Star Trek is better than Star Wars

[theundeadhero]

nobody in this thread can argue with this.

This beats both Star Trek and Star Wars put together.

Maybe, but The Dark Crystal beats out Labyrinth.

[Loony BoB]

Data, a (generally) emotionless android, gives me more emotion than any Star Wars scene ever did. Hell, Serenity is so much better at Science Fantasy than Star Wars is, and it's only one movie.

Star Wars is still decent, and it does have much prettier worlds and whatnot... but Star Trek wins this battle any day of the week.

[maybee]

I have never understood this dispute.


They are both completely different things- they are just set in space.


One is a about a space team in a ship- that cannot go in reverse, just keeps on trekin'. The other has a more novel book feeling to it, with a feeling of revenge, forgiveness and how hate can consume you- with a more the " about the chosen one " story plot.

Luke being the chosen one that becomes the destined hero, and pops who struggles to battle life's struggles and goes insane- using his talent's to become a feared and malicious villain, which is really just a puppet to his fears and hate and the Emperor.


It depends if you prefer a more novel like story or more of a road-trip in space.

[sharkythesharkdogg]

I totally agree that Star Wars is more science fantasy and Star Trek is more science fiction. And science fantasy is way better!

Typical battle in Star Trek

All takes place on the bridge:
"Enemy approaching Captain"
"On screen."
*screen shows ship just floating there*
"Open hailing frequencies."
"They are not responding."
"Shields up."
"They are preparing to fire."
*camera shakes*
"Shields hodling."
"Prepare to fire."
"Phasers ready."
"Fire."
Shows two ships floating outside space and then a single laser fires from one to the other.
"Target destroyed Captain."
"Very good Number 1."

Typical battle in Star Wars

*ships flying everyhere, doing barrell rolls, lasers all over the screen*
"Red 5 preparing for attack run."
"Red 7 on your wing. Let's do this."
*a bunch of TIE fighers come out of nowhere*
"AHHHHHH" *Red 7's X-Wing explodes*
"We lost Red 7!"
*crazy flight maneuvers to avoid the barrage of lasers coming at Red 5*
*Red 5 speeds around and gets behind the TIE fighers and blasts them to bits*
*flies in between another formation of TIEs, blasting a few as he goes*
"WOOOOOOOOYEAAHHHHH!!"

There's plenty of battle scenes in the series. Here's an example. The battle of the Federation vs The Dominion. The stage is set around 5:00 and the fun kicks off around 6:00. It picks back up around 26:00.

Battle for Cardassia Prime (An attempt by the Federation/Klingon Empire/Romulan Star Empire to push out Dominion forces.) It's not the whole battle, even though is says it is.

Battle of Sector 001

DS9 vs Klingons Fun kicks off around 22:00 into the episode.

There's others, but you get the idea.

[Alive-Cat]

Maybe, but The Dark Crystal beats out Labyrinth.

You have put me in a very awkward position here!

You may be right. May be.

[Mirage]

*crazy flight maneuvers to avoid the barrage of lasers coming at Red 5*

Humans dodging lasers. Ahahaha. Not to mention, they're not even lasers as they don't travel at the speed of light and are visible before hitting anything. If anything, they're particle beams.

[Del Murder]

Thanks, professor.

[Shiny]

I have a confession. I've neve seen all of the original Star Wars films. Movies get ruined for me when they're spoilered. I am happy I was able to atleast see movies like The Sixth Sense and Seven before the ending was everywhere.

[Mercen-X]

Why do people make troll threads? It's unbecoming.


Star Wars is an epic high-fantasy action-romp in space which happens to be about war.
Star Trek is an oft dramatic sci-fi pastiche bent more on exploration and sometimes includes war.
Lightsabers: pure fantasy.
Phasers: fantastic but within the realm of possibility.

Star Wars is more about the conflict between Jedi and Sith.
Star Trek draws in multiple races and delves heavily into their motives to make them more real.

The main thing both have in common is the utilization of entire species to demonstrate the negative stereotypes of our own races. For example, Star Trek's Ferengi, from the way they are designed to the sounds of the voices to most of the actors to portray them seem to represent Hebrew people... and the negative stereotype they represent is greed and "economic skill."

I have always liked Star Trek. I have always liked Star Wars. I have always liked Kirk. I have always liked Luke. I have always liked Patrick Stewart.

[Christmas]

Carrie Fisher in a gold bikini chained to a fat alien.

This could conceivably be higher up on the list, but the choice is obviously driven by my male brain, and the fact that my male brain was influenced by this scene when I was but a wee lad of 6 years old.


"Star Wars" video games put "Star Trek" games to shame.


While we may not be getting "Star Wars 1313" (RIP LucasArts), "Star Wars" has given us one of the best role-playing games ever in "Knights of the Old Republic" and more than double the game titles of any "Star Trek" adaptations.

