Is that necessarily glorification, or is it an attempt to portray that crossover realistically? I love Star Wars and I love Star Trek, and I love them equally. I see them as two entirely different things (Star Trek as science fiction, Star Wars as space fantasy) and I cringe when I see "Star Wars vs. Star Trek." However, if I had to give what I feel is a realistic attempt at saying who would win in a battle of technology, I would have to give it to Star Wars. There would be no competition there. By the time you get to the films, there's at least 25,000 years of space travel and technological development. The latest point in Star Trek canon, the 31st Century (the future that a character from Star Trek: Enterprise hailed from), is still only a thousand years removed from us. It's only a thousand years of space travel for humanity, and not much more than that for the other interstellar races. Therefore, in terms of technological advances and the weapons that could be developed over time, Star Wars has a colossal head start. When you consider the amount of time and technological advances that led to an Imperial Star Destroyer versus the amount of time and technological advances that led to the USS Enterprise, the "What would win in a fight?" question seems really easy to answer. At least to me. So I would just add caution to your statement about one side obliterating the other, because it may not necessarily be one author imposing their personal preference of franchises onto the outcome of a battle.