How bad is Andromeda?

[theenglish]

Of Andromeda or SeaQuest?
How much of Andromeda actually come from Gene Rodenberry? I had always assumed it was based off of an outline or series bible he wrote, with the whole plot and characters, and main alien races, and all of that kind of stuff laid out. But now from the comments I've seen around the boards, it sounds like it really had nothing to do with Rodenberry beyond the basic idea of a guy waking up in the future to find his society has collapsed, and that almost everything about it actually came from Robert Hewitt Wolfe.

That's pretty close. Wolfe publicly stated that he and Majel Barrett worked on the show and developed the background.* The show had an official webpage and board to post on. Official information about the world of the show was published there.

*I do know that was likely part of a legal contract.

 

[theenglish]

Yep, so much Sci-fi was under respected and messed around with back then in order to try and please demographics or try get bigger ratings. A lot of these shows had solid opening seasons and then went off a cliff.

The biggest example of that, for me, was the V series--which had an excellent start up until around Christmas break.

 

[Neb Lleb]

True, except Sliders actually got pretty good again once The Sci-Fi Channel revived it for seasons 4-5. There were some problematical decisions with cast changes and such, but the writing was good again.

Um... [looks at "Requiem"]

Amazing. You are 100% wrong. I mean, nothing you've said has been right!

 

[Christopher]

Um... [looks at "Requiem"]

I'm not defending "Requiem," but obviously even a good season has a mix of good and bad episodes. The same season that gave us "Requiem" also gave us David Gerrold's superb "New Gods for Old." I'm certainly not saying seasons 4-5 were perfect, but even at their worst, they were nowhere near the unwatchable incompetence of the back half of season 3.

 

[Neb Lleb]

I'm not defending "Requiem," but obviously even a good season has a mix of good and bad episodes. The same season that gave us "Requiem" also gave us David Gerrold's superb "New Gods for Old." I'm certainly not saying seasons 4-5 were perfect, but even at their worst, they were nowhere near the unwatchable incompetence of the back half of season 3.

Um, yeah no. They're just as bad, if not worse. One good episode in a sea of sludge is still one good episode.

 

[Mudd]

The first year is ambitious and has some novelty to it.

The show was always a day late and a dollar short.

 

[James Cole]

True, except Sliders actually got pretty good again once The Sci-Fi Channel revived it for seasons 4-5. There were some problematical decisions with cast changes and such, but the writing was good again.

Seasons 4 and 5 did have some better writing and occasionally good episodes, but they were also stuck with incredibly bad decisions forced in by David Peckinpah like the Kromagg breading camps, Wade's fate, Quinn's retconned origins... plus the brutally slashed budget and forced character addition to hit some actor nepotism. A different kind of bad, going from the generally recognizable characters stuck in bad film knock offs to structural character and premise. But as usual YMMV.

Whereas SEAQUEST season 3 just might be the best season of that series, at least from an adult genre audience perspective, and not an appeal to the whole family and throw in some real science, which season 1 did do (mostly) rather well in the beginning.

EDITED TO ADD:
SEAQUEST is a little different as well in it was always a workshopped by committee TV series and not the singular vision of a sole showrunner. Executive Producer Steven Spielberg. Credited creator Rockne S. O'Bannon didn't make it past the pilot. The first regular showrunner was let go after a few episodes. So whatever SEAQUEST "was" was always a moving target.

Honorable mention to EARTH 2, which was canceled after season 1 instead of incorporating the massive changes that would have been forced through via executive meddling.

 

[The Salt Umpire]

I'd pick Sliders instead of Andromeda.

 

[Christopher]

Seasons 4 and 5 did have some better writing and occasionally good episodes, but they were also stuck with incredibly bad decisions forced in by David Peckinpah like the Kromagg breading camps, Wade's fate, Quinn's retconned origins... plus the brutally slashed budget and forced character addition to hit some actor nepotism. A different kind of bad, going from the generally recognizable characters stuck in bad film knock offs to structural character and premise. But as usual YMMV.

I don't disagree with any of that, but remember, I'm comparing it to the last half of season 3, which is some of the most unwatchably horrible SFTV ever written. I wouldn't say seasons 4-5 were as good as season 1, but they were immensely better than what immediately preceded them. At least the season 4-5 writers understood what science fiction was, unlike the season 3 writers who thought it was just horror movie pastiches. And they understood that character conflict meant more than gratuitous, nonstop petty bickering. For all the problems seasons 4-5 had, at least they were written with a basic level of competence that most of season 3 lacked.

For just one metric, Sliders seasons 4-5 were the first time in my experience that Kari Wuhrer demonstrated that she could actually be a good actress, not just a sex symbol. The writing for her character in season 3 was virtually nonexistent; there was very little for her to work with. But in seasons 4-5, Maggie was written as a much richer and more multifaceted character, so Wuhrer finally got to show her talent.

Whereas SEAQUEST season 3 just might be the best season of that series, at least from an adult genre audience perspective, and not an appeal to the whole family and throw in some real science, which season 1 did do (mostly) rather well in the beginning.

