A new 'Buck Rogers' film? Great, says Gil Gerard, but no bleakness

[BolianAuthor]

Buck Rogers need not be dark at all... merely serious... you can have serious without darkness. Like RDM said about how he approached nuBSG... he "wanted to take the concept seriously". THAT is what they should do with a nuBR... just treat the basic premise seriously, and don't have it make fun of itself. The key to doing this is not darkness, but focusing on Buck, his self-reflection and self-exploration in his new time period.

 

[Trent Roman]

[...] to condemn it for being dark is sort of antithetical to the film; especially when the logic of your condemnation is it's dark because it treats death cavalierly. Treating death with a lot of grim angst is the hallmark of serious minded fare like Ron Moore's BSG; shrugging it off by going off to save the day, blow up the Death Star or gamble on the Ovion planet is the staple of more frivolous, pulpy narratives.

I think that's conflating related criticisms, however. The content of the new Trek film borrows liberally from the genocide-chic phase of the last decade: two central planets blow up, one deliberately and with billions of people still on it*. It is, content-wise, dark. But it also adopts a mood (different from content) that goes for a light and breezy effect, which clashes--sickeningly, cloyingly--with the content. It's not a romp because it foregrounds murder on a planetary scale; at the same time, it isn't a serious piece because it barely pauses to attend to those issues. In trying to do both, it fails to be either, or anything really. Of course, I'm of the opinion that it never should have tried to be dark in the first place.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

* I don't think it's indicated what percentage of the population of Romulus what still on the planet when the magical 'supernova' hit, although obviously some people were still there, otherwise that cardboard prop Nero would have had zero motivation instead of the decimal point present in the film.

 

[Kegg]

I think that's conflating related criticisms, however

Exactly so. It was a general comment of bafflement.

The content of the new Trek film borrows liberally from the genocide-chic phase of the last decade: two central planets blow up, one deliberately and with billions of people still on it*. It is, content-wise, dark. But it also adopts a mood (different from content) that goes for a light and breezy effect, which clashes--sickeningly, cloyingly--with the content.

This is a bit like the genocide chic of the late seventies; where the original Star Wars movie and the original Battlestar Galactica had planets and (in the latter case) entire societies wiped out with aplomb. The former case actually seems a pretty obvious influence as far as Vulcan goes.

Really, it's nothing new or even that remarkable in pulp narratives. Life is cheap; massive amounts of death just drive home in no uncertain terms that the Bad Guy is Bad; so of course you must go and stop him.

Does this make it uncomfortable for people ethically or morally? Obviously yes for some. And it's an entirely explicable reason to hate the given film(s); or consider their narratives preposterous, or so on.

But does that make it dark? This I don't follow. It could easily be played dark, but that's not how these narratives address it.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Buck Rogers need not be dark at all... merely serious... you can have serious without darkness. Like RDM said about how he approached nuBSG... he "wanted to take the concept seriously". THAT is what they should do with a nuBR... just treat the basic premise seriously, and don't have it make fun of itself. The key to doing this is not darkness, but focusing on Buck, his self-reflection and self-exploration in his new time period.

This would be the best approach. Not fashionably nihilistic, not self parody-- just a straightforward adventure, preferably written for adults, focusing on Buck's tragic situation.

[...] to condemn it for being dark is sort of antithetical to the film; especially when the logic of your condemnation is it's dark because it treats death cavalierly. Treating death with a lot of grim angst is the hallmark of serious minded fare like Ron Moore's BSG; shrugging it off by going off to save the day, blow up the Death Star or gamble on the Ovion planet is the staple of more frivolous, pulpy narratives.

I think that's conflating related criticisms, however. The content of the new Trek film borrows liberally from the genocide-chic phase of the last decade: two central planets blow up, one deliberately and with billions of people still on it*. It is, content-wise, dark. But it also adopts a mood (different from content) that goes for a light and breezy effect, which clashes--sickeningly, cloyingly--with the content. It's not a romp because it foregrounds murder on a planetary scale; at the same time, it isn't a serious piece because it barely pauses to attend to those issues. In trying to do both, it fails to be either, or anything really. Of course, I'm of the opinion that it never should have tried to be dark in the first place.

Well said. This is exactly the point I was trying to make.

But does that make it dark? This I don't follow. It could easily be played dark, but that's not how these narratives address it.

These various elements-- the pointless destruction, the corrupted characters, etc-- are a result of the D&G fad. This is the fashion they conform to. That doesn't mean the whole movie necessarily conforms to all elements of the fad. If you want, you can forget the word "dark" and focus on words like "stupid," "pointless," "incompetent," "lazy," and "shallow."

 

[Kegg]

These various elements-- the pointless destruction, the corrupted characters, etc-- are a result of the D&G fad.

It therefore follows that the original Battlestar Galactica is part of the D&G fad; as the existence of a kablooie planet remains the only real stake anyone has to this film being dark.

This is a film that wears its intentions on its sleeve; it's earnest; fleet-footed, humour-filled and suitably explosive adventure. It's pretty much the opposite of brooding; tormented, dark and gritty fare like, say, the Christopher Nolan Batman films.

It's as uncomplicated ethically as any pulp narrative and as shameless in its presentation of good kicking ass, taking names and tirumphing over evil. This... this just isn't a dark movie. White Ribbon, that was a dark movie from 2009. There were probably blockbusters I didn't go to see that were fairly dark, but this - plain as day or the nose on my face - isn't one of them.