We have no idea what EA has in store for Disney's next lineup of "Star Wars" games, but it can't be any worse than the latest attempt at a video game tie-in for "Star Trek":

"Playing Star Trek: The Game felt like playing an unfinished version of a game that, even when finished, still wouldn't be very good."


A star ship captain of the Enterprise doesn't know how to put sentences together or run a crew.


Who doesn't love the way William Shatner talks? "Bones ... Spock! BonesSpock! I ... can't ... believe we just got shot. I ... hope ... that this is ... over." But come on, seriously? This guy is trusted to command a star ship?

Sure, Han Solo takes some serious risks with his crew and Millenium Falcon, but Kirk is kind of a moron, new Kirk included. Leading away-crews himself with his most important staffers? Right, this is dramatic. They are the main characters, understood. But for a series that gets touted for it's realism based on science, this just takes me way out of it.


"Star Wars" has the Millennium Falcon.


Sure, if you placed the Falcon side by side with the Enterprise, it's a tough choice as to which ship is the more iconic of the two. But think about the impact that one ship has had in popular culture from only appearing in three movies compared to the Enterprise appearing in every single "Star Trek."

The Millennium Falcon is cool because it just is. The Enterprise is cool because it is recognizable and we've seen it in movies and on TV for the last 30-some years.

Plus, you can build the Falcon — along with the Death Star — in LEGO sets.


"Star Wars" has better music than "Star Trek."


With the exception of the score to "Wrath of Khan," "Star Wars" has the better score. It is iconic. You're humming the title credits theme for "Star Wars" right now as you read this and as soon as you read about Darth Vader the "Imperial March" will start playing in your head. John Williams is a master and he crafted an unforgettable theme that defined just how memorable and iconic film music can be in popular culture.

Not to take anything away from Jerry Goldsmith ("Star Trek: The Motion Picture") and James Horner ("Wrath Of Khan" and "Search For Spock"), who both crafted master scores for the "Star Trek" franchise.


The physics of "Star Trek" being more accurate than "Star Wars" doesn't mean squat.


And why should the accuracy of the physics matter? These are movies. Anybody who argues that the universe is more realistically modeled in "Star Trek" than "Star Wars" and says that matters, is wrong. Sorry Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Look, light sabers are awesome, but they're about as realistic as warp drives or an engineer who can fix any problem with a star ship simply by "Giving it a li'itle mer time cap'in!" Just because "Star Trek" inspired a generation of NASA engineers, that doesn't mean we're any more likely to happen upon a race of Klingon aliens flying ships equipped with invisibility cloaks any time soon.


Lightsabers.

I'm a badass with this thing.

Pair up the two iconic weapons from each franchise — the light saber and the phaser — and which one wins? A pulsating beam of light that is a sword that slices through metal like butter and Skywalker like ham and is used by Jedi Knights like Obi Wan Kenobi? Or a tiny and un-intimidating handheld gun that can be "set to stun"?

Both weapons are iconic, but the light saber is a truly unique idea to come from Star Wars. Hand-held phaser-type guns have been portrayed in science fiction film and books since people started writing science fiction. And how many memes have come from phasers? Think about all of the squirrel lightsaber fights and how they'd look with phasers.


"Star Wars" has better alien and character design.

A bumpy forehead does not an alien make. Yes, "Star Wars" characters do tend to lean towards the humanoid shape, but look at Jabba! Or Yoda. Or Chewbacca, for that matter. "Star Wars" aliens tend to go a more fantastical route than "Star Trek" aliens. In "Star Trek," Vulcans have funny ears, Klingons have ridged foreheads, and Romulans have big ass ears and bad teeth. Where's the variety? Yes, yes there are the big, terrifying creatures that chase Kirk and crew about, but the height of interesting aliens in the "Trek" universe are easily the Borg, that pesky human-mechanical cyborg collective.

But look at Yoda. Look at him! He's tiny, green and 800-something years old he is.

Ewoks don't count. They never happened.

The worst "Star Wars" movie, "The Phantom Menace" was still better than the worst "Star Trek" movie, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier".
Rotten Tomato score on TPM, 57%. Tomato score on STV: TFF, 23%.

TPM was a travesty to be sure, but TFF was so bad that people refuse to even bring it up as being a part of the "Star Trek" franchise.


Boba Fett.

As far as cool secondary or supporting characters go, Boba Fett is about as good as it gets. Mysterious, tough, and wears awesome armor. A mercenary. His counterpart on "Star Trek"? Jordy with his visor. Point to "Star Wars."


Han. Solo.

