• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Watching Buck Rogers In The 25th Century

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




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




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




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.





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.




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.
I was tempted to mention the Budgie Men episode as the main LOL moment.
 
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.

Off the top of my head I can think of one really great sci fi show from the 70s. The Incredible Hulk with Bill Bixby. It had smart writing, good acting for the most part and in some episodes nice use of locations. By the time the 80s rolled around we were getting more intellectual programming with a mix of the more dumbed down stuff.
 
Off the top of my head I can think of one really great sci fi show from the 70s. The Incredible Hulk with Bill Bixby. It had smart writing, good acting for the most part and in some episodes nice use of locations. By the time the 80s rolled around we were getting more intellectual programming with a mix of the more dumbed down stuff.

Hulk was a standout, yes. But most early-'80s sci-fi TV was still quite dumb; this was the decade of Knight Rider, Automan, Voyagers!, and Manimal. We got the smart, allegorical V miniseries in '83, but its sequel mini and weekly series got progressively dumber. It wasn't until later in the decade that we started to see glimmers of intelligence. The Twilight Zone revival started in '85 -- though it was alongside the well-produced but often staggeringly stupid Amazing Stories on a different network. We got the heartfelt Starman in '86, Max Headroom and ST:TNG in '87, and Alien Nation and Quantum Leap in '89. So it wasn't until the end of the '80s and into the '90s that we started to see multiple smart, successful genre shows coexisting.

As for the '70s, they also gave us ST:TAS and Kolchak: The Night Stalker, plus imports like Blake's 7 and Star Blazers. And there was some good stuff in the bionic shows early on. Kenneth Johnson started out on those before moving to Hulk.
 
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.

They seem to like giving female protagonists male nicknames these days, so I don't see it being to much of a problem.
  • Chuck also survived because, as the network chiefs said, it was borderline, but a replacement might not do any better, and they liked it, so..
 
Hulk was a standout, yes. But most early-'80s sci-fi TV was still quite dumb; this was the decade of Knight Rider, Automan, Voyagers!, and Manimal. We got the smart, allegorical V miniseries in '83, but its sequel mini and weekly series got progressively dumber. It wasn't until later in the decade that we started to see glimmers of intelligence. The Twilight Zone revival started in '85 -- though it was alongside the well-produced but often staggeringly stupid Amazing Stories on a different network. We got the heartfelt Starman in '86, Max Headroom and ST:TNG in '87, and Alien Nation and Quantum Leap in '89. So it wasn't until the end of the '80s and into the '90s that we started to see multiple smart, successful genre shows coexisting.

As for the '70s, they also gave us ST:TAS and Kolchak: The Night Stalker, plus imports like Blake's 7 and Star Blazers. And there was some good stuff in the bionic shows early on. Kenneth Johnson started out on those before moving to Hulk.
Good to know you know of B7. But really, lumping it in with Star Blazers? What about Phoenix 5, eh?
 
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.

Interesting that you would compare Buck Rogers to Flash Gordon this way, as FG was created because BR was and had been so popular for several years. Alex Raymond was specifically requested to create a character and strip to compete directly with BR. His efforts were so superlative that Flash Gordon soon became much more popular, resulting in three serials starring Buster Crabbe, versus only one for Buck Rogers, among other things.
 
Based on how the V series finally ''concluded,'' and how the its weeks had a resistance made only of four pretty people plus the future Freddy Krueger, with some of the better characters being written out, I give the FINAL BATTLE much more points and latitude than the dregs which followed it.

Yes, that is literally what I meant by "got progressively dumber." As in, each installment dumber than the last.
 
What would you change from THE FINAL BATTLE?

Well, the whole idiotic "Star Child" thing, for one. And the "happy ending" resulting from using a chemical weapon of mass destruction. And the whole thing of throwing out the original's allegory on fascism in favor of action-adventure. Probably pretty much everything that was added after Kenneth Johnson's involvement ended.
 
It's the right place to mention how much i LOVE the V theme?
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
It's the right place to mention how much i LOVE the V theme?

The De Vorzon/Conlon theme is interesting, but I preferred Joe Harnell's theme to the original miniseries, which was basically a pastiche of Bernard Herrmann's North by Northwest theme (plus a sub-theme for the really long supporting-cast credits which was a riff on Holst's Mars). I also liked Dennis McCarthy's themes for the TV series, especially the post-retool theme.
 
But the Final Battle wasn't a total victory, only they had poisoned Earth for the lizards. Diana should have been killed for that proper happy ending cliche, or the great leader who we never saw.
 
Well, the whole idiotic "Star Child" thing, for one. And the "happy ending" resulting from using a chemical weapon of mass destruction. And the whole thing of throwing out the original's allegory on fascism in favor of action-adventure. Probably pretty much everything that was added after Kenneth Johnson's involvement ended.
Well, the whole idiotic "Star Child" thing, for one. And the "happy ending" resulting from using a chemical weapon of mass destruction. And the whole thing of throwing out the original's allegory on fascism in favor of action-adventure. Probably pretty much everything that was added after Kenneth Johnson's involvement ended.
Presume you know that in Johnson's version Elizabeth's loyalties remained unclear, and they aborted the Doomsday Device by self-destructing that Mothership and fleeing in the shuttles, following Diana.
Think the bio-weapon was there. Tyler was a wheelchair using veteran.
 
Had I constructed a fan edit, THE FINAL BATTLE would end with the weekly series first five minutes, and that passerby hunter would have eliminated Diana forever.

Diana was one of the main draws, which was why her role kept getting bigger from original mini to sequel to series. This was the age of Dynasty and its celebrated catfights, and the rivalry between Diana and Lydia let V: The Series do something similar. Plus Jane Badler was hot, and a better actress than V probably let her be most of the time. (She was a high point of the generally mediocre Mission: Impossible revival in '88-'90.)

But yeah, killing off Martin was a bad idea, which was no doubt why they later brought in his "identical twin brother" despite the fact that Visitors wear human masks so why did they even need to be twins underneath?
 
But yeah, killing off Martin was a bad idea, which was no doubt why they later brought in his "identical twin brother" despite the fact that Visitors wear human masks so why did they even need to be twins underneath?
Well, you know. Aliens. They are mysterious and inscrutable.

Like the time a Visitor decided to tan her fake skin. Fake skin she adorned with typical and, err, conspicuous mammal characteristics...
16638466755_bca9302806_c.jpg
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top