Watching Buck Rogers In The 25th Century

[Christopher]

Bluntly the main appeal of Buck Rogers for a producer now would be the Gene Hunt effect, the chance to bounce an outdated character off more aware colleagues.

I'm glad that the '79 show didn't make Buck an old-fashioned 20th-century male chauvinist complaining about the gender equality in the future. That would've been unpleasant. And Roddenberry's Genesis II/Planet Earth did go there to an extent, as I recall.

Anyway, the core idea of the original novellas, aside from the horrific racism, was that Anthony Rogers was a WWI veteran whose long-forgotten knowledge of military methods and tactics made him invaluable to the freedom fighters of the future. Similarly, in the Gerard series, Buck often had the advantage of 20th-century knowledge that had been forgotten in the future, or skills that nobody had anymore because they relied too much on technology. In both cases, he was more "aware" than the people in the future. (Not so much in the comic strips -- he sometimes had old-fashioned knowledge they'd lost, like archery, but there was also a lot he had to learn about the future. The Buster Crabbe serial basically ignored his anachronistic origin after the first half-episode, otherwise treating him as indistinguishable from a native of the era.)

 

[RandyS]

As long as it doesn't get bogged down with modern politics.

I agree, but look at it this way, if it did get bogged down with modern politics (ugh), then we could say it was saddled with 2010s cheese.

 

[diankra]

I'm glad that the '79 show didn't make Buck an old-fashioned 20th-century male chauvinist complaining about the gender equality in the future. That would've been unpleasant. And Roddenberry's Genesis II/Planet Earth did go there to an extent, as I recall.

Anyway, the core idea of the original novellas, aside from the horrific racism, was that Anthony Rogers was a WWI veteran whose long-forgotten knowledge of military methods and tactics made him invaluable to the freedom fighters of the future. Similarly, in the Gerard series, Buck often had the advantage of 20th-century knowledge that had been forgotten in the future, or skills that nobody had anymore because they relied too much on technology. In both cases, he was more "aware" than the people in the future. (Not so much in the comic strips -- he sometimes had old-fashioned knowledge they'd lost, like archery, but there was also a lot he had to learn about the future. The Buster Crabbe serial basically ignored his anachronistic origin after the first half-episode, otherwise treating him as indistinguishable from a native of the era.)

Oh, I'm not saying it would be a good idea, just that a producer would probably pick up on that angle.

 

[Christopher]

Oh, I'm not saying it would be a good idea, just that a producer would probably pick up on that angle.

My point is that it doesn't seem like it would fit a Buck Rogers series, since the core idea there is that Buck's present-day values give him an advantage over the future people who've lost a lot of our hard-won wisdom. So I'm not sure a producer of a BR series would have any reason to portray Buck as the backward one. That's inverting the whole core concept. Of course there are some adaptations that make a point of doing just that, but those are generally the exceptions to the rule, so I don't think it warrants a "probably."

 

[diankra]

My point is that it doesn't seem like it would fit a Buck Rogers series, since the core idea there is that Buck's present-day values give him an advantage over the future people who've lost a lot of our hard-won wisdom. So I'm not sure a producer of a BR series would have any reason to portray Buck as the backward one. That's inverting the whole core concept. Of course there are some adaptations that make a point of doing just that, but those are generally the exceptions to the rule, so I don't think it warrants a "probably."

I think you may have a more idealistic view of Hollywood than I do. But you may be closer to it than I am!
Being more serious, I don't think many producers start out aiming for obvious at the cost of the original appeal, but the process can push that way.
And as you say, Buck isn't exactly current in the public mythos (look what happened with Flash Gordon, where IIRC we both felt a dreadful reimaging got good towards its end).

 

[Mr Awe]

Didn't we already get one? IIRC, it was called Farscape.

I watched that for the first time a year or so ago. Nah, it was not Buck Rogers. Not the goofy fun. True, there were some similarities but huge differences as well.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Bluntly the main appeal of Buck Rogers for a producer now would be the Gene Hunt effect, the chance to bounce an outdated character off more aware colleagues.

I suppose but let's not gender swap Buck please, I can bet that will be one of the complaints.

 

[Skipper]

I remember another series where they did the opposite: Life on Mars (the American version).
A cop, incredible progressive even for 2008's standards, regains consciousness after an accident, in the backwater early 70s...

 

[Christopher]

Being more serious, I don't think many producers start out aiming for obvious at the cost of the original appeal, but the process can push that way.

Can, sure. It's just the "probably" that I think is an overstatement.