The Spock of the "Star Wars" universe. Yoda is more Spock-like, but Solo held more screen time as Luke's #2 guy. No emotion vs. all emotion. The scruffy nerf-herder is easily as iconic of a character as Spock, if not more so. This is also the role that set off Harrison Ford's career. What else is Leonard Nimoy known for? Solo was such an impactful character, played so well by Harrison Ford, that he went on to be Indiana Jones.


"A Long Time Ago In A Galaxy Far, Far, Away."



This opening sequence set to the "Star Wars" theme is unmistakable. Compare with any "Star Trek" title sequence and "Star Wars" will win every time when it comes to inspiring awe and setting the stage for the viewer to be taken away into a fantasy universe of adventure. It could be considered the greatest opening title sequence of all time.


R2D2 and C3PO.



These two robots set the bar for personality for non-human characters in film. They looked real, they had major roles, and they were believable even though they were two guys in tin suits. The Borg in "Star Trek" don't compare. Data is "Star Trek's" attempt at sentience and personality in a robot, and like with "Star Trek's" aliens, Data was distinguished from humans only by his pale skin and funny manner of talking.


Star Wars has better special effects and has advanced filmmaking.At least historically. The original "Star Trek" television show did break ground when it was released, and it did help pave the way for "Star Wars: A New Hope" by proving that adventurous science fiction can reach a wide audience. But "Star Trek's" special effects in the television series were blown away even by older movies such as the original "War Of The Worlds" or "The Day The Earth Stood Still." When it was released in 1977, "A New Hope" was on the cutting edge of special effects and helped pave the way for films like "Alien" (1979) and "Blade Runner" (1982).

Unfortunately, Episode's I through III haven't stood the test of time all that well, and those movie's computer graphics now look dated and fake, even more so than the originals. But that doesn't change the fact they were groundbreaking at the time, and pushed digital film to where it is today. Set phasers to ouch.

The Empire is scarier than any "Star Trek" antagonist.

Even with all of the mismanagement and poor planning, (WTF, putting a direct open line of fire to destroy the Death Star?) The Empire had real Galactic domination in mind. They weren't after a star system or two, they wanted it all and woe be to any "Star Trek" Federation, Klingon, Romulan or even Borg that should have the misfortune to go up against Empire hardware. They wouldn't stand a chance.

The scrappy "Star Wars" Rebels were barely able to put up a fight and they still had better firepower than anything in the "Star Trek" universe. They did have Luke Skywalker though ...


"Star Trek The Next Generation" subjected viewers to having to watch Tasha Yar and Wesley Crusher.

Yes, "Star Wars" had Jar Jar Binks (shudder) as an annoying character. Possibly one of the worst characters ever. But did you have to sit through multiple seasons of enduring Jar Jar Binks? No. It was only for a movie and a half.

"Star Trek's" Tasha Yar and Wesley Crusher on the other hand ... As a fan of TNG, these two characters would routinely ruin episodes for me with their stupidity and uselessness. It was a glorious day when Tasha Yar died on TNG. The torture was finally over.


Tie Fighters, X-Wings and other incredible space ships.


"Star Wars" has space fighters, "Star Trek" has shuttles that ferry people back and forth and have no firepower. Plus, Tie Fighters and X-Wings are, in a word, pure awesome.

The ship design in "Star Wars" is varied and creative. Most all of the "Star Trek" Federation ships look the same, and there isn't much variety in the rest of the universe, as there are typically only a few alien species and they all have very similar ship designs. Borg ships are giant cubes, for example. Menacing cubes yes, but still giant cubes.


The Force.

Step back for a moment and pretend Lucas didn't go completely off his rocker and explain the force as being "Midi-chlorians."

The idea behind The Force is a powerful one. That all things are connected, and the good side of The Force can be harnessed to improve the universe and fight evil. The Force is essentially a religion, and one that plays off the eternal fight between good and evil.

As a relatable plot device, it works well as an overarching reason for why everything is the way it is in the "Star Wars" universe. It is a powerful underlying theme. "Star Trek" deals with morality by placing the Enterprise in situations where they must make the right moral choice and damn to hell the consequences! Over and over again. The crew of the Enterprise have saved whales to save the universe. They have plugged volcanoes to protect the natives. They follow the Prime Directive because that's the right thing to do (unless you're Captain Kirk). There is no overarching theme aside from "do the right thing because its just the right thing to do." In "Star Wars," The Force is behind everything and offers characters a cohesive and compelling reason as to why they do the things they do.


Darth Vader.

The greatest cinematic villain of all time, bar none. "Star Trek's" Khan was, in all fairness, one of the best as well. But a plastic-chested, Shakespeare-quoting Ricardo Montalban or venom-spewing Benedict Cumberbatch can't hold a light saber to Vader. Darth Vader is a badass, and he's a great example of a villain having a troubled past and being transformed into what he is. "Star Trek," and any other film with a villainous antagonist who has a complicated past since 1977 has taken inspiration from Vader.