Let's use another Star Wars comparison: The Endor Holocaust. It's an inventive fan reading of Return of the Jedi that argues the natural result of the destruction of the second Death Star is that the moon of Endor becomes uninhabitable and all the Ewoks there probably die. It's a pretty clever argument, but it doesn't then follow that Return of the Jedi is as bleak a film as Schindler's List - it's just some guy poking holes in the film's logic or giving a wildly alternative reading of it.

and focus on words like "stupid," "pointless," "incompetent," "lazy," and "shallow."

You see these are criticisms that make perfect sense. To me all this talk about the darkness of the new Star Trek makes as much sense to me like a bunch of people complaining that last night's movie was a really bad lemon soda.

 

[stj]

Taking Buck Rogers seriously? The racist Yellow Peril BS? Accidentally getting frozen without appropriate technology? A man tragically stranded out of his time? Hero single handedly saves civilization, weekly?

We don't want Armageddon 2419, it's offensive.
We can't believe suspended animation by opening your space capsule or even less likely accidental methods.
As I said before, a man stranded out of time who wasn't spending all his time in school and group homes would be hard to believe too. The pulp hero is why the TV series was tongue in cheek.

 

[RJDiogenes]

These various elements-- the pointless destruction, the corrupted characters, etc-- are a result of the D&G fad.

It therefore follows that the original Battlestar Glactica is part of the D&G fad; as the existence of a kablooie planet remains the only real stake anyone has to this film being dark.

No, not really because the fad didn't kick in until the early 80s. You could possibly make an argument that BSG, as well as Star Wars, were predecessors or influenced the fad-- just as Punk and New Wave were lurking around in the late 70s before catching on in the early 80s when the social Zeitgeist was more amenable-- and it's probably true.

And the destruction of Vulcan isn't the only dark element. The corrupted character revisions are also a staple of the trend.

and focus on words like "stupid," "pointless," "incompetent," "lazy," and "shallow."

You see these are criticisms that make perfect sense. To me all this talk about the darkness of the new Star Trek makes as much sense to me like a bunch of people complaining that last night's movie was a really bad lemon soda.

Well, that's fine; you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and not connecting it to the D&G fad doesn't raise the quality. But I think those elements fit in too well with current trends to not tie in. It's like saying the amateur camerawork on Stargate Universe is just a coincidence.

 

[Harvey]

Amateur camerawork? Would you have given Martin Scorsese a tripod when he was shooting Mean Streets? The camerawork is handheld, and as close an approximation to cinéma vérité as you'll find on a big-budget television drama*, but it's hardly amateurish.

*It might be coming close to aping the style of, say, Medium Cool, but the camerawork of a Stargate show will never have the grittiness of such a movie--it's not that kind of product.

I admit, I find the camerawork on Stargate Universe to be annoying, but only because the producers and directors seem to be using it as creative shorthand for a type of realism that isn't supported by the writing (or, in some cases, the acting).

 

[thumbtack]

but it doesn't then follow that Return of the Jedi is as bleak a film as Schindler's List

Yes, but if you're a looney, the loss of Endor or Vulcan generates more emotion than that silly Holocaust.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

We don't want Armageddon 2419, it's offensive.

I don't want it either, but I also don't want the lighthearted approach of the 1979 TV show, which is what Gerard wants (amazing how getting older changes one's perspective; when he was young, he was saying that Buck Rogers should be serious, and acknowledge the nuclear holocaust, and not have Buck cracking wise: now, he wants the franchise to not be dark or acknowledge the darkness of the situation.) A happy medium has to be found, and if it can be accomplished, good, but not at the expense of believability and credibility like Buck Rogers or the original BSG.

 

[BolianAuthor]

Taking Buck Rogers seriously? The racist Yellow Peril BS? Accidentally getting frozen without appropriate technology? A man tragically stranded out of his time? Hero single handedly saves civilization, weekly?

We don't want Armageddon 2419, it's offensive.
We can't believe suspended animation by opening your space capsule or even less likely accidental methods.
As I said before, a man stranded out of time who wasn't spending all his time in school and group homes would be hard to believe too. The pulp hero is why the TV series was tongue in cheek.

The tech problems can all be dealt with in a way that can appeal to a modern audience, and obviously, his accident would happen in the present-day. But it could be done. Give me some time, I could do it. And the saving humanity every week thing doesn't have to apply in the same sense it did in the 70's show.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

If Buck is rewritten to be "serious," which is after all possible, it is extremely doubtful that Buck could be plausibly portrayed as adapting well enough to modern technology to function at all, much less be a hero.

We're gonna need a montage.

Vast technological advancement should logically be accompanied by advancements in education and training techniques; virtual reality or holographic simulation and education, direct-to-brain data input (or glasses/contacts connected to an external computer which shows you immediately relevant or requested data as you walk), and using exoskeletons to teach muscle memory through rapid repetition of movements while also increasing strength by applying resistance.

Clarke's adage that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" only lasts so long as the person remains ignorant of the operating principles behind the technology. If you teach them they can master it just like any other trainee being taught to operate a new device. Obviously in the case of someone completely unfamiliar with even the types of interface that are being used it would take longer than someone who grew up around such technology, but I don't think it's impossible.

The bigger question is why they would train someone from the past who would lag behind other trainees to be something like a fighter pilot, when the more logical choice would be to protect him as essentially a living archive of his time. But then that could be explained away as them simply fulfilling his wishes to do the one thing he knows best.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ He doesn't even need to be a fighter pilot (nothing much was made of him being a pilot in previous versions). It could just be that they need everyone they can get and he distinguishes himself as a leader.

I admit, I find the camerawork on Stargate Universe to be annoying, but only because the producers and directors seem to be using it as creative shorthand for a type of realism that isn't supported by the writing (or, in some cases, the acting).

Exactly. But it's more like un-creative shorthand, and it's another fashionable element of this whole mess.