Lucius_Malfoy: Well gee thanks. X) Though it's a matter of opinion.
It's the most subjective thing in the world, certainly.
However, concerning reiteration, reboots and prequels, I could make a whole lot of points as to how those things can ruin the integrity of previously introduced stories and particularly their all important novelty and surprise moments. And sadly enough, the last decade was basically all-prequel for Star Wars, while Episode VII – which I still liked a lot! – was reiteration in the greatest possible degree.
Star Trek vs. Star Wars is a battle as old as those galaxies, and I don't want to get into it. I can do with the most basic of stories if it's told well, I even liked James Cameron's Avatar. Stories don't get more basic than that.
Star Wars is going in a better direction right now, while I subjectively felt Star Trek to go into a worse direction with the Abramsverse. Still, the groundbreaking stories were told in the Star Trek universe all along.
By the way, on topic:
8. Episode III (illogical SFX surpriseless yawn)
7. Episode I (for all its faults, I occasionally find it enjoyable)
6. Episode II (the only prequel I have on DVD)
5. Rogue One (only saw it this week. Still don't know what disappointed me)
4. Episode VII (great start, but repeats Episode IV with a shameful vengeance)
3. Episode IV
2. Episode VI
1. Episode V (Come on. It has Yoda and the real Force teaching stuff.)
tinyE: Am I the only one who thinks this whole Star Wars v. Star Trek thing is kind of like comparing apples to oranges?
Well, yes of course. But it wouldn't make sense to compare apples to apples or oranges to oranges. They're identical, what would the result of the comparison even be?