Ralf

(The following post is not meant to be antagonistic, although it will sound like it. I merely want to challenge your dogma.)

Let us assume you/we have no free will. Suppose also that you reply to this. Is the content of your response freely determined by you?

If you have no free will, why do you (implicitly) seek comfort? Why are you 'desperate to believe'? That sounds like something completely unnecessary for a sentient being (assuming you are one) lacking free will.

I'm prepared to wilfully suspend my disbelief

So, adopting your belief system, we all lack free will, and yet you will yourself to do something?

Both can be good. Both can be bad. I enjoy parts of both franchises.

In terms of recent content: Star Trek and Star Wars films have both been shockingly bad. Star Trek series also massively flopped, with the exception of Strange New Worlds, which was excellent. Star Wars series have included flops (e.g. Boba Fett) and successes (e.g. The Mandalorian).

Star Trek is supposed to be a more realistic vision of the future. It's science fiction. Star Wars is science fantasy—like an old tale, but told in space. So there's no real comparison. Better comparisons would be:

• Star Trek vs. the Expanse vs. Stargate series
• Star Wars vs. Dune vs. Warhammer

The strongest Star Wars content after the release of the prequels was imo:

• Star Wars Rebels
• some of Star Wars: The Clone Wars
• The Mandalorian
• some of the games (esp. Jedi Fallen Order)

The weaker / worse content imo includes

• JJ Abrams's sequels
• Boba Fett
• Han Solo (although, we can dispute this, as this film is arguably better than the above two things)

If one accepts this, this I would disagree with the singlehandedly bit. Other than that, I agree that The Mandalorian has revived the spirit of Star Wars. It is very respectful, has a good lore, is not cringeworthy fan service (which is, amongst other reasons, what makes those last 3 entries imo bad films/series). It is truly worthy of the name 'Star Wars'. This is the way!

Israel is near to and very connected to various countries in Europe. We share millennia of history. Similar with Georgia and Armenia.

I totally agree with catrinw's comment. I think it is perfectly legitimate to include countries bordering on or very near to Europe (e.g. Georgia, Armenia, Israel), but not ones on the other side of the flipping planet (be that Vietnam, South Korea, the USA, Canada, Brazil, New Zealand or Australia).

Also, if people want to argue something on ethnic lines, then why isn't Canada involved? Or the USA? Probably because those countries had the sense to realise they're not part of Europe.

I feel like Australia's involvement is weird and a distracting element. If they want to participate in an international song contest, then they should seriously establish or join one in their part of the world: The Asiavision / Pacificvision song contest. (That would actually be good—imagine the talent from Korea, Japan, Thailand, India, Indonesia, Samoa, etc. and they might even get songs not being almost all in English unlike what has happened in Europe.)