Which is better and why?
Its a hard call. I like Star War in term of the universe layout and gritty realness. But it fails in terms of science based locations and interactions. Star Trek is much better at the science in science fiction but is a bit too polished or too clean. They have gotten better over time especially after the death of the creator of the show. Yet I like the hope in Star Trek also.
So for me its Star Trek but I'll agree with complaints of it being a little bit too nice/ hopeful.
Nostalgia says Star Wars. I teethed on it. But that's relevant only to me. They're different. You would have to look at different aspects and determine which ones are more important to you.
The state of the fandom: Both SW and ST have been ruined in the past few years, and JJ Abrams is partly at fault for both. Star Trek has devolved into a series of Michael Bay-esque films. Star Wars has been invaded by normies. Star Trek wins by a narrow margin because there seems to be a greater number of holdouts in the fanbase, and because its future is brighter.
Scientific accuracy: Star Trek, of course. Do I even have to explain it?
Story and lore: Star Wars. The EU made it so expansive and detailed, both for the better and the worse. Star Trek does have some pretty deep lore, but it's not as deep nor as wide as the canon Star Wars has built up.
Personally, I would pick Star Wars, with a caveat that anything done since the regime change or even since 2008 does not count. They're both fantastic. However, despite the absolutely despicable condition Star Wars is in, the nostalgia and the older, dedicated fanbase pull me toward Star Wars.
Trek. Star Wars had some exciting stuff, but it's sort of like watching cardboard scenery that looks perfect from one angle but you can't really keep looking or you'll see too much of how it was constructed.
Star Trek sometimes did that, but sometimes went way further, as you might hope for from something that was on with 6 series and I lost track of how many movies.
That is why TOS will always be my favorite Star Trek series. It's seminal.
Maybe compared to Star Wars, but Star Trek wasn't very scientific either.
Star Wars. If you were a fan, and you followed the extended universe, it has so much depth to it. Not that Star Trek doesn't. They are both very large universes with a lot of potential, but it seems like Star Wars was explored more extensively in book form, or at least I've been exposed more to it then the Trek Universe.
I also think that Disney has done a great job with the franchise. They have remained loyal to the extended universe which is what the fan base demands of any movies/spin offs going forward.
Star Trek bothered me because Roddenberry wanted the future to be so pristine. We are human. There are certain aspects of our psyche we may never be able to overcome, but he really wanted to eliminate a lot of that. Especially in Next Gen, it really lost touch for me I feel...
The point of Star Trek wasn't to merely be futuristic. It was meant to show how mankind had evolved, and how it may evolve even further into the future. I think they got away from that idealism later on, especially with the new movies.
I understand that. My point was that by Next Gen he made the writing so restrictive because of the strict rules he placed on the human race in that future. Many of the writers have commented on this. Lucas let the universe evolve on it's own. Perhaps that is why if feels more real to me...
I actually like the new movies. The restrictions are taken down, the universe is more gritty, and feels more authentic to me.
Star Wars isn't futuristic either. Star Wars is supposed to be ha document of the past. Maybe that's why I like it. Not sure.
Why do people keep saying that Star Wars is science fiction in this thread? Its not, even George Lucas said its not.
Eh, semantics. It's fantasy, but it definitely has science fiction elements.
I agree. It's fantasy that happens to be set in Space, but you could set it essentially anywhere with very little impact to the story.