The Mandalorians factor pretty heavily throughout one entire season (having a hard time remembering exactly how long at this point). Most of the over-arching storylines are pretty good and keep the viewer interested. The show is a lot better than I expected it to be after the movie and introductory episodes in season one, when the show seemed to be aimed squarely at the mentally impaired 8-12 year old demographic.

George Takei is great. He's a person I have a lot of time for. Maybe we should unite against the horror that is known as Twilight!

...

As for the whole Star wars Vs Star trek though.

I used to love both when I was younger, but a few years ago I kind of realised how "meh" Star Wars actually is. In the end I realised that the whole series is kind of vacuous. Star Wars is essentially just sword fighting and space battles (as well as irrelevant dialogues). There's nothing wrong with watching something like that though, it's enjoyable and fun... But it's not engrossing.

That's the difference. A good episode of Star Trek is far more engrossing than the best Star Wars film (Empire Strikes Back, in case you're interested) because Star Trek episodes are usually written with a real-life concept underpinning the story and that makes a lot of difference. It allows you to engage with the events more (whether the concept is political, scientific, social, etc...).

...

Now who beats who in a fight between the two? That's a tough one. If we include Q on the Star Trek side, then that's it, game over, Star Trek wins as far I'm concerned. But that's already been debated here.

Without Q, then the Empire in Star Trek would beat the federation merely for the fact that they seem to be such a large entity by comparison. Then again, the Borg could possibly beat the empire as all they do is consume and grow. They're like a plague of locusts, the empire would struggle against them.

With all this talk of Star Trek and Q, I just had to put the episode "Hide and Q" on.

Well, that's the entire problem with this argument in the first place and why fanboys on both sides are so insufferable.

Star Trek is about the future of humanity and the problems faced by government, poverty, political relationships, etc. It's a study of who we are and where we're going.

Star Wars is about mythology and incorporating it into a new environment. It's about shining good versus blackest evil. It's full of action, the good guy triumphing over adversity, and swashbuckling. It's no different than any number of Greek, Roman, or Norse mythologies. It was never meant to be profound, just as Lord of the Rings was never meant to be profound. It's a tale to tell children and entertain everyone who sees it.

I happen to swing more in the Star Wars camp but that's just how I roll. I love well done stories of the man in the white hat laying a beat down on the black hat. I also love the episodic nature of Star Trek and the questions it poses us as people. Both have their merits and shouldn't really be compared. Outside of starships, they share virtually nothing in common.

I personally prefer Star Wars. Despite my dad being really into Star Trek, I wasn't exposed to it until a while after I had gotten into Star Wars. But when I say I prefer Star Wars, I'm including the extended universe. I love the original trilogy, and I think the prequels are entertaining if you can get past the god awful Anakin/Padme crap (and Jar Jar should die...). The fights are fun. But my favorite era in SW is around the time of the Jedi Civil War (KOTOR). Partly because I love the game, and partly because there was no "Rule of Two" Darth Bane stuff, so you'd get massive Sith vs Jedi conflicts. Battle Meditation did always seem kinda cheap to me, though.

I've only ever seen a few scattered Star Trek episodes and the 2009 movie (which I enjoyed quite a bit), so I can't really say that I have a balanced opinion.

wait, you serious?

flying to the other side? whats the point in that when the drill lazer is in say point A. and you're all the way in the other side in point B? you better off asking the writer that question.

Fly to the other side of the planet where the signal isn't being blocked to alert Vulcan of the danger, which, after watching the film again, they were already aware of yet were inexplicably unwilling to or incapable of doing anything about it themselves.

Seriously, any screenwriter could probably come up with about a dozen reasonable ways to disrupt the drill  which is why I'm questioning why anyone even wants to bother debating about it. 

But just because... the shuttle in which Kirk, Sulu and Doomed Red Shirt Guy flew down to the drill was never fired at, intercepted, or even noticed by the Romulans. They could have fired the shuttle's phasers or whatever at it even though the plan was to use explosives to sabotage the drill.

The end result? Everyone who saw the film knows; Red Shirt with the explosive charges dies and Kirk and Sulu stop the drill by shooting it with handheld Romulan disruptors. 

Thanks for the geek debate, but really; put a fork in it. This one's cooked. 

the point of them going at the drill in the first place was to save the planet.

I'm sure picard would have done something better.

They would both lose to the Yamato

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. This is an entirely subjective thing. They are almost two completely different types of storytelling and whichever one you prefer is entirely down to your own opinion.

I would never tell anyone that they're wrong for liking Star Wars, but it's just not to my taste. I can see the appeal of it (as you say it's not meant to be profound, just an entertaining tale), but in all honesty I'm rather indifferent to the series.