• 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!

How bad is Andromeda?

Neb Lleb

Lieutenant
Red Shirt
So, today, Amazon MGM announced that they are finally producing a new Stargate series, marking another the return of another legacy IP from the golden age of genre TV. From 1987 - 2009, a lot of memorable shows were born, but one of them became remembered for all the wrong reasons...
I heard that Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda is meant to be pretty bad. And it's been a while since I've seen a youtube video on it. So I'm really curious to know if it's as bad as everyone says it is or if it's a misunderstood masterpiece. So does Andromeda suck? If so, how badly?
 
It's a complicated question, since the show went through many changes. The original concept behind Andromeda, as developed by Robert Hewitt Wolfe with input from Zack Stentz, Ashley Edward Miller, and others, was intended to be one of the smartest, most scientifically plausible SF shows out there, and the writing in the first season and most of the second was generally quite smart and sophisticated -- but the production company gave the show a low budget and its FX and makeup departments weren't up to realizing the writers' ideas, so the execution was cheesier than the intent.

The thing is, Majel Roddenberry and the showrunners she hired aspired to do really smart, sophisticated SF, but the production company, Tribune Entertainment, aspired to make cheap action shows with lowest-common-denominator appeal. Tribune had previously dumbed down Gene Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict, firing its developer and bringing in successively cheaper showrunners to make the show dumber and simpler, and they did much the same to Andromeda. They fired Wolfe halfway through season 2, so the quality started to waver in the latter part of that season. Then, in season 3, they bought in a new showrunner, Bob Engels, whose work on the show was just terrible, with nonsensical plotting, dialogue that no human being would ever actually say, and an abandonment of any attempt at plausible science. But Stentz & Miller were still on staff, and they were still writing the original version of the show as best they could. So season 3 was a mix of good episodes by that duo, terrible episodes by Engels, and mediocre episodes by the other staff writers. It felt like two or three separate series alternating with each other. Stentz & Miller left after season 3, mostly, so seasons 4-5 were generally not that good.

So there is some really good, smart, sophisticated stuff in the first two seasons, and in the Stentz/Miller season 3 episodes. Yet even at its best, it was still kind of a cheesy production. It never lived up to the aspirations of its creators, because as with E:FC, Majel Roddenberry just went with the wrong production company.
 
I like it better when it was called Genesis II/Planet Earth

That was one of its inspirations, but when Kevin Sorbo decided he wanted to do a space show, it was combined with elements from Roddenberry's unmade Starship pitch (mainly the idea of a sentient ship as a main character) and with Robert Hewitt Wolfe's unused pitch for a post-fall-of-the-Federation Star Trek series about the Enterprise-K.
 
It's a complicated question, since the show went through many changes. The original concept behind Andromeda, as developed by Robert Hewitt Wolfe with input from Zack Stentz, Ashley Edward Miller, and others, was intended to be one of the smartest, most scientifically plausible SF shows out there, and the writing in the first season and most of the second was generally quite smart and sophisticated -- but the production company gave the show a low budget and its FX and makeup departments weren't up to realizing the writers' ideas, so the execution was cheesier than the intent.

The thing is, Majel Roddenberry and the showrunners she hired aspired to do really smart, sophisticated SF, but the production company, Tribune Entertainment, aspired to make cheap action shows with lowest-common-denominator appeal. Tribune had previously dumbed down Gene Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict, firing its developer and bringing in successively cheaper showrunners to make the show dumber and simpler, and they did much the same to Andromeda. They fired Wolfe halfway through season 2, so the quality started to waver in the latter part of that season. Then, in season 3, they bought in a new showrunner, Bob Engels, whose work on the show was just terrible, with nonsensical plotting, dialogue that no human being would ever actually say, and an abandonment of any attempt at plausible science. But Stentz & Miller were still on staff, and they were still writing the original version of the show as best they could. So season 3 was a mix of good episodes by that duo, terrible episodes by Engels, and mediocre episodes by the other staff writers. It felt like two or three separate series alternating with each other. Stentz & Miller left after season 3, mostly, so seasons 4-5 were generally not that good.

So there is some really good, smart, sophisticated stuff in the first two seasons, and in the Stentz/Miller season 3 episodes. Yet even at its best, it was still kind of a cheesy production. It never lived up to the aspirations of its creators, because as with E:FC, Majel Roddenberry just went with the wrong production company.
Thank you. I guess the road to hell really is paved with the best intentions.
 
So, today, Amazon MGM announced that they are finally producing a new Stargate series, marking another the return of another legacy IP from the golden age of genre TV. From 1987 - 2009, a lot of memorable shows were born, but one of them became remembered for all the wrong reasons...
I heard that Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda is meant to be pretty bad. And it's been a while since I've seen a youtube video on it. So I'm really curious to know if it's as bad as everyone says it is or if it's a misunderstood masterpiece. So does Andromeda suck? If so, how badly?
Yes, increasingly badly over time, and not great even from the start — there’s an immediate science howler that the show couldn’t continue past its first half hour or so without — but Lexa Doig almost makes it worth it, for a while.
 
I enjoyed Andromeda a lot in the first few seasons, but even I noticed the steady decline in quality, and it finally lost me by the time the last season started. There were a lot of very strange creative decisions made as the show went on, and the show reached a point where it wasn't even consistent with itself. One non-spoiler example that I've used before to show just how much of a mess it became, is that couldn't even keep how many people were on the ship consistent from week to week. We'd get one episode where it had a full crew with the whole ship filled with people, and then next episode the only people onboard would be the 5 or 6 main characters, but then the next episode would they would be back to having a full crew.
The whole premise of the show was supposed to be the crew rebuilding the Commonwealth, but they resolved that whole storyline in between seasons. From what I remember they ended one season with a small handful of planets signing up, and then when the next season started they were suddenly back to it's full membership.
 