[Bubba]

This reminds me of a time when I pulled out my laser cannon and gave someone a barrel full.

[chionos]

I'm going to attempt to respond to each of Christmas's points. So If you don't want to bother with a second wall o' text, don't click the spoiler. This is for fun, btw, I do not take this too seriously or anything so get over yourselves if you think otherwise.

(SPOILER)

(SPOILER)

My responseFirst of all, that's a horrible photoshop. The sizes of the ships relative to one another are all wrong. =P

Carrie Fisher in a gold bikini chained to a fat alien.

This could conceivably be higher up on the list, but the choice is obviously driven by my male brain, and the fact that my male brain was influenced by this scene when I was but a wee lad of 6 years old.

My response
If we're comparing the iconography, then Star Wars wins this round. But if you're saying that Star Wars has better examples of libido-thumping, puberty-initiating skinsuality, then you couldn't be more wrong.
Seven-of-Nine
Jadzia Dax
Uhura (both of them. They didn't make her uniform short for nothing!)
Ezri Dax
Deanna Freakin' Troi
Each one of them did their part in initiating boys (and some girls I'm sure) into the fantasy world of fappatera. Star Wars has one scene, maybe two to add to the sci-fi/fantasy iconography pantheon. Star Trek has thousands. Literally. Yes, I understand it's not just Leia in a metal bikini, it's the juxtaposition of Leia in a metal bikini chained to a big fat slug. But imagine if you had a hutt shrunk down and shoved inside a beautiful woman? Wouldn't that be even more insidious, even more grotesque, even more poignant? Yes, and as such, the Daxes win this for Star Trek, without even considering any of the others. Worf and Jadzia anyone?

Of course, this is actually a negative point if we're going to discuss the ethics of such things (females as merely sex objects), but we're not. So.

Star Wars 0
Star Trek 1

The "Star Wars" video games put "Star Trek" games to shame.
While we may not be getting "Star Wars 1313" (RIP LucasArts), "Star Wars" has given us one of the best role-playing games ever in "Knights of the Old Republic" and more than double the game titles of any "Star Trek" adaptations.

We have no idea what EA has in store for Disney's next lineup of "Star Wars" games, but it can't be any worse than the latest attempt at a video game tie-in for "Star Trek":

"Playing Star Trek: The Game felt like playing an unfinished version of a game that, even when finished, still wouldn't be very good."

My response
I can't argue with you there. I really can't.
Star Wars 1
Star Trek 1

A star ship captain of the Enterprise doesn't know how to put sentences together or run a crew.

Who doesn't love the way William Shatner talks? "Bones ... Spock! BonesSpock! I ... can't ... believe we just got shot. I ... hope ... that this is ... over." But come on, seriously? This guy is trusted to command a star ship?

Sure, Han Solo takes some serious risks with his crew and Millenium Falcon, but Kirk is kind of a moron, new Kirk included. Leading away-crews himself with his most important staffers? Right, this is dramatic. They are the main characters, understood. But for a series that gets touted for it’s realism based on science, this just takes me way out of it.

My response
First of all, one captain does not a series make. Second of all, you simply can't compare Han Solo as a "captain" to the captains of the Star Trek universe. Third of all, Captain Jean-Luc Picardjean luc f u.jpg. Also, does your series have a female starship captain? ’Cause Mine Doesjanewaysabadass.jpg

Star Wars 1
Star Trek 2

Star Wars has the Millennium Falcon.

Sure, if you placed the Falcon side by side with the Enterprise, it's a tough choice as to which ship is the more iconic of the two. But think about the impact that one ship has had in popular culture from only appearing in three movies compared to the Enterprise appearing in every single "Star Trek."

The Millennium Falcon is cool because it just is. The Enterprise is cool because it is recognizable and we've seen it in movies and on TV for the last 30-some years.

Plus, you can build the Falcon — along with the Death Star — in LEGO sets.

My response
First of all:
lego enterprise.jpg

Second of all, the flipside of what you’re saying, is that the Enterprise has STAYING POWER. It’s been around for decades, in many different iterations, and it’s STILL a powerful icon.

Third of all, anything good the original three movies did with ships, the prequels ruined with their ugly CG mercurial monstrosities. If you’re going to cherry-pick, you best be ready to be cherry-picked, boy!

Star Wars 1
Star Trek 3

Star Wars has better music than "Star Trek."

With the exception of the score to "Wrath of Khan," "Star Wars" has the better score. It is iconic. You're humming the title credits theme for "Star Wars" right now as you read this and as soon as you read about Darth Vader the "Imperial March" will start playing in your head. John Williams is a master and he crafted an unforgettable theme that defined just how memorable and iconic film music can be in popular culture.