And as you say, Buck isn't exactly current in the public mythos (look what happened with Flash Gordon, where IIRC we both felt a dreadful reimaging got good towards its end).

As I said above, Flash Gordon got a boost in public awareness from the '80 movie, which was more successful and influential than the '79 Buck series. So FG has had several screen adaptations since while BR has had nothing outside of print and RPGs. So while they were of near-equal prominence in the past, these days I think FG has a much higher profile.

And I feel the 2007 FG series started getting good about 1/3 of the way through, not just toward its end. The problem was that the first 1/3 was so dire that people gave up quickly.

I suppose but let's not gender swap Buck please, I can bet that will be one of the complaints.

Whyever not? The core idea is about a present-day person changing the future; that doesn't require the character to have any specific identity other than contemporary. And who cares if a few fragile-egoed misogynists make noise about it? Their kind has spent millennia ignoring the views and opinions of the majority of the human race, so it's not like we owe them anything different. Heck, offending people like them is proof you're doing something right.

Indeed, gender-swapping Buck Rogers might add something interesting to it. In a way, Buck Rogers is a portal fantasy, a story about a protagonist from the everyday world swept unwillingly into an alien realm. In the fantasy genre, portal stories often have female protagonists, going back to Alice in Wonderland and Lucy in Narnia. Alternatively, portal fantasies often appeal to LGBTQ readers because of the themes of alienation, escape, and finding a place where one belongs. So there's certainly potential in the idea of reframing Buck Rogers in the vein of a modern portal narrative, which could revitalize it in ways that just trying to duplicate past nostalgia couldn't. The original BR was basically a riff on the same standard white-savior narrative as Tarzan, John Carter, and Flash Gordon, a man from contemporary Western culture proving himself inherently superior to the inhabitants of an exotic culture. To give it relevance to modern audiences, it would need to embody a less outdated and discredited trope. Maybe Buck thrives in the future, not because of inherent superiority, but because it allows him/her/them to embrace their true self in a way they weren't allowed to do in the present.

(And before anyone objects that "Buck" is an inherently masculine nickname, I had a high school classmate named Rebecca who was nicknamed Buck. And of course there was Kara "Starbuck" Thrace.)

I remember another series where they did the opposite: Life on Mars (the American version).
A cop, incredible progressive even for 2008's standards, regains consciousness after an accident, in the backwater early 70s...

Yes, that's the source of the "Gene Hunt effect" that diankra mentioned earlier.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Whyever not? The core idea is about a present-day person changing the future; that doesn't require the character to have any specific identity other than contemporary. And who cares if a few fragile-egoed misogynists make noise about it? Their kind has spent millennia ignoring the views and opinions of the majority of the human race, so it's not like we owe them anything different. Heck, offending people like them is proof you're doing something right.

Indeed, gender-swapping Buck Rogers might add something interesting to it. In a way, Buck Rogers is a portal fantasy, a story about a protagonist from the everyday world swept unwillingly into an alien realm. In the fantasy genre, portal stories often have female protagonists, going back to Alice in Wonderland and Lucy in Narnia. Alternatively, portal fantasies often appeal to LGBTQ readers because of the themes of alienation, escape, and finding a place where one belongs. So there's certainly potential in the idea of reframing Buck Rogers in the vein of a modern portal narrative, which could revitalize it in ways that just trying to duplicate past nostalgia couldn't. The original BR was basically a riff on the same standard white-savior narrative as Tarzan, John Carter, and Flash Gordon, a man from contemporary Western culture proving himself inherently superior to the inhabitants of an exotic culture. To give it relevance to modern audiences, it would need to embody a less outdated and discredited trope. Maybe Buck thrives in the future, not because of inherent superiority, but because it allows him/her/them to embrace their true self in a way they weren't allowed to do in the present.

(And before anyone objects that "Buck" is an inherently masculine nickname, I had a high school classmate named Rebecca who was nicknamed Buck. And of course there was Kara "Starbuck" Thrace.)

Oh no I was and am in total agreement here I'm just saying you can bet that would be a huge complaint if they did that.

 

[Christopher]

Oh no I was and am in total agreement here I'm just saying you can bet that would be a huge complaint if they did that.

Of course there will. There always will be. That is absolutely not a reason to avoid doing it. That's what they want -- to bully people into not challenging them. That must be fought.

 

[Skipper]

Yes, that's the source of the "Gene Hunt effect" that diankra mentioned earlier.

Err, thank you. Missed it.

