Actually, yes it is.
But that’s not the point, the point is…pointy.
See above. As a Trekker who can trace my roots back to the very beginning, I am not disparaging Trek when I say that. But it is not Sci-Fi. Never has been. It has evolved into its own separate and distinct form of fiction. It owes much to Sci-Fi, yes. But it follows its own rules. It sometimes comes rather close to sci-fi, but Trek never even tries to be Sci-Fi.
Doesn’t mean it isn’t extremely watchable and fun, because Trek satisfies a certain entertainment niche (of which I am a part). But the standards and labels don’t fit Trek any more than they fit Wars.
YMMV, but as the Ultimate Trek Doper™ (among several), my voice must be heard. :
:
We are using different definitions of “Sci-Fi.”
That’s ok.
Star Wars has the edge on actors. We got Harrison Ford, Ewan McGregor, Alec Guinness, Samuel L. Jackson, Terrence Stamp, Ian McDiamid, Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, James Earl Jones, and Liam Neeson.
Who does Trek have? William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Patrick Stewart, Wil Wheaton. They got the guy from Reading Rainbow-we got the guy from Sesame Street.
And like Liam Neeson said, (paraphrased very heavily), in Star Wars, aliens LOOK like aliens, not just some guy with a “vagina on his forehead.”
There’s a line from something: “I know a galaxy where the only difference between intelligent species is a wide variety of facial applications.”
But, for comic relief, is Jar Jar better than painfully bad dialog?
Only if you think that SW ships travel at lightspeed, for which I’d still like a cite.
They are - from canon sources, the SW galaxy is a little larger than the MW galaxy
I’m sorry, my fault, I was still reacting to Weirdave’s CBG-styley
I shouldn’t have let that colour my tone with you.
Ahem. Star Trek and Star Wars are both sci-fi. So are Firefly and Battlestar Galactica. (Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis, however, are just crap.) None of them are hard SF, although Firefly came the closest. If you want the hard stuff, you have to hit the books. Hard SF is generally defined as that which keeps fancy technologies to a bare minimum, and makes them well defined and predictable. Otherwise all science and technology conforms to what was known in the real world at the time of writing, or what was at least plausible.
This thread makes baby Jesus cry.
No worries. 
And I think i’m going to have to concede, here, since I can’t find a cite.
Baby Jesus vs. Q! 
Give me a break, Weirddave. It’s fiction – there’s no “facts” involved! Which imaginary tech is better than which is entirely up to who is writing. This sort of imaginary “versus” thread should be done for fun, and the only person I’m seeing getting worked up over this is you.
I … don’t … know … what … you’re … talking … about!! [/Bill Shatner]
Ha ha ha!! Yes!!!
Although I’m afraid, according to googlefight, it’s not even a contest: Q totally decimates Baby Jesus. But that’s not really fair, because Q could mean anything. If you put in “Star Trek Q” versus “Baby Jesus” then Jesus takes it.
You must have some strange new definition of “worked up” with which I am unfamiliar. I thought I was amused. Thanks for setting me straight.