Not to take anything away from Jerry Goldsmith ("Star Trek: The Motion Picture") and James Horner ("Wrath Of Khan" and "Search For Spock"), who both crafted master scores for the "Star Trek" franchise.

My response
See, I’m not unreasonable. This is just true. There’s no arguing with it. John Williams knows how to write a movie score, for damn sure.

Star Wars 2
Star Trek 3

The physics of "Star Trek" being more accurate than "Star Wars" doesn't mean squat.

And why should the accuracy of the physics matter? These are movies. Anybody who argues that the universe is more realistically modeled in "Star Trek" than "Star Wars" and says that matters, is wrong. Sorry Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Look, light sabers are awesome, but they're about as realistic as warp drives or an engineer who can fix any problem with a star ship simply by "Giving it a li'itle mer time cap'in!" Just because "Star Trek" inspired a generation of NASA engineers, that doesn't mean we're any more likely to happen upon a race of Klingon aliens flying ships equipped with invisibility cloaks any time soon.

My response
So you can either use Star Trek’s attempt at quasi-realistic science against it or not. Can’t have it both ways.

The universe is more realistically modeled in Star Trek. Pretty much everything in the Star Trek universe is possible. In fact, many of the technologies shown in the early shows are now showing up in our day-to-day lives, and many others have been shown to be not only possible, but probable in our near futures. This includes invisibility, phasers, warp drives, and all the rest. (Light Sabers, on the other hand, are simply impossible). Yes, Star Trek stretches science, and is a little prone to “gaseous anomaly” syndrome, but it still adheres more closely to a scientific base than does Star Wars. Now, whether or not this should matter is something else entirely. I’m certainly willing to accept certain divergences from science for the sake of flare or theatricality (light sabers being the most prominent example), and I certainly don’t hold any of that against Star Wars. Lucas never said he was trying to make the most scientifically realistic movies. That wasn’t the point, so I can’t hold it against him. But to say it doesn’t mean squat is silly. It does mean something. It means that Star Trek is better science fiction than Star Wars. Star Wars, on the other hand, is better science fantasy, but that isn’t the question at hand. Star Trek’s physics (along with everything else) makes it more realistic, more believable, and thus more important culturally. Star Trek has inspired generations of scientists and thinkers, and if you don’t think that’s important, then you are clearly one with the dark side.

Star Wars 2
Star Trek 4

Lightsabers.

I'm a badass with this thing.

Pair up the two iconic weapons from each franchise — the light saber and the phaser — and which one wins? A pulsating beam of light that is a sword that slices through metal like butter and Skywalker like ham and is used by Jedi Knights like Obi Wan Kenobi? Or a tiny and un-intimidating handheld gun that can be "set to stun"?

Both weapons are iconic, but the light saber is a truly unique idea to come from Star Wars. Hand-held phaser-type guns have been portrayed in science fiction film and books since people started writing science fiction. And how many memes have come from phasers? Think about all of the squirrel lightsaber fights and how they'd look with phasers.

My response
Well. This is actually rather difficult. Light Sabers are definitely cooler. If you’re trying to say that a light saber beats a phaser in an actual fight, then you’re just being silly. Just because a phaser can be set to stun, does not make it an inferior weapon. It very clearly makes it a superior weapon in every way. How does one subdue a foe without killing them with a light saber? Can’t be done. Now that I think about it, the light saber is a pretty ridiculously evil weapon for so-called good/light jedi “knights” to use. The phaser is humane, while still being ultimately destructive if absolutely necessary.

I will give you the point that the light saber is perhaps more unique than the phaser. But the phaser would win in a gun fight (don’t bring a knife—even a big fancy knife made of light—to a gun fight), and is way more versatile, like a swiss army knife of science fiction weaponry.
(Star Wars gets a half a point here for the light saber’s cool factor)

Star Wars 2.5
Star Trek 5

Star Wars has better alien and character design.

A bumpy forehead does not an alien make. Yes, "Star Wars" characters do tend to lean towards the humanoid shape, but look at Jabba! Or Yoda. Or Chewbacca, for that matter. "Star Wars" aliens tend to go a more fantastical route than "Star Trek" aliens. In "Star Trek," Vulcans have funny ears, Klingons have ridged foreheads, and Romulans have big ass ears and bad teeth. Where's the variety? Yes, yes there are the big, terrifying creatures that chase Kirk and crew about, but the height of interesting aliens in the "Trek" universe are easily the Borg, that pesky human-mechanical cyborg collective.

But look at Yoda. Look at him! He's tiny, green and 800-something years old he is.

Ewoks don't count. They never happened.