 

[TRON JA307020]

The Twilight Zone was more a fantasy show, and it and Star Trek were always exceptions. '60s and '70s SFTV were dominated by the likes of the Irwin Allen shows, the bionic shows, Wonder Woman, things like that. SF was seen by network executives as a children's adventure medium. Even though Star Trek was created with the specific intent of contrasting with the usual kid stuff and doing the first non-anthology SF adult drama, its syndicated reruns were still highly popular with children and frequently aired in daytime slots.

Anyway, ST had the same number of seasons as Lost in Space or Wonder Woman and fewer than Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea or The Six Million Dollar Man. And it had famously struggled in the ratings during its original run, garnering critical respect but losing money. Network executives aren't running a charity, so profit is their highest priority, and Star Trek's intelligence did not make it profitable.

Really, though, '70s TV execs' low opinion of their audience's intelligence extended beyond genre programming. There were plenty of mainstream action shows and sitcoms that were equally targeted toward the lowest common denominator.

I dont think it was a low opinion of the audiences intelligence at all. Campy 70s sci to shows such as Buck Rogers were soley made to entertain not to be a grand social and intellectual commentary vehicle. What these shows did really well was to entertain. The old 1930s serials such as Flash Gordon were a fantastic way to entertain kids on a Saturday and even now serve as entertainment for adults that want nostalgic entertainment. 70s sci to tended to do the same thing. I mean who doesn't like watching Steve Austin take on Big Foot played by Andrey the Giant? Goofy sure but really good fun.

 

[Christopher]

I dont think it was a low opinion of the audiences intelligence at all. Campy 70s sci to shows such as Buck Rogers were soley made to entertain not to be a grand social and intellectual commentary vehicle.

That would be plausible if they existed alongside smarter SF shows, but they didn't. Trek aside, smart SF shows weren't really allowed to exist because executives didn't think audiences could handle them. David Gerrold's smart version of Buck Rogers was rejected in favor of Glen Larson's dumb version. Shows that started out relatively sophisticated and dramatic in their first seasons, like The Six Million Dollar Man, were dumbed down to pure action in later seasons, and shows that had ambitions to be intelligent, like Logan's Run, were subjected to network-mandated rewrites to dumb them down.

And that dumbing down did not make them more entertaining most of the time. It usually just got them cancelled quickly because they were too cheesy to take seriously.

Anyway, Bruce Lansbury came right out and said in an interview that he didn't think most audiences would like a show that ventured beyond the familiar, routine conventions of TV. "Some people can't identify with science fiction. The hardware and the futuristic setting create an anxiety in some people." By his own words, he had a low opinion of his audience's ability to handle anything beyond Mannix-style car chases and fistfights.

 

[Skipper]

Anyway, Bruce Lansbury came right out and said in an interview that he didn't think most audiences would like a show that ventured beyond the familiar, routine conventions of TV. "Some people can't identify with science fiction. The hardware and the futuristic setting create an anxiety in some people."

He's right. This is why a film full of hardware and the futuristic settings released a couple of years before the interview had been a complete failure. What was its title? Cosmic Battles or something similar?

 

[diankra]

Can, sure. It's just the "probably" that I think is an overstatement.



As I said above, Flash Gordon got a boost in public awareness from the '80 movie, which was more successful and influential than the '79 Buck series. So FG has had several screen adaptations since while BR has had nothing outside of print and RPGs. So while they were of near-equal prominence in the past, these days I think FG has a much higher profile.

And I feel the 2007 FG series started getting good about 1/3 of the way through, not just toward its end. The problem was that the first 1/3 was so dire that people gave up quickly.




Whyever not? The core idea is about a present-day person changing the future; that doesn't require the character to have any specific identity other than contemporary. And who cares if a few fragile-egoed misogynists make noise about it? Their kind has spent millennia ignoring the views and opinions of the majority of the human race, so it's not like we owe them anything different. Heck, offending people like them is proof you're doing something right.

Indeed, gender-swapping Buck Rogers might add something interesting to it. In a way, Buck Rogers is a portal fantasy, a story about a protagonist from the everyday world swept unwillingly into an alien realm. In the fantasy genre, portal stories often have female protagonists, going back to Alice in Wonderland and Lucy in Narnia. Alternatively, portal fantasies often appeal to LGBTQ readers because of the themes of alienation, escape, and finding a place where one belongs. So there's certainly potential in the idea of reframing Buck Rogers in the vein of a modern portal narrative, which could revitalize it in ways that just trying to duplicate past nostalgia couldn't. The original BR was basically a riff on the same standard white-savior narrative as Tarzan, John Carter, and Flash Gordon, a man from contemporary Western culture proving himself inherently superior to the inhabitants of an exotic culture. To give it relevance to modern audiences, it would need to embody a less outdated and discredited trope. Maybe Buck thrives in the future, not because of inherent superiority, but because it allows him/her/them to embrace their true self in a way they weren't allowed to do in the present.