There is also the third entry in the PAX trilogy. "Strange New World" No Dylan Hunt, but its does have John Saxon.

That hardly counts. It was a reworking of the premise with no involvement from Roddenberry (though with his blessing to do it without him), in a completely different continuity, and it was incredibly bad. I reviewed it on my blog here:


If anything, Andromeda may be a less drastic reworking of Genesis II/Planet Earth than Strange New World was, since at least it kept the name Dylan Hunt and the idea of civilization falling in a war rather than a natural disaster. Also, I don't think the characters in SNW had the same mission to rebuild civilization; they were just trying to find and rescue their hibernating colleagues, though maybe with a longer-term goal of trying to rebuild. (Andromeda also sort of kept a couple of G2 proper names. Harper-Smythe inspired the Seamus Harper character in name if nothing else, and I daresay the genetically superior Tyranians inspired the genetically superior Tyr Anasazi and his Nietzschean race.)


I enjoyed Andromeda a lot in the first few seasons, but even I noticed the steady decline in quality, and it finally lost me by the time the last season started. There were a lot of very strange creative decisions made as the show went on, and the show reached a point where it wasn't even consistent with itself. One non-spoiler example that I've used before to show just how much of a mess it became, is that couldn't even keep how many people were on the ship consistent from week to week. We'd get one episode where it had a full crew with the whole ship filled with people, and then next episode the only people onboard would be the 5 or 6 main characters, but then the next episode would they would be back to having a full crew.

Not only that, but the Stentz-Miller scripts in season 3 continued the generally plausible science of the original version of the show but the other scripts threw good science out the window -- e.g. suddenly having real-time FTL communication when before it was only done through slipstream-drive courier ships.

That, as much as the terrible writing and unnatural dialogue in Bob Engels's scripts, underlines what a poor showrunner he was. A key part of a showrunner's job is to do a final polish of every script and ensure they all have a consistent voice and style and reflect a consistent vision of the show's characters and universe. But as I said, season 3 was like two or three very different interpretations of Andromeda running side by side, depending on who was writing the script that week.
 
I heard that Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda is meant to be pretty bad. So I'm really curious to know if it's as bad as everyone says it is or if it's a misunderstood masterpiece. So does Andromeda suck? If so, how badly?
It's not great. And it gets worse, particularly after season 3. I think the first 2-3 seasons are fairly acceptable but it went off the rails after Robert Hewitt Wolfe left the show. He had a 5 year plan for the series. There is a script online by him that gives you an idea of where the show would have gone had he stayed in charge. Kevin Sorbo made a mess of the show after he left.

Basically, it's not misunderstood. It's nowhere near a masterpiece and it's not worth the pain unless you seriously feel you have time to burn, there's nothing left to watch and you're young enough to not regret wasting your time watching it.

And it's been a while since I've seen a youtube video on it
Well lucky you....
 
I like Andromeda. The concept of a sentient ship was very interesting at the time. The season one cliffhanger is still one of my all time favourites. The music is also very good as well, even if some songs do sound similar to Dragon Ball GT.
I think after season 3 the show lost its way. They had some issues behind the scenes that heavily affected its budget.
 
The concept of a sentient ship was very interesting at the time.

Not unprecedented, though. There have been a fair number of conscious spaceship AIs in science fiction, from HAL in 2001 to Holly in Red Dwarf. Not counting intelligent biological ships like Moya from Farscape. Zen, the Liberator's AI in Blake's 7, was arguably sentient, to the point that it was counted as one of the titular seven characters. And of course there have been plenty of sentient ships in prose science fiction.



I think after season 3 the show lost its way. They had some issues behind the scenes that heavily affected its budget.

The budget was never sufficient even from the start. The real problem was that Tribune kept firing its writing staffers and replacing them with cheaper, less talented ones. This happened with a lot of their shows. Earth: Final Conflict's developer/showrunner was fired after half a season, Beastmaster: The Series's after one season. Robert Hewitt Wolfe made it longer than most, a full season and a half.
 
If I remember correctly, once TNG and DS9 started winding down in syndication and VOY and ENT were on UPN, something had to fill the Sci-Fi Saturday 6-8pm slot on FOX Channel 13, so they began airing Final Conflict and Andromeda.

I dont know if it was because of poor ratings or the fact that they were always being pre-empted by sports, but I don't think either show lasted two seasons before being dumped into the late night/early morning slot right after the 11pm news.

Both shows eventually wound up on Channel 13's sister station KJZZ Channel 22 airing at odd hours of the evening.

I don't even think I even watched the final season of either show.

I do know that with E:FC they completely jettisoned the original alien race and most of the main cast; and, with Andromeda, the final season was almost completely planet bound, with almost no spaceships.​
 
Yes, increasingly badly over time, and not great even from the start — there’s an immediate science howler that the show couldn’t continue past its first half hour or so without — but Lexa Doig almost makes it worth it, for a while.
I should have added earlier: in the earlier seasons, Keith Hamilton Cobb was also very much worth watching. He’s one of those actors where the moment he says anything, you know Yep, this guy does a lot of Shakespeare.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top