What if Ron Moore did Buck Rogers in the twenty-fifth century?

[Silvercrest]

Although, come to think of it, the suggestion that a stargate-type warp would "take a bite" out of a planet kinda makes sense too, since such a space warp would entail immense energies and gravitational forces. It probably wouldn't be safe to create or operate such a warp on the surface of an inhabited planet, because it could really tear things up in the vicinity.

Actually, what I had in mind was an even simpler interpretation, which is: "The stargate transports anything in its immediate vicinity to xxx location. You can't have it on the surface of a planet because it will transport part of the planet as well-- or at least attempt to. Bad for all concerned."

There's nothing wrong with your phrasing, but mine was intended for a totally non-technical audience.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

There is a Buck Rogers movie in the works.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/05/08/the-return-of-buck-rogers

That article is four years old so I wouldn't hold my breath.

EDIT: latest rumor has Paul WS Anderson attached. Christopher, how does that compare to Frank Miller?

 

[Mars]

I liked the fact the 1970s show used stargates, but it was never quite explained exactly who built those stargates, and why there was always a convenient stargate waiting to take Buck where ever he wanted to go. I think if stargates are used there should be some explanation for them. These stargates are obviously not the same kind as used in Stargate SG1. They are based in space, so a reason must be found why they are not on planet surfaces.

This does not require much explanation. Maybe putting a stargate on the planet's surface would transport the planet-- or part of it.

But why is it necessary to explain who built them?

They are part of the setting that's why.

 

[Mars]

This does not require much explanation. Maybe putting a stargate on the planet's surface would transport the planet-- or part of it.

A simpler explanation, and one that's often used in SF, is that a space-warping technology can't work in a planet's gravity well due to the disruption/interference it creates.

This is interesting, so how does the stargate work, one idea is to use a wormhole, and transversable wormholes are used in Orion's arm, but they are a cousin of the black hole, and you don't want a black hole sitting on a planet's surface. The Stargates used in Buck Rogers don't look like wormholes however. A wormhole would look like a bubble in space, what you would see when you look at it would be a distorted fisheye view of what is on the otherside, it would have some gravity, and enough antigravity to hold its neck open so it doesn't become a black hole. The tidal forces of the thing would probably rip a planet to shreds, and its gravitational fields would probably throw planets that got too close out of their orbits, so you would want it well outside the orbits of the major planets, probably at a minimum three times the distance of Neptune from the Sun or about 120 astronomical units.

 

[Mars]

I'm not fielding your question, because it has nothing to do with my remarks.

I'm sure they were intelligent early in the 20th century, but I don't see a plausible way of getting them into the 25th century short of an alien abduction.

"Plausible" isn't ever going to be a factor in getting a character to jump four or five centuries into the future. Most people seeing the film won't even give it a second thought.

It has to make sense. How about Billy the Kid in the 25th century, would you buy that?

 

[Christopher]

EDIT: latest rumor has Paul WS Anderson attached. Christopher, how does that compare to Frank Miller?

Well, just not being Frank Miller is an improvement. But the only thing of Anderson's I've seen was Event Horizon, which I actually kind of liked; aside from the "Hell dimension" stuff, it was one of the few SF movies that actually put some effort into getting the physics and mechanics of outer space right (like portraying the effects of vacuum exposure on the human body fairly accurately). So I dunno, maybe it could work. But I haven't gotten the impression that his other work has been particularly well-received.

 

[Silvercrest]

Mars wrote:
It has to make sense. How about Billy the Kid in the 25th century, would you buy that?

Sorry, is that an example of making less sense? or more? From here it looks exactly the same. It doesn't matter what century the guy is from; it's equally implausible.

I suppose Pat Garrett might disagree, of course....

 

[yenny]

To me. If they do another Buck Rogers series? It wouldn't matter who does it. Maybe it will do better then the first three installments? They only lasted from a few months to 1 year to 2 years.

 

[Christopher]

To me. If they do another Buck Rogers series? It wouldn't matter who does it. Maybe it will do better then the first three installments? They only lasted from a few months to 1 year to 2 years.

The first "installment" of Buck Rogers (not counting the original 1928 novel, in which he wasn't called "Buck" yet) was the comic strip, whose first incarnation ran continuously for 38 years, from 1929 to 1967; a second comic strip ran for 4 years starting in 1979. I'd say that's doing pretty well. Although it's true that mass-media adaptations have been more moderate successes at best, with the first radio series running for only four years, the '39 serial not getting a sequel, and the two TV series both being relatively short-lived.

 

[Captaindemotion]

EDIT: latest rumor has Paul WS Anderson attached. Christopher, how does that compare to Frank Miller?

Well, just not being Frank Miller is an improvement. But the only thing of Anderson's I've seen was Event Horizon, which I actually kind of liked; aside from the "Hell dimension" stuff, it was one of the few SF movies that actually put some effort into getting the physics and mechanics of outer space right (like portraying the effects of vacuum exposure on the human body fairly accurately). So I dunno, maybe it could work. But I haven't gotten the impression that his other work has been particularly well-received.

I liked Event Horizon myself but it's fair to say that PTA's output since has been received only marginally better than that of Uwe Boll for the most part.

Then again, I don't think any of it has been received quite as badly as Millar's The Spirit, so...

 

[Christopher]

If by PTA you mean Paul Thomas Anderson, that's a different director (and this Paul Anderson adopted the "W. S." to differentiate himself). "PTA" is the director of films like Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love, and There Will Be Blood, and has five Academy Award nominations. Paul W. S. Anderson is known mainly for his video-game adaptations, Alien Vs. Predator, the 2011 The Three Musketeers, and the Death Race remake. I suspect from context that it's PWSA you're referring to.

