Being a huge fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars, I can with objective clarity that both Roddenberry and Lucas are visionaries in their own right.  It is the height of stupidity to compare two vastly different pieces of sci-fi history.

Star Trek was Gene Roddenberry's fictional vision of what would happen to humanity and Star Wars was set a long time ago...in a galaxy far, far away.  Star Wars is simply a masterful example of light vs dark, good vs evil ideal.  That sentence right there is EVERY REASON why saying one is better than the other is utterly pointless.  It's personal preference to like one or the other or both, but they cannot be compared.  The only things they have in common is that they are part of sci-fi, have spawned spinoffs, mass merchandising, and a plethora of novelas, comic books and graphic novels. 

Chewie was great, he could fly a spaceship and loved going round shooting stormtroopers. Bones was always being the humanitarian, what a boring bastard he was.

		_strat_ wrote:
		Why, thank you!      jimmyjames wrote: Chewbacca is way cooler than Bones McCoy.

  "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN"

		SkyRideR wrote:
		which one of james kirks' millions of children actually became starfleet officers or are they all bastard children of the universe?

IF I WERE HUMAN,I BELIEVE MY RESPONSE WOULD BE... "GO TO HELL"...IF I WERE HUMAN...