I'm talking about the two original series here: William Shatner vs Lorne Greene.
Aside from the fact that BG suffered from bad writing and worse acting, I always thought that there was one particular reason why Galactica did not succeed in cultural terms like the original Star Trek franchise.
Remember the two openings?
Star Trek: "...to boldly go where no man has gone before...."
Galactica: "...fleeing from the Zylon tyranny, the last Battlestar...."
Here's the difference:
In Star Trek, MAN happened to the universe. Kirk, Spock, Bones, and the rest went out into the starry deep determined to kick ass and take names. Yeah, they were often outgunned and had to cheat their way out, but the whole concept was a sort of "human manifest destiny"--those stars were eventually going to be ours.
In Battlestar Galactica, the UNIVERSE happened to man. Humanity had already lost to the Zylons, and was fleeing, not exploring. Any ass-kicking done was always a rear-guard action, and any explorations were to find food or water or weapons. Humans were trying to find their own little hole in the galaxy that they could pull over their heads and defend.
It was more than optimism vs pessimism, although that was a lot of it. It was also the fact that the basic set-up of Star Trek made a lot more allowance to explore classic science fiction themes, whereas the agenda of BG was always driven by the bad guys.
Later Star Trek franchises lost a lot of this verve, even as the special effects got better:
Star Trek, the Next Generation (MAN happens to the universe, but in a nicer, more diversity-sensitive way, and we have angst whenever we kick ass.)
Star Trek Deep Space Nine (MAN sits there and waits for the universe to come to him at Quark's.)
Star Trek Voyager (WOMAN runs for home like hell in a complete reprise of the Battlestar Galactica format.)
Enterprise (MAN stumbles around the universe, substituting tie-ins to the other series for actual writing.)
Meanwhile, Edward James Olmos (who was scary in Miami Vice and hasn't aged into a less scary dude) and the new Battlestar Galactica take a far darker look at surviving the apocalypse. But it's primarily character-driven rather than SF theme-driven, and (at least for me) was too consistently noir to be enjoyable. I admit I haven't seen Razor, so I can't compare.
Two minor addenda:
Stargate SG-1 managed to blend some of both themes for original Trek and BG successfully (MAN says to the universe, "Don't think you can come into our neighborhood and mess with us.)
Babylon-5 was what Deep Space Nine wanted to be if it grew up, managed to do some really neat things in terms of plot, and had a healthy post-Cold War perspective that we were our own worst enemies. (MAN is busy screwing himself; we'll make the time to kick some alien butt later.)
By and large, however, most science fiction viewers want to see MAN kick butt and not cower in a corner.
That's why Star Trek succeeded.
Comments
I pretty much agree w/your assessment of the series'. One thing about the new BSG, however (and which I've written about numerous times) is that the characters' "moral" sense conflicts with the reality of their situation in the most ridiculous of times. I really think the writers have very little grasp of how humans would react on the brink of extinction. They would do ANYTHING to survive and carry on. They wouldn't worry about the "moral rightness" of taking an action that would destroy 99% of the Cylons (note the correct spelling of "Cylon" there, Steve!) given the chance.
I haven't seen much of B-5, SG-1 or the new BG, and the old BG didn't have enough impact on me to remember it in detail (probably due to the lack of syndicated reruns) so i can't fairly comment about them.
The BG style theme of the "good guys" being hopelessly outnumbered and on the run can be very successful if they get to score major victories occasionally; eg: Star Wars.
What gets interesting is looking a littel deeper into the ethics/economics of man going out into the universe and kicking ass in Star Trek.
Kirk is very definitely a rogue (and occasionally bordering on phychotic) agent of an oppressive & imperialistic government. There are libertarian themed episodes, but they are rare compared to the ones that revolve around gunboat diplomacy, overthrowing planetary governments, radically altering alien cultures, and wiping out the last remnants of ancient civilizations. They are very vague and somewhat contradictory about the political & economic structure of the Federation. (It takes most of the first season for them to develop the concept of StarFleet, and bits & pieces of information about the Federation start to appear during the next two.) It is clear that they prefer to get the resources (eg: dilithium) and territory they need through trade and alliances, but they take it by force if necessary.
80-100 years later during TNG & DS9 we see that the Federation is a socialist paradise (aside from dirty little secrets like the Martian colony where Tasha Yar grew up) where all of your needs are provided by the government via "replicator technology" and no one works except to amuse themselves or benefit humanity. Oddly while all of the other cultures also seem to have replicators, the Federation is often portrayed as richer. (perhaps the Federation technology is better or more widely available?). Replicators seem to be able to manufacture anything except dilithium, latinum, good tasting food, or any item critical to the plot.
Commerce & markets only interest villians and a race of cowardly, sniveling, whiny little trolls who are the kind of capitalists that live to rob, cheat, bribe & exploit anyone they can.
Unlike Kirk, Picard actually tries to follow the Prime Directive, and feels really bad when he fails. Despite this, and the fact that TNG's Enterprise has been refitted for scientific research and exploration many of the plots still involve the Federation sending a big, heavily armed ship to solve it's problems.
DS9 was interesting in that at least during the first few seasons there were a fair number of storylines where the main characters were more or less neutral observers or arbitrators and the conflict took place 3rd parties meeting at a port of call.
Voyager and Enterprise were almost too tedious to watch. (and seemed to be mostly about attractive female characters in revealing costumes :-)
I would be interested to see a thorough social/political/economic analysis to Star Trek from a libertarian perspective.
Maybe I'm over analyzing...
Can you find a picture host for your images and not hotlink to the Picard picture on my blog? There are many free image hosts that do a lot better job at hosting than my blog.
Also, it's CYLON not Zylon.
Thanks,
Paul
The only similarity between VOYAGER and BATTLESTAR is that the format centers around two starships that are basically alone. Galactica is running to save itself from destruction. Voyager is trying to get home. That's it.
This only tells me that you never really bothered to watch VOYAGER . . . you fucking moron. Of all the dumbass things to say. You might as well accuse every other sci-fi series - including your beloved GALACTICA and the original STAR TREK of doing the same thing.