My response
From your obvious ignorance of the Star Trek universe, to your ignorant hatred of Ewoks, I shouldn’t even respond to this point, but I will.
The Q (and specifically Q itself. Yes, you probably have no idea what I’m talking about and that is exactly the point so you can Q yourself.)
Trill symbionts (One of my personal favorites. Even though we don’t see them much, the concept is brill)
The Xindi
Species 8472
Tribbles
Oh, and there’s plenty more.
I will confess, the majority of aliens in the Star Trek universe are humanoid, but so are just about all of the alien entities in Star Wars. Chewbacca, while hairy, is still humanoid. As is Yoda. Et cetera. Star Trek has more aliens, and a bigger variety of aliens, than Star Wars. That’s quantifiable.

And no, as Star Wars fans, I don’t expect you to know what quantifiable means, but don’t worry about it.

Star Wars 2.5
Star Trek 6

The worst "Star Wars" movie, "The Phantom Menace" was still better than the worst "Star Trek" movie, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier".
Rotten Tomato score on TPM, 57%. Tomato score on STV: TFF, 23%.

TPM was a travesty to be sure, but TFF was so bad that people refuse to even bring it up as being a part of the "Star Trek" franchise.

My response
Star Trek: The Motion Picture 45/42
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan 90/90
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock 78/61
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier 21/25
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country 83/83
Star Trek VII: Generations 48/58
Star Trek VIII: First Contact (1996) 92/89
Star Trek IX: Insurrection (1998) 55/45
Star Trek X: Nemesis (2002) 37/50
Star Trek XI: (remake) 95/91
Star Trek XII: Into Darkness 87/90

Star Wars Ep. 1: The Phantom Menace 57/60
Star Wars Ep. 2: Attack of the Clones 67/60
Star Wars Ep. 3: Revenge of the Sith 80/65
Star Wars Ep. 4: A New Hope 93/96
Star Wars Ep. 5: The Empire Strikes Back 96/97
Star Wars Ep. 6: Return of the Jedi 78/95

Okay, now let’s parse this information.

Which series has the best single movie?
Star Wars, with “The Empire Strikes Back” at 96 critic, and 97 audience scores.

Which series has the worst single movie?
Star Trek, with “The Final Frontier at 21 critic, 25 audience scores.

Which series has the most “good” movies?
Now, perhaps this is a difficult and relative question, but let’s use the parameters you’ve suggested, i.e. Rotten Tomatoes scores. “Good” movies are those with “fresh” scores, thus 75 or better.
Star Wars has 4 movies that fall into this category according to critics (episodes 3 through 6), and 3 that do according to fans (4 through 6, omitting episode 3).
We’ll take the average and give them 3.5 points.
Star Trek has 6 movies that critics categorize as fresh, and 5 that fans do.
That’s 5.5 points.
So, Star Trek wins.

Which series has the most “bad” movies?
Well, that’s pretty easy. Clearly Star Trek.

Now, which series is the best on average?
Star Trek has an average critical score of 60.92, and an average audience score of 60.33.
Star Wars has an average critical score of 78.5, and an average audience score of 78.83.

So, based on the average watchability of the movies alone, Star Wars is a better series.

Star Wars 3.5
Star Trek 6

However, adding in quality of the SERIES that Star Trek has produced, clearly Star Trek blows Star Wars out of the water. Star Trek is really about serialized television goodness more than it is about blockbuster motion picture goodness, and yet it still holds its own in theaters. It has produced several movies of higher quality than at least HALF of the everything Star Wars has to offer. And that’s without even factoring in the television shows where Star Trek truly shines.

Star Wars 3.5
Star Trek 7

Boba Fett.

As far as cool secondary or supporting characters go, Boba Fett is about as good as it gets. Mysterious, tough, and wears awesome armor. A mercenary. His counterpart on "Star Trek"? Jordy with his visor. Point to "Star Wars."

My Response
Q, Gul Dukat, Quark, just to name a few. Not just cool, but a huge variety of supporting characters that fill out the Star Trek universe and make it truly unique and awesome.

Star Wars 3.5
Star Trek 8

Han. Solo.

The Spock of the "Star Wars" universe. Yoda is more Spock-like, but Solo held more screen time as Luke's #2 guy. No emotion vs. all emotion. The scruffy nerf-herder is easily as iconic of a character as Spock, if not more so. This is also the role that set off Harrison Ford's career. What else is Leonard Nimoy known for? Solo was such an impactful character, played so well by Harrison Ford, that he went on to be Indiana Jones.

My response
This is another one I can’t argue.

Star Wars 4.5
Star Trek 8

A Long Time Ago In A Galaxy Far, Far, Away.

This opening sequence set to the "Star Wars" theme is unmistakable. Compare with any "Star Trek" title sequence and "Star Wars" will win every time when it comes to inspiring awe and setting the stage for the viewer to be taken away into a fantasy universe of adventure. It could be considered the greatest opening title sequence of all time.

