Chervil's first post was outstanding, and I agree for the most part.  I think the simplest way to put it is that Star Trek is science fiction and Star Wars is space opera.

Karas, it sounds like you're about the same age as me; let me add that (from your avatar) you've really kept your figure well, being as we're both pretty "old" (compared to most of these folks!)

Star Trek was my first love, and I discovered it in reruns in the mid-70's.  When Star Wars hit in 1977, it became my new obsession, and I loved it even more.  In 1979, Star Trek The Motion Picture came out and (for a time) I liked it even more than Star Wars.

Other than Enterprise, I've really loved all of the Star Trek shows and movies (Enterprise was just okay).  And I really enjoy each Star Wars movie, too, though I prefer the OT to the prequels.  I'm not a fan of the Clone Wars cartoons, as they're just too anime for my tastes.

Like many have said, I've never felt the need to like one over the other, though this discussion does bring me back to my junior high days, where we spent hours debating whether or not the Enterprise could destroy the Death Star!   :)

I loved Voyager during the first couple of seasons. Mainly becuase I thought that DS9 was so boring. Sixteen years later they've swapped. Voyager to me was the biggest letdown and best example of how a formula can get way too tired too quickly and beaten into the ground. Sure Voyager had some bright spots but it was pure drivel mostly (Just ask Beltran).

DS9 is rich and even though it's a ripoff of Babylon 5, it is one of the best next to Next Gen of where Star Trek can go. Sure at times it's way to soapy but it certainly got better with age. (Especially after the original Dax was killed off). The final season is one of my faves and I think the jury is still out as to whether Worf needed to be brought on at all (as Dorn is a horrible actor).

Delete
 

DS9 is not a rip off of B5.  While both were set on a space station, they were very different in story and tone.  And they were both really good.  I would not want to have missed seeing either one.

I've gone back and forth over the years with Star Wars and Star Trek.  I grew up as a member of the Star Wars generation.  On top of that, the UHF channels in my area didn't show reruns of Star Trek during this same time period, or if they did, it was after my bedtime.  I saw the Star Trek movies, and liked them well enough.  Wrath of Khan in particular, naturally.  When Star Trek: TNG started up, I was a teen and I loved it, and the same station that aired it also began to run the classic series as well.  I was instantly hooked.  I went on to enjoy DS9.  By the time Voyager came around, I was an adult.  I found the show loaded with potential which was never properly exploited.  I also began to find the reruns of ST:TNG to be incredibly lame, and eventually grew to despise the show I once adored.  I continue to enjoy the classic series though.  The less said about the TNG movies, the better.

In the meantime, Star Wars got re-released in theatres, which re-ignited my love of the trilogy.  Then a few years later came the Special Editions, which caused me great concern upon watching them.  Most of the tweaks were harmless enough, but some of them I didn't aprove of at all, and there were still more problems that should have been fixed but were not.  Then came the media frenzy of TPM, and I found myself swept up in it, despite the clear indications in the SEs that I should employ caution.  I went to the midnight showing eager with anticipation.  I drove home confused and disappointed.  Did that really just happen?  Maybe if I see it again, the story will make more sense.  No such luck, and the same would hold true for the rest of the prequels.

In the post TNG & prequel world, we've been given the new Star Trek movie franchise and SW: The Clone Wars animated series, both of which I enjoy, but on a totally independent basis from the SW/ST of the past.  To me, the new Trek is a fun ride, but nothing like any Trek I've enjoyed before.  The Clone Wars for me is a fun series which might as well be set in an alternate universe from the prequels.  The stories actually make sense (when George isn't forcing them to do a JarJar episode) and the characters have depth and manage to interest me, unlike their live-action counterparts.

The common demoninator that seems to come back often is, how each of them affected us when we first saw them (either in our youth or as grew up with them).

I myself fall in the ''older'' generation (yet sometime I act or write like I'm 9) who ''was there in the beginning'' and the experience is so different when you were there when it started it's crazy how it's not the same. 

In both categories, there are some extreme fans who've taken how they were affected earlier and have taken control over what the initial goal was and lost that magic aspect of what each of the big 2 have to offer (see the People Vs George Lucas for Star Wars and see Trekkies 1 and 2 for Star Trek to show you how people go too far).

I was so touch in my youth by how Star Wars affected me, that's the reason I've always prefered SW Vs ST. I like both and watched and owned both but to some degree, my heart will always be for SW...the passion...the memories...the anticipation, SW has given me that and ST never did provide that.

That's how I can differenciate both but like someone said...it's like Marvel and DC...T-Bone steak Vs. Lobster....both are super good, but I believe we always like 1 more then the other just a bit.

At this point, I will reiterate that I like both. Both offer grand stories, epic space battles, great characters, and pure entertainment. Star Wars is a MOVIE franchise, first and foremost, and Star Trek is a TV franchise, first and foremost! There will always be more "canon" for Star Trek because of that fact. Only recently does Star Wars have a legitimate TV Series that adds to the "canon" of the franchise.

So in essence, comparing the two is not fair to either franchise or fanbase. They are too different to compare on any level other than entertainment value, and that is subjective to each person.

"...it's like...T-Bone steak Vs. Lobster...both are super good, but I believe we always like 1 more than the other just a bit."

- Jedibanner

I'm gonna make cows eat lots of Lobster and Lobsters eat lots of steak. That way when I cook either one, I'll get to eat both! :-)

MMMMM, a Lobsteak aaaaaarrrrrrggggg  ''druling ala homer simpson...''

FYI - "Straczynski maintains that Paramount, the studio which produced Deep Space Nine was aware of Babylon 5 as early as 1989. He claims that when he was shopping B5 around to various studios he gave Paramount a series bible as well as plot breakdowns for the first season of the show and other background materials. He maintains that Paramount used these materials to help create Deep Space Nine. Straczynski says that he declined to sue in order to put the past behind them and allow both shows to go forward without the taint of a legal sturggle."

I love both DS9 and Babylon 5.

 Yeah, we'll never really know if B5 was ripped off at Paramount, and Kara does have a point about tone, but you gotta admit Kara...

* Both set on a space station.

* Both space stations are next to portals that will take you to another part/other parts of the galaxy

* Both have a commanding officer who becomes a religious figure to an alien culture

* Both approached the conflict between good and evil from a somewhat religious stance (B5 more than DS9 perhaps, but still...)

Quite a few things to have in common for it to be a total coincidence in my book...but I'm with Meegle, I love them both anyway.