Frank Miller's good in certain settings/approaches, just like Tim Burton. But there are some things he shouldn't be playing with, and Buck Rogers is one of them.
I have the huge coffee-table retrospective collection "The Adventures of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century", and I find it actually interesting to go back to it every so often. There are some parts that are, of course, wincingly bad, and others quite astonishingly good. But it's overall a tale of two-fisted heroes and black-hearted villains with minimal gray in between (i.e., while sometimes enemies become allies, it's usually because it was a misunderstanding or desperation that put them in opposition to begin with).
Gah.
Frank Miller's good in certain settings/approaches, just like Tim Burton. But there are some things he shouldn't be playing with, and Buck Rogers is one of them.
I have the huge coffee-table retrospective collection "The Adventures of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century", and I find it actually interesting to go back to it every so often. There are some parts that are, of course, wincingly bad, and others quite astonishingly good. But it's overall a tale of two-fisted heroes and black-hearted villains with minimal gray in between (i.e., while sometimes enemies become allies, it's usually because it was a misunderstanding or desperation that put them in opposition to begin with).