When the original Battlestar Galactica series first aired in 1978, what sort of reception did it find with the existing sci-fi fandom? And did Star Trek vs. Star Wars fans have competing feelings about it?

This is one of those questions that is very hard to answer, but an interesting one (there are no inconsequential questions!). One window into the SF-nerd response to Galactica’s premiere is via the magazine Starlog (fair warning- Archive.org has the entire print run digitized here - I’m not responsible for time lost down this internet rabbit hole!). Staffed by some hardcore American SF fans and launching in the mid-1970s, Starlog was one of the major mainstream sources of information about SF and fantasy media. The magazine ran episode guides, interviews with cast and crew, special effects layouts, and other material not commonly available. Letters to the editor not only weighed in on the merits of various movies, but also asked such minutia like whether or not Patrick McNee did Battlestar’s voiceover (he didn’t) or what was the main unit of measurement used in the series. Starlog’s main articles could veer into uncritical fluff. For example, one of the issues mentioned below excitedly reports that Star Wars coming to television screens soon in a holiday special complete with photos of Lumpy and the other Wookies celebrating Life Day. Nonetheless, the magazine’s editors and commentators could strike an occasionally critical tone and Battlestar was not immune to this occasional censure.

Starlog’s editor in chief Howard Zimmerman’s column “Last Word,” was decidedly critical of the pilot and initial episodes in Issue 019. Zimmerman wrote:

It’s hard to decide whether my basic reaction to ABC’s Battlestar Galactica is anger or incredulity; I guess it’s equal parts of both. At the time I write this, the first six hours of the show have aired: the initial three-hour movie, a two-hour film broken into two parts, and one hour-long episode. I’ve seen more than enough. The three-hour premiere suffered from script and film editing problems and an overall sense of confusion. So many lines and scenes raised my hackles that I can’t go into them all.

After raising up a few plot holes, Zimmerman notes “the sad truth is that the plot inconsistencies are only part of the problem. There is no science background in the show whatsoever.” He concluded his editorial by noting that while Star Trek started out as a “Wagon Train to the stars,” the show managed to transcend this limitation when “the role of the science officer was expanded [emphasis original,” and its scripts explored legitimate SF concepts.

While Zimmerman’s critique was harsh, he did hold up hope that Battlestar could live up to Star Trek’s success. David Gerrold, one of Star Trek’s writers, did not see much potential in Battlestar. In his column “Hope-The Human Challenge,” in Issue 026 which was written after the news of Battlestar’s cancellation broke, Gerrold noted that the reason both Battlestar and its British contemporary Space:1999 failed directly reflects the reasons for Star Trek’s enduring popularity: hope in humanity’s future. Both the cancelled shows showed humanity with its back against the wall amidst a hostile universe, which he contended made these shows not reflection of the future, but instead a reflection of the malaise of the 1970s. Gerrold contends that:

The premise[in Battlestar] is even less honorable: “They’re after us! Let’s run like hell!” Perhaps this is why Battlestar Galactica has been cancelled. When the viewing audience began to realize these people were not going to find a place to stand and fight back, they lost interest. Who can really care about a show that has cowardice as a part of its basic format? That one simple change, perhaps- letting these survivors find a planet and fight to defend it- might have been enough to save the show. At the very least, it would have provided a reason to care about these people. And that reason would have been called hope [Emphasis original].

Both Zimmerman and Gerold damned with faint praise Battlestar’s expensive special effects (which were extensively covered in various Starlog issues), but warned that effects were no substitute for story, and used Star Trek as a benchmark example.

Of course, not all of Starlog’s readers agreed with these critical assessments. Zimmerman “Last Word,” in Issue 020 remarked that “My last editorial on this space opera prompted many readers to write highly emotional letters in defense of the show.”Some of the published letters took issue with Zimmerman’s excessive criticism. Tom Sorlie’s letter in Issue 021 argues that “Battlestar Galactica isn’t the only show with faults. All shows have faults. (Yes, even Trek has mistakes, trekkies!)” Other letters, while not mentioning Battlestar, complained that Starlog had a clear pro-Trek bias that colored its coverage of new SF. Despite this defense, Zimmerman’s critique of Battlestar struck a chord with some readers. Mark Shepherd’s letter in Issue 21 attacked Glen Larson’s privileging of spectacle over substance:

.There is one fact that is glaring and certainly one of the wonders of Hollywood — the (Galactica) scripts. Granted Glen Larson wanted to do the job solo, but, er, Glen, it just isn't working. How nice it would indeed be to have culled mainstream writers into this from the start. Consider: The script is the most important element in the world of visuals, and on TV it is the cheapest to come by. Low man on the totem pole is the screenwriter. The smallest part of the budget…

While Starlog’s editorial and reader letters are not a comprehensive source about fandom’s response to Battlestar Galactica, it was one of the major SF publications of the era. Some clear Star Trek partisans like Zimmerman compared Larson’s creation to Roddenberry’s and found the former quite lacking. Not every reader of Starlog agreed with this negative assessment, as evidence by letters defending the show and the simple fact that Starlog continued to run positive articles on Battlestar’s actors and special effects as well as advertisements for official Battlestar merchandise well after the show’s cancellation became common knowledge. This suggests that despite their editor’s misgivings about the show, the magazine’s owners still believed that Starlog’s readers still desired information about their now-cancelled show.