In the quest to determine which of the two is better, one might be tempted to claim that it is in the eye of the beholder, since, after all – these are creative works that appeal to a persons unique mix of tastes and appreciations and so the math determining if a person likes one or hates one or likes both or hates both or some mixture in the middle will be different for each individual, thus there can be no definitive answer.
This is obviously bullshit.
There are new and old versions of both series and the distinctions of what is quality art and what is crappy bullshit is clear, despite a persons personal preferences (it’s not news that lots of people like crap. That doesn’t make it not crap).
Old Star Trek is embarrassingly stupid, using painfully boring plot devices to tell mediocre stories told through childish poorly written dialog.
New Star Trek is intelligent with inventive plot devices to tell unique stories told through creatively memorable dialog.
New Star Wars is embarrassingly stupid, using painfully boring plot devices to tell mediocre stories told through childish poorly written dialog.
Old Star Wars is intelligent with inventive plot devices to tell unique stories told through creatively memorable dialog.
Search your feelings. You *know* it to be true. Or don’t, because feelings don’t matter for the points made above since this is a matter of fact and reason.
The End.
I agree with most of this, though “Old Star Trek” can be very broad considering the breadth of Star Trek material available prior to the reboot. Though if you’re leaving out anything but the 1960s original series, this is entirely accurate. The movies associated with the original series as well as subsequent series with different characters (The Next Generation, etc.) were of a much higher quality.