much history to it that by the time they got around to making feature films, a tremendous amount of humor was possible without having to take up screen time to set it up - you already knew what they were talking about when they threw one-liners at each other.

So the fans out there that like to attack the other franchise, I think, are really doing so out of a misplaced sense of insecurity. They are probably the most passionate fans out there, and they are probably aware to some degree of the weaknesses and limitations of their preferred franchise, and therefore attack the other franchise's weaknesses in a subconscious best-defense-is-a-good-offense strategy.

But look...

It's OK that SW characterization and dialogue are mostly an afterthought. The story is awesome and the galaxy it is set in is really interesting. That is what GL is all about, and SW is something I will pass on to my son when he is old enough to appreciate it. It is entertaining fantasy with broad moral underpinnings that will hold true for any generation.

And it is also OK that ST is a little more ponderous, realistic, analytical and character driven. That was Gene Roddenberry's style: get to know the characters, and set them in stories that subtly address the major social issues of the day (which is where early seasons of Voyager and much of Enterprise failed IMO). I will also pass on ST to my son, because it is a great starting point for talking about a lot of real issues in everyday life.

So I think both are important and wonderful, and I think that anyone who spends any time at all bashing either one should step back and look at their motivation. If it is at all driven by insecurity that someone out there will find a flaw in what you like, then how much of a fan are you really?

**********

OK, one other thought that I had while reading the ROTS novelization again the other day: why would the buzz droids (or any aspect of a dogfight for that matter) be an issue for Jedi pilots? Why couldn't Obi-wan simply Force-push them off his fighter?? And why were all the fancy maneuvers to evade the missles necessary? Force-nudges here or there by powerful and well-trained Jedi should eliminate that, wouldn't you think?? Heck, shouldn't they be able to reach out through the Force and sense missiles that were about to be fired, and then make them detonate immediately, thereby 'keeping peace' in the truest sense of the term - by having intended aggression immediately backfire on the intended aggressor?