Exactly, especially since people tend to confuse "What one do you like better," with "Which one is better?"
But Trek and Wars are not so far apart in quality that those two questions become separate. If you're comparing, say, Star Wars to that abysmal Dungeons & Dragons movie from several years back, then yeah, you can pretty much just say "Star Wars is objectively superior." Similarly, if you are comparing Star Wars to Contact, which one you like better as a movie is completely subjective, but it'd be hard to make an argument for Star Wars being the more deep, more challenging, more thought-provoking one. But Star Trek vs. Star Wars? There is zero objectivity involved there. Completely subjective.
Even as it is, Clones is still as good or better than half the Trek films. The other Star War films are better (or significantly better) than any Star Trek film. People tend to over exaggerate the film quality of a few of them 'round here, namely Khan, Country, FC, and nuTrek.
I will grant that
all Trek movies have quite a few logic flaws and plot holes, but so do the Star Wars movies. And I'd even agree that Trek movies on the whole can't quite hang with Wars movies on the whole in terms of general quality. But there is still a subjective element here. What if someone just
hates all six of the Star Wars movies? What if they found the story plain dumb, the complete, pointed disregard for any scientific accuracy frustrating, the cheesy one-liners and jokes... well, cheesy, and the "good vs. evil" paradigm simplistic and ham-fisted? What do you tell this person? "You're wrong, they are great movies."? Or do you accept that whatever you saw as good in them, they just didn't agree with? Just because large numbers of people find something good (or bad) doesn't mean it just "is".
With SW, one third is some of the most influential (and arguably best) film-making of all-time. Three of the other four are all very good films in their own right. Trek just can't compete.
Influential, definitely. That (obviously) is something that can't really be argued with. Quality, though, is not.
Besides, I have certainly heard people express the sentiment that the Star Wars movies are good, fun movies
despite some serious flaws and a lack of filmmaking artistry. Not saying this is a
common argument, but I've heard film enthusiasts make it. And you said in the quote above that you've got two SW movies that are among the best films ever, with three of the remaining four still being "very good films in their own right". I'm going to assume that the two in the "best ever" category are A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back, and that the one left out of the "still very good" category is Attack of the Clones (based on what you said about it earlier). If that's the case, then you've declared Phantom Menace to be "a very good film in its own right." I don't have to tell you that it would be impossible to find any kind of consensus on that on this board, or among SW fans, or among movie-goers in general.
But even with television I think fans tend to exaggerate there series' excellence. You have one great show that was really promoted more by its quirky campyness that maid it a pop icon than anything.
I'm no TOS fan, but as you say, it was a great show for it's time. I think it's lasting popularity has as much to do with that as it does to do with it's quirky campiness. And I say that as someone who finds that the cheesiness, sexism, and overall "This is SO 1960's" nature of the show make much of it hard to watch and take seriously, especially compared to the best of modern Trek shows. But regardless of that, for its time, it WAS a great show. It wouldn't have become a pop icon if it hadn't been.
The other shows are really pretty mediocre when compared to everything else in the annals of TV mythos; they maybe had a few transcendent episodes sprinkled about.
Here is where we seriously diverge. I would argue that TNG and DS9 were anything but "mediocre". I find both of these shows to be better in almost every way than TOS, as well as just about everthing else I've seen on TV, ever. Sure, as with
any TV show, they have their flaws (rather nasty, glaring ones at times), but the good in them just overpowers those flaws, if you ask me. Now, someone else may not agree with me. That's fine. But I'm not "wrong."
I think this parallels the old "Why is there a Trek sigma and not one for Star Wars?" bit. I think a lot of it is because Star Wars is perceived as the better work of art by most people. That's the reality.
I don't think that's really it. It might be
part of it, but not the whole thing. And I say that because of how infrequently I've ever heard anyone talk about Star Wars in a positive light with regards to its artistic merits. In fact, I can't think of a single instance off the top of my head where someone said anything positive that didn't relate to the action-packed, over-the-top, larger than life, good vs. evil, just simple cinematic FUN that Star Wars is at its best. If anything, I've heard people say that they are great movies
in spite of the fact that they don't really even reach for any great depth. They are action movies. Good ones, but still.
Don't get me wrong; if I had to pick either Trek or Wars to only have to watch the rest of my life, I'd choose Trek ten times in ten. I simply like it better. But I have no illusions about its quality.
I don't have any "illusions" either. I'm quite clear on the fact that I think Star Wars is better just in terms of movies, but Trek is better overall (mainly due to TNG and DS9).
