How bad is Andromeda?
- Thread starter Neb Lleb
- Start date
Same, I didn't think he was amazing or anything but I remember enjoying Hercules and thought his casting kinda made sense. Seemed like a good choice at the time.
I remember it was pitched as a Star Trek series at one time. I would have said they should consider that again, but Discovery season 3-5 basically covered the core concepts. Jump to the future, set in future where the Federation/Starfleet is mostly in pieces, the ship's A.I. is self aware etc.
According to what the producers said on the fan boards, the issue was that Tribune's execs were driven by profit above all. They didn't want intelligent, thought-provoking shows with complex ideas, they wanted lowest-common-denominator action shows that were simple enough to be marketed internationally across barriers of language and culture, and thereby make them more money in global syndication. Also, they prioritized short-term money-saving over long-term gains, so rather than investing the money it would've taken to create a well-made SF future, they cut corners everywhere they could. And they fired experienced showrunners and replaced them with cheaper ones -- or maybe it's just that it was cheaper to fire producers after a year or two and hire new ones than to shell out the annual raises that veteran staffers would be entitled to (this is probably also why they had so many cast changes).
So it's not that they hated SF/fantasy, it's that they defined it differently, as a vehicle for action rather than ideas, aimed low to make a quick buck rather than aimed high to create something that would endure.
I remember Tribune releasing surveys asking what people wanted from Earth: Final Conflict, I think as early as the gap between seasons 1 and 2.
At the time I remember being impressed that they were reaching out to the fans that way. In retrospect I was too naive to realize that this was probably a warning that there would be a lot of meddling ahead.
For what it's worth, I loved Earth: Final Conflict season 1, felt it declined sharply in quality throughout seasons 2 and 3, and suddenly became very good again in season 4; then it turned into something that I felt disconnected enough from that I didn't bother to watch more than a few episodes in season 5, including coming back for the finale and the episode where they brought one of the original characters back for a send-off.
Perhaps @Christopher will appreciate why I've often referred to this progression as "the Sliders curve."
More on-topic, I hopped off Andromeda after season 2. IIRC it was already declining near the end, and then the news that Wolfe was gone and Sorbo would have more creative control sealed the deal. I remember being lightly horrified at the changes I heard were happening on-screen as well, but I haven't given the show enough thought in the past 20-25 years to be more specific than that.
Which could also explain why their fantasy stuff did better, since in general the concepts in fantasy tend to not be quite as complex as in sci-fi.
In some aspects of worldbuilding, maybe, but fantasy can be just as intelligent and challenging in its character writing or philosophical themes.
I don't think it's a difference between SF and fantasy, I think it's a difference between what Majel Roddenberry aspired to and what Tribune & Fireworks wanted. Most of the hourlong shows from Tribune and/or Fireworks were action-adventures regardless of genre -- Adventure Inc., Beastmaster, Mutant X, Night Man, RoboCop: The Series, F/X: The Series, La Femme Nikita, Highlander: The Raven, Queen of Swords, Relic Hunter. But only the Roddenberry shows aspired to a higher level of conceptual sophistication and intelligence.
Oh of course, I was purely talking about sci-fi shows getting deep into some of the higher level scientific ideas, compared to most fantasy show's magic, which tends to be a more straightforward and easier to anyone to understand.
OK, I get what you're saying now.
Similar threads