My response
I’m sorry. I know the Star Wars theme is iconic. It’s awesome. It’s a great opening. But to me, and to many others, several of the Star Trek introduction scenes are just as awe-inspiring if not more so. The Star Trek Voyager opening theme is brilliant, perfectly sets the stage for the show in every way, and gives me chills at times. It truly is beautiful. The Star Trek TNG opening is iconic. “Space…the final frontier…” Patrick Stewart’s perfect voice.

Star Wars never made me want to explore, made me want to know what’s out there. It made me want to sit back and be entertained. Star Trek actually made me hungry to know more about space, more about stars, more about the universe. And the openings to the shows had a large part to play in that.

Star Wars 4.5
Star Trek 9

R2D2 and C3PO.

These two robots set the bar for personality for non-human characters in film. They looked real, they had major roles, and they were believable even though they were two guys in tin suits. The Borg in "Star Trek" don't compare. Data is "Star Trek's" attempt at sentience and personality in a robot, and like with "Star Trek's" aliens, Data was distinguished from humans only by his pale skin and funny manner of talking.

My response
I don’t really have much to say, because R2D2 and C3PO speak for themselves and I don’t’ really have anything to say against them. But your take on Data is laughable at best. Data was a deep and varied character and even carried the show at times when it sagged. Star Trek actually explored the concept of robot, from the idea of emotions, to the limits of “perfection.” I’m giving the point here to Star Wars because of how awesome R2D2 and C3PO are (I’ve always especially loved their relationship to each other), but you do Star Trek a disservice to so dismiss what they did with the Data character.

Star Wars 5.5
Star Trek 9

Star Wars has better special effects and has advanced filmmaking.
At least historically. The original "Star Trek" television show did break ground when it was released, and it did help pave the way for "Star Wars: A New Hope" by proving that adventurous science fiction can reach a wide audience. But "Star Trek's" special effects in the television series were blown away even by older movies such as the original "War Of The Worlds" or "The Day The Earth Stood Still." When it was released in 1977, "A New Hope" was on the cutting edge of special effects and helped pave the way for films like "Alien" (1979) and "Blade Runner" (1982).

Unfortunately, Episode's I through III haven't stood the test of time all that well, and those movie's computer graphics now look dated and fake, even more so than the originals. But that doesn't change the fact they were groundbreaking at the time, and pushed digital film to where it is today. Set phasers to ouch.

My response
The two newest Star Trek movies are better graphically than anything Star Wars has produced so far. The Star Trek shows and movies innovated in their own ways, but one can’t really argue with what Star Wars managed to produce. The sad thing is, I think the three newer Star Wars movies are ugly as hell, and I’d rather have back the special effects of the original movies than the shiny, over-painted fiasco that fills the prequels. That was one of the great things about the original movies. They felt gritty, a little dirty, and we liked that. It felt real and purposeful.

This is actually hard to judge, because this is really a case where we’re judging based on different technologies and different contexts that make such a huge difference there really can’t be any comparison.

Each gets half a point just for trouts-and-giggles.

Star Wars: 6
Star Trek 9.5

The Empire is scarier than any "Star Trek" antagonist.

Even with all of the mismanagement and poor planning, (WTF, putting a direct open line of fire to destroy the Death Star?) The Empire had real Galactic domination in mind. They weren't after a star system or two, they wanted it all and woe be to any "Star Trek" Federation, Klingon, Romulan or even Borg that should have the misfortune to go up against Empire hardware. They wouldn't stand a chance.

The scrappy "Star Wars" Rebels were barely able to put up a fight and they still had better firepower than anything in the "Star Trek" universe. They did have Luke Skywalker though ...

My Response
Ummm…
Does your series have a space yeti? No? Well then…

Seriously: the Empire would have been destroyed by any number of alien races in the Star Trek universe. Q alone could think the Empire into a snow globe for little kids to play with. The Sith might play with the force, but Q is the force. So suck on that.

Other less god-like but definitely galaxy-shatteringly powerful foes in Star Trek who would easily crush the Empire (just to name a few):

Pah Wraiths
The Dominion
Species 8472

Star Wars 6
Star Trek 10.5

"Star Trek The Next Generation" subjected viewers to having to watch Tasha Yar and Wesley Crusher.

Yes, "Star Wars" had Jar Jar Binks (shudder) as an annoying character. Possibly one of the worst characters ever. But did you have to sit through multiple seasons of enduring Jar Jar Binks? No. It was only for a movie and a half.

"Star Trek's" Tasha Yar and Wesley Crusher on the other hand ... As a fan of TNG, these two characters would routinely ruin episodes for me with their stupidity and uselessness. It was a glorious day when Tasha Yar died on TNG. The torture was finally over.

My response
Agreed. That is all, I don't want to discuss this any more than necessary.

Star Wars 7
Star Trek 10.5

Tie Fighters, X-Wings and other incredible space ships.