I never got into the third season, but what I saw of it wasn't as bad as season 2, I guess.

EDITED TO ADD:
SEAQUEST is a little different as well as it was always a workshopped by committee TV series and not the singular vision of a sole showrunner. Executive Producer Steven Spielberg. Credited creator Rockne S. O'Bannon didn't make it past the pilot. The first regular showrunner was let go after a few episodes. So whatever SEAQUEST "was" was always a moving target.

The truth is, though I respected season 1's attempt at plausible science and futurism, I always found it a mediocre show that rarely lived up to its aspirations. There were only two episodes that I thought were genuinely good, "Bad Water" and "Photon Bullet." I think the thing I liked most about the show was John Debney's music.

 

[Neb Lleb]

I don't disagree with any of that, but remember, I'm comparing it to the last half of season 3, which is some of the most unwatchably horrible SFTV ever written. I wouldn't say seasons 4-5 were as good as season 1, but they were immensely better than what immediately preceded them. At least the season 4-5 writers understood what science fiction was, unlike the season 3 writers who thought it was just horror movie pastiches. And they understood that character conflict meant more than gratuitous, nonstop petty bickering. For all the problems seasons 4-5 had, at least they were written with a basic level of competence that most of season 3 lacked.

For just one metric, Sliders seasons 4-5 were the first time in my experience that Kari Wuhrer demonstrated that she could actually be a good actress, not just a sex symbol. The writing for her character in season 3 was virtually nonexistent; there was very little for her to work with. But in seasons 4-5, Maggie was written as a much richer and more multifaceted character, so Wuhrer finally got to show her talent.

Translation: "MUH CHARACTER CONFLICT AND KARI WUHRER".

Please stop. Your attempts to defend Sliders seasons 4 & 5 are getting desperate at this point.

 

[Steve Roby]

I heard that Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda is meant to be pretty bad.

Out of curiosity, are you British? Canadians and Americans use "meant" slightly differently, as some of the comments show.

And it's been a while since I've seen a youtube video on it.

I never watch youtube videos about why TV shows suck. Or why they're great, for that matter. I just don't watch youtubers. Why, you ask? Stay tuned.

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?

The answer to the why question above is, relying on other people to tell you what's good or bad doesn't always work. There's no one I agree with 100% on everything. Hell, in some cases, there are shows that I would agree are flawed, and yet I love them anyway, sometimes because they came along at the right time of my life.

What I'm getting at is, you should try watching an episode or two yourself. I gave Andromeda a couple of episodes and thought, nope, this isn't for me, same as I did with the various Stargates, Sliders, and seaQuest. Whereas I gave Farscape, for example, a try, and was sold from the start.

I admit that sometimes a couple of random episodes isn't always enough. I tried watching Blake's 7 two or three times and wanted to like it, having read a couple of the novelizations, but it just didn't click. Then one day I saw some B7 VHS tapes in a store and bought the first tape, with the first two episodes, and the last tape, with the last two episodes (I'd already been spoiled on the ending), and before the first episode was over, I was hooked.

Only you can decide if you like Andromeda.

 

[JD]

Yep, so much Sci-fi was under respected and messed around with back then in order to try and please demographics or try get bigger ratings. A lot of these shows had solid opening seasons and then went off a cliff.

Which is a little ironic, because these days I tend to prefer the later seasons of most of the sci-fi and fantasy shows I watch.

 

[Samurai8472]

I tried to get into it early on but I couldn't. I peeked at later seasons and it looked like Sorbo had turned it into "Hercules in space" with all the bloopers attached at the end.

 

[theenglish]

I tried to get into it early on but I couldn't. I peeked at later seasons and it looked like Sorbo had turned it into "Hercules in space" with all the bloopers attached at the end.

Sorbo was famously quoted once as saying that the show was too complicated and he couldn't understand what was supposed to be going on.

 

[JD]

Really? It didn't seem that complicated to me. But then again, given his recent behavior, I guess I shouldn't be surprised if he's not the smartest person out there.

 

[Sketcher]

Can't understand the first couple seasons, but is ok with the later seasons where Dylan is suddenly part Paradine/Evolved Vedran/Oldest Race in the Unvierse or whatever.

 

[Cap'n Calhoun]

Please stop. Your attempts to defend Sliders seasons 4 & 5 are getting desperate at this point.

Rude. People can just have different tastes.

For what it's worth, I greatly enjoyed season 4 when it first aired, basically for the reasons @Christopher gives. It did benefit from being a huge improvement on season 3, which was starting to become unwatchable, so maybe that gave it a boost. In any case, it felt like it was finally getting back to what the show was meant to be in the first place, at least for the most part.

Season 5 kind of lost me. I don't know if it was the writing or just one too many character swaps. I don't remember disliking it so much as just drifting away from it.

Out of curiosity, are you British? Canadians and Americans use "meant" slightly differently, as some of the comments show.

I'm an American and I'm accustomed to this use of "meant," though my mother-in-law is British, so maybe I'm an exception? Honestly hadn't really thought anything of the phrasing until I saw people starting to question @Neb Lleb about it here.