Reasons “Star Trek” Is Better Than “Star Wars”

The list for June 5, 2013

The Top 13 Reasons “Star Trek”
Is Better Than “Star Wars”

Solo, Skywalker and Calrissian put together didn’t get a fraction of the sex that a single James Tiberius Kirk got.
At least "Trek"’s obligatory and annoying furry critters stayed mostly quiet, content to pass the time f%$king and multiplying.
"The Force? Heh, heh. We don’t need no stinkin’ Force."
In "Star Wars," a mysterious Force governs the universe. In "Star Trek," they have a Prime Directive, which they get to toss out the nearest airlock whenever it’s convenient.
Kahn dines on guys like Vader the same way Jabba the Hutt eats bon bons.
Leia may have had her bikini, but what teenage lad *didn’t* think about banging a skinny Kirstie Alley doggie style while yanking on those long Vulcan ears?
On the ginormous character front, "Shatner the Hutt" didn’t show up until the final season.
The franchise is so valuable, they’ve entrusted it to J.J. Abrams, which is a powerful show of faith in —- wait, what? Oh. Never mind…
Kirk would shoot Jar-Jar Binks before he got a word out.
Scotty could keep the Dark Side at bay with duct tape.
When a guy at a bar propositions you in Klingon, you know to start running and not look back. But you don’t know a "Star Wars" fan until he hands you the Princess Leia bikini and asks you to wear it to bed.
Uhura or Leia —- who’s gonna keep Daddy happy?

And the Number 1 Reason “Star Trek” Is Better Than “Star Wars”…

In "Star Wars," everyone has lasers and cannot shoot straight. But in "Star Trek," everyone has phasers and cannot shoot straight. It’s a subtle difference, I’ll give you that.

CREDITS

Selected from 52 submissions from 21 contributors.

Today’s list authors were:

T5060513.shtml