Let's go strictly by the numbers to start:
Star Trek
Began in: 1966, on television
Number of Movies: 12, in three different franchises
Number of TV Shows: 5 (I don't count the animated series as canon)
Best Movie/TV Show: The 2009 Star Trek reboot, The Next Generation (1987-1994).
Worst Movie/TV Show: The Motion Picture (1979), Enterprise (2001-2005).
Star Wars
Began in: 1977, in movies
Number of Movies: 6 (don't count the animated stuff here either)
Number of TV Shows: Canon? 0. But there is a popular animated TV show, as well as at least three specials that I'm aware of.
Best Movie: The Empire Strikes Back (1980).
Worst Movie: Attack of the Clones (2002).
Clearly when it comes to quantity Trek wins by light-years: not only did it have an eleven-year head start, but it's been pumping out over 700 episodes of television for decades, as well as racking up twice as many movies as the younger Wars series, which has never really taken off on television. It should be noted that Wars very clearly wins the battle at the box office, despite having only half the number of Trek's films. But Trek has dominated the television arena, while Wars has suffered terribly in that medium, where it can't be taken seriously.
But that doesn't interest me so much: quality will beat quantity any day.
The franchises are comparable for their many similarities: they're both space adventures. Wars is set in the past, in a distant galaxy "far, far away," while Trek is set in the future, and involves actual human beings from Earth. Both have aliens. Both have politics woven into the storylines. Both have huge universes that are expanded much further than what's actually shown on screen. Both have spawned novels, video games, toys, and merchandise galore. Both have inspired fan fiction.
However, while Wars began as a spin on the classic Hero's Journey tale, Trek began as a metaphor for the tumultuous times America was living in. Both have since moved beyond those beginnings.
The essential difference for me lies in the way the story is laid out: Wars at its core, is just two trilogies that tell one long story. That story is about a man born from a virgin, prophesied to unite the galaxy, ultimately turning evil, but later seeking redemption through the help of his grown children. The story has a clear beginning, middle, and end. (Although the end will be extended with the addition of a third trilogy, starting in 2015.)
Trek is very different. That franchise is exactly what the title suggests: they're treks through space. Each series and movie is really just a stand-alone adventure on a different planet or with a different creature. Sure, there are overarching storylines and themes in some of the spin-off TV shows. There was even a trilogy of movies (original movies II, III, and IV) that told one long, sprawling story. But for the most part a newcomer could come into the franchise at any point and understand what was happening. This is most evident with the original series from the 60s- the show has never stopped airing reruns; it could almost be said the show was made for re-runs. Anyone could start watching the show at any point in time: there is almost no forward movement with any of the characters, very few returning characters outside of the main six crew members, no recurring themes or overarching storylines. The only thing besides the main characters that unites the show is its formula: the ship is cruising through space when it finds something dangerous; they investigate, putting the ship or at least a large portion of its crew in mortal danger, a red shirt dies, and at the last possible second Kirk figures out how to defeat the Big Bad and destroys it. Then the ship flies away, right as rain. Wars was never that simple at its core, although Trek did eventually move away from that model.
The two epics have even helped each other out: without Trek, there surely would have been no Wars: no audience and no interest. And because Wars was such a big hit at the box office, studio execs decided to resurrect the dead Trek franchise and make a movie. They have existed side-by-side for decades, with the quality going up and down. Every Wars fan laments the prequel trilogy, while even the most die-hard Trek fans have to admit missteps, like with The Final Frontier or the prequel series Enterprise.
It seems that prequels are just a bad idea in general... unless, that is, you hire J.J. Abrams to direct your prequel. But the 2009 reboot movie wasn't truly a prequel; it was a reboot in the most unique sense of the word. While it invented an alternate reality for the characters, it also acknowledges the earlier series as being part of the "original" universe (hence Leonard Nimoy's cameo in the film). It's a brilliant, genius move; one that even Wars probably couldn't pull off.
Readers hoping to hear a conclusion from me will be sadly disappointed. If I had written this article five years ago, I would have said Wars was the superior franchise, hands down. But Abrams not only showed me what Trek could really be, he helped introduce me to the old stuff for the very first time. I'm excited for the future of both franchises. There will undoubtedly be a third Trek reboot film, and we could even hope for another TV series at some point in the future. There is already work beginning on a new Wars trilogy, new spin-off films, and even a live action TV series. There's room for fans to love both these franchises, equally or not.