 

[Shawnster]

Silvercrest didn't write:
And, yet, that is exactly what they got. BSG was refilled in the second season to become G1980. Buck Rovers was retooled in season 2 into something almost equally kiddy. Both were cancelled after their 2nd seasons.

Misattribution; I know better than this.

Yes, I said it. And, yes, I do know BSG was cancelled and returned as G1980. Regardless, it is still similar in that both shows were retooled (stupid autocorrect) after their first seasons.


As Yenny said, Buck Rovers has been part of American mythos for over 80 years. This discussion has spawned 8 pages. I think that's enough evidence to indicate a revival would work if dine right.

 

[Christopher]

Wow, you really need to turn off your auto(in)correct. "Buck Rovers?" That must be the version with an all-dog cast.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

An all-dog cast sounds like Buck Rogers dine right if you ask me.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm sure they were intelligent early in the 20th century, but I don't see a plausible way of getting them into the 25th century short of an alien abduction.

"Plausible" isn't ever going to be a factor in getting a character to jump four or five centuries into the future. Most people seeing the film won't even give it a second thought.

It has to make sense. How about Billy the Kid in the 25th century, would you buy that?

You seem to be having trouble understanding what I wrote.

No it doesn't have to make sense. All it has to do is entertain. Me, I love time travel stories. I don't care if the method is "plausible" or the distance in time that is traveled. Most people watching probably feel the same.

 

[Christopher]

Buck Rogers is not the sort of franchise you expect plausibility from as a rule, although I gather the TSR version was pretty hard-SF.

 

[Mars]

Buck Rogers is not the sort of franchise you expect plausibility from as a rule, although I gather the TSR version was pretty hard-SF.

Yep, if I had my way, a television series would be based on that, it was confined to our solar system, out to the orbit of Jupiter with some remote outposts around Saturn. There was no FTL, as in the 1970s television series there was a nuclear war, Mars was terraformed, Venus was only partially so, the Martians are the bad guys in this one, and Ardala is a Martian. Martians are human colonists by the way, they were settled by the Russian-American Mercantile or RAM for short.

The Moon was the Switzerland of this setting, The Earth has undergone a nuclear war and its population is down to 2 billion. There are islands of civilization called Arcologies in a sea of savagery on Earth. Dr. Theopolis is an AI computer program. There are lots of L5 space colonies through out the Solar System and particularly in the Asteroid Belt. Genetically modified humans exist, one type adapted to a partically terraformed Venus. Mercury is a main energy supplier to the Solar System. Another bunch of modified humans live in floating cities within Jupiter's atmosphere, adapted to high gravity.

I liked the hard science of the boxed set, the comic books followed it only loosely, a second game was modeled after the crappy 1930s version of Buck Rogers. I liked the hard science interpretation better.

 

[Mars]

"Plausible" isn't ever going to be a factor in getting a character to jump four or five centuries into the future. Most people seeing the film won't even give it a second thought.

It has to make sense. How about Billy the Kid in the 25th century, would you buy that?

You seem to be having trouble understanding what I wrote.

No it doesn't have to make sense. All it has to do is entertain. Me, I love time travel stories. I don't care if the method is "plausible" or the distance in time that is traveled. Most people watching probably feel the same.

Well then its no different than fantasy. I figure science fiction is a type of fantasy with some scientific plausibility behind it, even Star Trek has that, more than some, less than others. There are theories for warp drives in Modern physics for example. Space 1999 is an example of even softer science fiction, star wars is high tech fantasy. Lord of the Rings is entertaining but its fantasy. I'd like to imagine that a science fiction story can happen sometime in the future rather than it just being "Middle Earth" set in space. I figure the harder it is, while still being able to tell the story the better.

One can go overboard in the other direction as well, the Orionsarm setting does this in my opinion, AIs dominate in that setting, though plausible, not very interesting because there aren't characters I can identify with, lots of weirdness and bizarre Jargon that one needs to master before understanding one of their stories. I remember one guy wanting a character we could identify with, this guy has multiple bodies and a single hivelike mind much like the Borg in fact.

 

[Captaindemotion]

If by PTA you mean Paul Thomas Anderson, that's a different director (and this Paul Anderson adopted the "W. S." to differentiate himself). "PTA" is the director of films like Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love, and There Will Be Blood, and has five Academy Award nominations. Paul W. S. Anderson is known mainly for his video-game adaptations, Alien Vs. Predator, the 2011 The Three Musketeers, and the Death Race remake. I suspect from context that it's PWSA you're referring to.

It was indeed. I've read numerous reviews of the other (talented) Anderson's new movie, The Master, over the last few days, so it must have been Freudian. Or Hubbardian, given the latter's distaste for psychiatry (The Master is supposedly about a thinly-disguised L. Ron).

 

[Mars]

If by PTA you mean Paul Thomas Anderson, that's a different director (and this Paul Anderson adopted the "W. S." to differentiate himself). "PTA" is the director of films like Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love, and There Will Be Blood, and has five Academy Award nominations. Paul W. S. Anderson is known mainly for his video-game adaptations, Alien Vs. Predator, the 2011 The Three Musketeers, and the Death Race remake. I suspect from context that it's PWSA you're referring to.

It was indeed. I've read numerous reviews of the other (talented) Anderson's new movie, The Master, over the last few days, so it must have been Freudian. Or Hubbardian, given the latter's distaste for psychiatry (The Master is supposedly about a thinly-disguised L. Ron).

Pity, I was much a fan of Poul Anderson's books, I think they would make great movies, especially things like Operation Chaos. I mean if Harry Potter did well, could you imagine an "Operation Chaos" movie?