Lorraine Williams did... what?

JohnRTroy said:

In this particular case, I'd rather have the creator's wishes followed than what the fans might want. JRRT didn't really want any of his stuff adapted to movies. And the movie industry has a way of (a) disrespecting the creators and (b) screwing them out of deserved royalties.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but was he cocky and greedy to have sold the Hobbit and LOTR film rights to Saul Zentz (of Tolkien Enterprise), believing it was "unfilmable" or did he thought it was ... until he have seen the Rankin-Bass animated version?

EDIT: a tax debt? How'd he got into a tax debt when he's reaping profit from all of Tolkien's works, including Hobbit and LOTR?

Ranger REG said:

Perhaps, but was he cocky and greedy to have sold the Hobbit and LOTR film rights to Saul Zentz (of Tolkien Enterprise), believing it was "unfilmable" or did he thought it was ... until he have seen the Rankin-Bass animated version?

EDIT: a tax debt? How'd he got into a tax debt when he's reaping profit from all of Tolkien's works, including Hobbit and LOTR?

Click to expand...

The rights were sold in 1968/69, so it would have been by JRRT--and while the references in the sources I briefly consulted (Carpenter's biography, Schull & Hammon's Reader's Guide) were sketchy, I came away with the impression that it was his publishers, Allen & Unwin, who really pushed the deal. And the rights were sold to United Artists and only later wound up with Zaentz. Tolkien was willing to consider film adaptations, but vetoed several proposals beforehand. (Some of his reasons were unique to those; others are still applicable to the Rankin-Bass and Jackson films.)

Ranger REG said:

It's the same sentiment I have of Christopher Tolkiens of Tolkien Estate, who controls all of the other JRR Tolkien's works. I mean, the only time we will ever see the Silmarilion adapted to motion picture is when he and his supporters are dead. Not that I want it to come true too soon, it's just wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

JohnRTroy said:

In this particular case, I'd rather have the creator's wishes followed than what the fans might want. JRRT didn't really want any of his stuff adapted to movies. And the movie industry has a way of (a) disrespecting the creators and (b) screwing them out of deserved royalties.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Troy here. Tolkien himself was leery of film adaptations, and I believe he in no way wanted to see Disney do an adaptation of his books. As for Christopher Tolkien, he has some sentimental feeling for his father's works, and that's why he can be so unbending.

I don't see it as similar to the Dille family trying to milk a fairly dated space opera IP. Sci-fi doesn't always age well, and Buck Rogers probably hasn't.

Erik Mona said:

To complicate matters further, the character was not called "Buck" Rogers until the comic strip. I'm not sure that the brand would have the staying power it does if it had been called "Anthony Rogers," which was the character's name in the original Amazing Stories tales.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. And moving the character from prose to a comic strip, where the art (no matter how crude compared to some of the competing strips) could sell the SF concepts, was vitally important to the success, too. Dille deserves credit for those things. But to say he "created" the character is, at best, a stretch.

Cheers,
Jim

You know, here's a question....

Why was Buck Rogers unsuccessful?

I mean, the Futurama guys proved that the concept would work in satire and even after Trek and Wars, I thought it was a given that Buck (& Flash) were the main influences on the general population with regard to science fiction.

Yet apparently the RPG was never as successful as even Traveller or Shadowrun much less the Star Wars RPG.

As an aside, it does look like Hollywood and TVland is interested in resurrecting the Buck Rogers franchise. I mean, if Battlestar Galactica can be reimagined into such a great show, who says Buck Rogers cant be?

AllisterH said:

You know, here's a question....

Why was Buck Rogers unsuccessful?

I mean, the Futurama guys proved that the concept would work in satire and even after Trek and Wars, I thought it was a given that Buck (& Flash) were the main influences on the general population with regard to science fiction.

Click to expand...

On an academic level, you could say that the Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon stories laid much of the foundation for modern science fiction, building on works of earlier novelists like Jules Verne and Mary Shelley. . .

However, to the general public, Star Trek and Star Wars is Science Fiction.

