KOTOR rocks thank you!!!

Star Wars. Han Solo

The Star Wars.. I've seen the originals over 100 times each.. Only seen Eps I & II once each.. couldnt sit through them twice LOL

Star Wars

Hard question. I don't like one better than the other. I may be the only person out here who feels this way, but the shows are so different, I don't compare them. I'm just glad we have both.

Since I've never watched Star Trek, I'll go with Star Wars. Even though I'm not a big fan of either..

I liked the Star Wars movies and the original Star Trek series but I think over the years my fondness for both has decreased a little bit.

Star Wars was intended to appeal more to kids, whether older fans want to believe it or not. Though many complain about the silliness of Jar Jar Binks and the "yippie!" cries of the young Anakin in the first movie of the recent trilogy, don't forget that the original trilogy had the Ewoks. I like all the Star Wars movies but I'm not a "fan" in the sense of a fanatic. Seeing them about once every 3 or 4 years is enough for me now.

I remember watching the original Star Trek series. In hindsight, I do think it made me think about possibilities that I might not have considered. Much has been made of the Kirk-Uhura kiss, the first interracial kiss on U.S. primetime television, but the Chekhov character was also surprising. Keep in mind that in the late 1960s, the Vietnam War was heating up and the Soviet Union was still a menacing enemy. The inclusive nature of the show in terms of different (human) races and cultures (Russian, Scottish, American, Japanese) played a big part in its worldwide appeal. I don't think any other popular sci-fi shows of that era featured different races and cultures the way that Star Trek did.

I didn't see too many of The Next Generation episodes but I saw many of the DS9 and Voyager episodes. I think the Star Trek universe got too unwieldy as more importance was placed on adhering to "canon" than to creating unique stories. Star Trek has become a cultural institution, which has its downsides. This means that there can be a bureaucratic feel to the franchise because there are so many rules and "historical details" that have to be accounted for when creating new episodes or movies. ("No, that ship wasn't there on that Stardate" or "Episode XYZ showed that the Federation doesn't have such a rule in those situations" and so on.)

Star Trek should always be remembered for its important role in science-fiction television history but many of the conventions of the franchise have now become dated. In particular, the new Battlestar Galactica series has made me view some of those conventions through different lenses:

--The complete reset at the end of each episode so that the characters are exactly the same at the end of the episode as they were at the beginning
--The placement of the bridge on top of the ship, an incredibly vulnerable spot. This makes no sense if you think about it. The view screen is electronic so the bridge doesn't need to be located near the exterior. It would be better to put the bridge in the center of the ship where it would have much greater protection.
--The fact that the ships look so clean and spotless. NASA spaceships don't look so pristine and neither do U.S. Navy vessels. This fact was especially strange in the Voyager series. That ship was supposed to be stranded on the far side of the galaxy with limited supplies and yet the ship always looked like it was a highly polished display area at an upscale convention.

I don't want to come across as though I'm bashing Star Trek. Unlike many, I actually enjoyed most of the Star Trek movies, at least the ones with the cast of the original series (except for Star Trek V, which probably shouldn't have been made). They didn't have the epic feel that the Star Wars movies do but they are still fun to watch. I even liked the one about the humpback whales (Star Trek IV).

I don't know if I've ever liked one or the other better, Star Trek or Star Wars. I liked both but I'm not as big a fan of either as I used to be.

star trek and star wars are both good movies.

Both are good shows and franchises. I mildly prefer Star Trek because there's just been more variety. But Star Wars is great too and has better movies.

Star Wars all the way baby. Lightsabers are awesome

Star Trek - Star Wars is vastly over-rated [plus the most recent films degrades the original films legacy]

You can't compare the two - Star Wars had Vader, Star Trek had Shatner. Do I need to say more?

Lets see, Star Trek has how many movie 11, I think. Star Wars has the six and the clone wars. Star Wars was a story that was concluded and is over. star Trek is something that keeps going, over and over again. There seems to be no point to the movies. So Star Wars is the better. At least it had a good plot and action. Unlike most movies that had sequels, this one new where to stop. Unlike Star Trek, which keeps going. Star Wars is by far better than Star trek.

Star Trek is Sci Fi and Star Wars is fantasy. There is no comparison.

i love ST. SW is just an immitation of the tec. and philosphy. how anyone can call SW a pioneer i dont know. ST was so far before its time tht it only became popular in the reruns(and yet it still made seventy two episodes).
-live long and prosper mes amies