"Star Wars" has space fighters, "Star Trek" has shuttles that ferry people back and forth and have no firepower. Plus, Tie Fighters and X-Wings are, in a word, pure awesome.

The ship design in "Star Wars" is varied and creative. Most all of the "Star Trek" Federation ships look the same, and there isn't much variety in the rest of the universe, as there are typically only a few alien species and they all have very similar ship designs. Borg ships are giant cubes, for example. Menacing cubes yes, but still giant cubes.

My response
This is another case where I’ll concede the point, but still respond to your argument because of its inadequacy. Star Trek has a larger variety of space vessels than Star Wars. And I don’t mean just iterations on the same form, but a huge array of different designs. They are spaced out across the many shows and movies, but they are there.
Your point that all the federation ships look the same isn’t a point against Star Trek, but a point for consistency. They should look alike. And, for that matter, a trained eye notices many unique differences between the ships.

Regardless, I’m giving the point to Star Wars because, well because I’m magnanimous.

Star Wars 8
Star Trek 10.5

The Force.

Step back for a moment and pretend Lucas didn't go completely off his rocker and explain the force as being "Midi-chlorians."

The idea behind The Force is a powerful one. That all things are connected, and the good side of The Force can be harnessed to improve the universe and fight evil. The Force is essentially a religion, and one that plays off the eternal fight between good and evil.

As a relatable plot device, it works well as an overarching reason for why everything is the way it is in the "Star Wars" universe. It is a powerful underlying theme. "Star Trek" deals with morality by placing the Enterprise in situations where they must make the right moral choice and damn to hell the consequences! Over and over again. The crew of the Enterprise have saved whales to save the universe. They have plugged volcanoes to protect the natives. They follow the Prime Directive because that's the right thing to do (unless you're Captain Kirk). There is no overarching theme aside from "do the right thing because its just the right thing to do." In "Star Wars," The Force is behind everything and offers characters a cohesive and compelling reason as to why they do the things they do.

My response
Well, the fact is, we can’t just pretend Lucas didn’t give us midi-chlorians. That happened and must be factored.

I must say, I liked the Force in the original movies. It was exciting, it was mysterious. Yet even so, it’s not an adequate system of ethics. The Force telling you to do something doesn’t make it any more right than “it’s just the right thing to do.”

Star Trek deals with moral and ethical issues seriously and with intelligence. Actions are questioned, examined from differing angles. Truth and rightness are constantly being evaluated and reevaluated, and the struggles of the characters are very human, which is at times very compelling, and even instructive.

I think you said it best when you called The Force a plot device. That’s really all it is, as evidenced by Lucas’s lunatic explanation of it in the prequels. Clearly, he never knew what the hell he meant by it in the original movies. “The Force” is a placeholder for “ethical and moral decision making.” It’s a placeholder for all the things Star Trek actually deals with that Lucas was too much a coward, or too much inadequate, to tackle in his movies.

Star Wars 8
Star Trek 11.5

Darth Vader.

The greatest cinematic villain of all time, bar none. "Star Trek's" Khan was, in all fairness, one of the best as well. But a plastic-chested, Shakespeare-quoting Ricardo Montalban or venom-spewing Benedict Cumberbatch can't hold a light saber to Vader. Darth Vader is a badass, and he's a great example of a villain having a troubled past and being transformed into what he is. "Star Trek," and any other film with a villainous antagonist who has a complicated past since 1977 has taken inspiration from Vader.

My response
Was the greatest till the prequels totally ruined him. Maybe.
And, in actuality, in the end it wasn’t even Vader that was a villain. He was being controlled by the emperor and the Force. He wasn’t a villain at all, just a shell being controlled by the real villains, which themselves were 1. An old man with typical old man villain properties 2. An ambiguous power that is neither good nor evil, but a spectrum of choice and responsibility, basically a measure of good or bad and not good or bad itself. These things would be true without the prequels, but then Hayden Christensen. Hayden Christensen. Hayden Christensen.
Also: Jake Lloyd.

What was that?
Jake Lloyd.

That happened. You can’t make it go away. You can’t erase it.

I’ll give the point to Star Wars just because of the iconography. It’s ubiquitous. And Star Trek doesn’t really create villains in the same way. Kahn’s the closest, and it’s just not the same. However, Vader isn’t the greatest cinematic villain of all time. He’s perhaps the biggest icon of villainy, but when you really break down his character, he’s actually a terrible character.

Star Wars 9
Star Trek 11.5


Wrap-up
Based only on the criteria you provided, Star Trek is a better series. And I could come up with at least twenty more criteria to further prove the point, but I’m not all that concerned with it. In the end, the two series are vastly different and shouldn’t be seriously compared except in fun. Not that I don’t stand by my evaluation. Star Trek really is the better series.