Since this is opinion, the shocking answer is that there is no answer. Any more than why an orange is better than an apple. Personally, I love both oranges AND apples, and would find it silly to chose one over the other when I can easily enjoy both.

:p

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Star-wars-vs-Star-trek/topic/12230/

WARNING: Contains severe haljordian insanity.

Yeah, I wouldn't be able to either.  They're both great, and totally different.  Although, since you're referring to the character of Nero, maybe you're referring not to the Trek franchise as a whole, but to the 2009 film.  If that's the case, then I'd easily be able to give you some reasons because that film is terrible. =P

Yeah it would be helpful if you could specify if we are being asked to compare about 557 hrs of television and film (leaving the books, comics, fanfilms and audio dramas aside) or the run time of the most recent Star Trek film against the seven theatrical films and the various television incarnations of Star Wars (not to mention the Radio plays, games, comics, audio dramas, novels etc) or just the runtime of the 1977 film.

I consider the original Star Trek television series a masterpiece. And if you're looking for characters, they don't get much better than Spock and Bones.

The original Star Trek and Star Wars are both live-action science fiction adventure, sometimes involving space battle and aliens and other planets, with humor and big personalities, but the comparison ends there, really. In 1977 though, there wasn't anything else that had those elements, unless you went back to Forbidden Planet and Flash Gordon, but those were things that only our grandparents could really remember, if they were even aware of them. And thus was the basis for the SW vs ST debate. But it's only because for so long, these were the only science fiction adventure stories involving occassional space battle and aliens that was within living memory. That context faded away decades ago, but the legacy lives on. But they aren't really any similar beyond those superficial elements--now staples--any more than 2001 and Star Wars is.

Though I prefer Star Wars over Star Trek, the entire SW vs. ST debate is a big wide load of pendatic penis-comparing bullshit. It really, seriously, pisses me right fucking off.

Shit like this

http://www.stardestroyer.net/

really makes me sick and, honestly, ashamed to be a fan.

We're comparing the original Star Trek TV series with the Star Wars OT. It started by arguing about who was a better captain, Kirk or Solo, then who was more logical C3P0 or Spock and it escalated from there it was more of a comparison of characters than the actual shows/movies.

I love how the point is even though this is a Star Wars forum we're all smart enough to not compare them. ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EQ0uVtmw2M

Qui-Gon Jinn 1, Jean-Luc Picard 0

zombie84 said: unless you went back to Forbidden Planet and Flash Gordon, but those were things that only our grandparents could really remember, 

As Buck Rogers, King Of The Rocketmen and Flash Gordon (along with Champion The Wonderhorse and Tarzan) were regularly shown on the telly on Saturday mornings before 1977 in the UK, I was already familiar with those tropes before seeing the film.

Moth3r said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EQ0uVtmw2M

Qui-Gon Jinn 1, Jean-Luc Picard 0

Okay, that was the most hilarious thing I'd seen in a long time.  Shame they had to choose a Star Trek: Generations action figure, though, but it certainly worked for the comedy.

Vulcans are not a very logical cultural group.

They have elaborate murderous mating rituals which I'm sure could be better managed with IVF and some strong sedatives.

They are very embarrassed about talking about it to the point where it's not common knowledge to high ranking officers like the boss for example.

It's highly impractical not mentioning to your Captain that once in a while you will get a violent and possibly fatal urge to mate or die trying.

The medical officer should at least be looped into that email.

Threepio is more outwardly emotional but he is more functionally useful (to the point that his human owners switch him off or shut him up when he pointing out life and death situations and how to correct or avoid them).

Protocol Droid said:

The newer SW trilogy suffers from wooden acting and one dimensional characters(not Palpatine)

I disagree. Palpatine has the motive for being evil. He simply follows beliefs of the sith that "their" way is the correct or pure one.  Like in the American Civil War, there was no good guy or bad guy. It's all a point of view.

^But this "just a point of view" relativism is George Lucas philosophy circa the turn of the century. 

The George Lucas who made the original trilogy would have said there is no "point of view"- this is a movie about heroes and villains, good versus evil. 

In fact I am surprised more people have not mentioned this as being one of the fatal flaws with the prequels.  Leaving out the idea of good versus evil was a major mistake.  Even in ROTJ, which some consider to be the weakest, that whole part in the throne room is a pure story about good and evil.

I'm pretty sure the slave owning southern elite sending young men fighting to the bloody death to defend their right to hold a human being as property are the bad guys of the American Civil War, and not simply guys with "a different point of view."

I liked the direction Lucas was going with the "point of view" angle regarding the Sith in the prequels, but the problem is that it doesn't work, and could never work. The OT is a classic good versus evil story full of moral absolutism, and however the Sith were portrayed in the prequels, in the end The Emperor/Empire is not much more than a typical Evil Organziation that you find in many sci-fi/fantasy works. They want power, and they don't mind doing bad things to get it. Plus they may do bad things for little practical purpose.

zombie84 said:

I'm pretty sure the slave owning southern elite sending young men fighting to the bloody death to defend their right to hold a human being as property are the bad guys of the American Civil War, and not simply guys with "a different point of view."

To be fair, that's not exactly what the war was about- that's more of a retroactive Northern interpretation that doesn't take into account state's rights and the fact that the original colonies never would have joined the Union in the first place if they could be forced to remain in the Union involuntarily.  Slavery is indefensible but if it really were a war about slavery then what about the New York City Draft riots?  What about Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky?  Those look like northern slave states to me.  So you see it wasn't so tidy like that.

Not to get us off topic:)

Sure, but I don't think you can say it was just a matter of point of view when slavery was a fundamental element in it all. I realize the matter is much more complex than that--I'm remembering a Simpsons episode where Apu starts getting into the issues behind the war and the bored citizenship examiners cuts him off and says "just say slavery." Anyway: both the ficticious Star Wars war and the real-life American war had their share of clear bad guys that are behind some of the main causes. The prequels try to at first paint it as point of view, but in the end it doesn't turn out to be the case.

Anyway though, your point about the PT/OT thing is spot on, the OT was designed as a classic moral absolutism tale--good vs evil--and the prequels, to give them credit are pretty clever deconstructions of that, which would be fine if they are sequels, but if they are supposedly meant to be watched first or at least chronoligically come first then that doesn't really mesh well/