(And before anyone objects that "Buck" is an inherently masculine nickname, I had a high school classmate named Rebecca who was nicknamed Buck. And of course there was Kara "Starbuck" Thrace.)




Yes, that's the source of the "Gene Hunt effect" that diankra mentioned earlier.

So long since I watched the Flash Gordon series that I can't recall when it started improving. Lowest point was the Weekend at Bernie's episode. Wouldn't have kept watching if I hadn't been reviewing it for work, which meant I did see the entire run, and it becoming something that deserved a second season.
If anyone was still watching after the early stuff, and presumably they weren't.

 

[Duncan MacLeod]

Even with all the reused footage this is probably the best version of Flash Gordon I've ever seen. At least the 1st season was, before network interference killed it with a massive load of cutes and dumbing down in the 2nd.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Skipper]

Even with all the reused footage this is probably the best version of Flash Gordon I've ever seen. At least the 1st season was, before network interference killed it with a massive load of cutes and dumbing down in the 2nd.

You know, I would really like to see at least an example where network interference actually saved a show...

 

[Christopher]

I saw PLANET EARTH exactly once in the '80s. I remember Diana Muldaur showing more skin than usual and barking ''Eyes DOWN!'' at the male characters several times. Then at the end, the lead said, in different words, that men aren't as bad as they first seemed.

Planet Earth was probably less sexist than it could've been, since Roddenberry had future Rockford Files producer Juanita Bartlett as his co-writer.

Can you expand on Gerrold's BUCK ROGERS version?

Read about it here:
http://space1970.blogspot.com/2012/02/buck-rogers-lost-tv-series.html

So long since I watched the Flash Gordon series that I can't recall when it started improving.

Here's my blog overview of the series:
https://christopherlbennett.wordpre...-overview-or-why-this-show-is-worth-watching/

Lowest point was the Weekend at Bernie's episode.

I thought that was actually the most effective Earthbound story, as well as the last one to spend so little time on Mongo, fortunately. The low point for me was a week earlier, "Ascension," the terrible attempt at a Hawkmen episode.

Even with all the reused footage this is probably the best version of Flash Gordon I've ever seen. At least the 1st season was, before network interference killed it with a massive load of cutes and dumbing down in the 2nd.

The first season is good, but the movie version it's edited and expanded from, Flash Gordon: The Greatest Adventure of All, was even better. Unfortunately it was suppressed due to the DeLaurentiis movie hogging the rights, and was only aired once in 1982 and has never gotten a US home video release. But you can find a DVD rip of it on YouTube.

You know, I would really like to see at least an example where network interference actually saved a show...

Mannix might count. The show was on the cancellation bubble after its first season due to lackluster ratings, so the showrunner and the network decided to retool its format and it ended up becoming a huge hit that ran for 6 more years.

 

[JD]

The only examples of that are situations like M*A*S*H* and Seinfeld where the network people liked the shows enough to give them a second chance despite low viewership and they ended becoming all time classics. But I don't know if those really count since they weren't actually creative decisions.

Indeed, gender-swapping Buck Rogers might add something interesting to it. In a way, Buck Rogers is a portal fantasy, a story about a protagonist from the everyday world swept unwillingly into an alien realm. In the fantasy genre, portal stories often have female protagonists, going back to Alice in Wonderland and Lucy in Narnia. Alternatively, portal fantasies often appeal to LGBTQ readers because of the themes of alienation, escape, and finding a place where one belongs. So there's certainly potential in the idea of reframing Buck Rogers in the vein of a modern portal narrative, which could revitalize it in ways that just trying to duplicate past nostalgia couldn't. The original BR was basically a riff on the same standard white-savior narrative as Tarzan, John Carter, and Flash Gordon, a man from contemporary Western culture proving himself inherently superior to the inhabitants of an exotic culture. To give it relevance to modern audiences, it would need to embody a less outdated and discredited trope. Maybe Buck thrives in the future, not because of inherent superiority, but because it allows him/her/them to embrace their true self in a way they weren't allowed to do in the present.

(And before anyone objects that "Buck" is an inherently masculine nickname, I had a high school classmate named Rebecca who was nicknamed Buck. And of course there was Kara "Starbuck" Thrace.)

They seem to like giving female protagonists male nicknames these days, so I don't see it being to much of a problem.