Other than a pretty die-hard sci-fi geek, who knows anything about Flash Gordon other than what little they remember from that cheesy old 80's movie? Does anybody around remember anything about Buck Rogers other than the 70's TV series and Daffy Duck parodying the older serials (the parody is better remembered to many modern audiences).

The names "Flash Gordon" and "Buck Rogers" are about all that is remembered, and that they were some kind of sci-fi spaceman heroes, but that's about it.

Take Star Trek, Star Wars, Flash Gordon, and Buck Rogers. From a perspective of making a licensed RPG look at the fanbase to draw from:

Star Trek: 40+ years, of which the majority of which has had movies or TV series in production, all in one continuity (more or less), and it still plays on TV nightly in one form or another across the world. Warp drive, transporters, Starfleet, Klingons are all concepts known in fandom and beyond.

Star Wars: 30+ years of being the most famous Space Opera of them all. Six main movies (and several minor movies like Clone Wars and the Ewok movies), TV series (Clone Wars), novels, comic books, action figures, and a billion-dollar merchandising machine. Jedi, Sith, Lightsabers, Star Destroyers, Stormtroopers, Darth Vader, everybody knows who they are.

Flash Gordon: Aside from one movie ~25 years ago it's mostly forgotten serial films from a half century ago or more. Besides the character of Flash Gordon, does the general public know anything about this?

Buck Rogers: The serials of a half-century ago or more are pretty much forgotten, now I'd say the series from the late 70's is remembered more (South Park was able to do a 2-part episode a few years back as a huge parody of it with Cartman frozen for 500 years, right down to the opening theme music and a shot-by-shot redo of the opening). However, unlike Star Trek or Star Wars it doesn't have those memorable images, characters and concepts that have really stuck into the collective consciousness.

wingsandsword said:

However, unlike Star Trek or Star Wars it doesn't have those memorable images, characters and concepts that have really stuck into the collective consciousness.

Click to expand...

I'd say that's it and add that Lucas did Star Wars with a certain style that let it become popular. Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon for whatever reason just weren't able to maintain popularity for some reason. Also, from what I know of it, some of the elements of the villains of Flash Gordon have elements to them which might very well seem racist to a modern audience and that certainly doesn't help that franchise.

AllisterH said:

You know, here's a question....

Why was Buck Rogers unsuccessful?

I mean, the Futurama guys proved that the concept would work in satire and even after Trek and Wars, I thought it was a given that Buck (& Flash) were the main influences on the general population with regard to science fiction.

Yet apparently the RPG was never as successful as even Traveller or Shadowrun much less the Star Wars RPG.

Click to expand...

As a proud owner of XXVc RPG, I think it could have been successful. I just didn't like the way it was marketed.

BTW, besides the TSR version, were there any previous Buck Rogers licensed RPG?

Orius said:

I'd say that's it and add that Lucas did Star Wars with a certain style that let it become popular.

Click to expand...

It is? He borrowed heavily on serial films, of which both Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers were first adapted to motion picture, alongside western serials like Cisco Kid.

Ranger REG said:

As a proud owner of XXVc RPG, I think it could have been successful. I just didn't like the way it was marketed.

Click to expand...

One weird thing about it is that the XXVc game was copyright TSR, so it's mechanics, and perhaps some elements of the setting itself, are still owned by WoTC. The game had the Buck Rogers license, and royalties were using it, but IIRC they always made sure to keep the copyright and trademarks separate. I'm not sure if TSR owns the so-called "fluff" created for the game, like Black Barney and elements of that particular future.

I have a feeling Buck Rogers might have not been as featured in the game and novels for two reasons.

1) Learning from the past, having BR in the game can make the other players seem like sidekicks. It was one of the larger flaws in the Indiana Jones RPG they had released, and the company had also learned the lessons from DragonLance that people want to play their own characters in the shared world, not the "big guys". I think they were trying to feature the
setting in the RPG more than the character.

2) There was an emphasis on it being a "shared world", which I guess means that other creators wanted to put their own stamp on the series, which means "feature the world".

There's some sketchy information here:

Buck-Rogers.com - Buck Rogers XXVc TSR Games, Books, Etc.

(Not the official site, a fan site really going into detail).