Andromeda

After reading the reviews for the new fall season, I was expecting Andromeda to be another Star Trek clone, but I was pleasantly surprised to find this was not the case! Andromeda is an entertaining show with solid acting and a great mix of action, sci-fi and comedy. Kevin Sorbo slips into this role like it was made for him and the only obvious remnant of his days as Hercules is his wonderful ability to portray the noble hero without taking himself too seriously! The effects are decent, the cast is solid and you don't need to know the technical specs of the Enterprise to understand and enjoy the plot! This show is a treat for sci-fi and action fans alike and even stubborn Star Wars fans (myself among them!) will get a kick out of Rev's Yoda-esque witticisms! All in all, an enjoyable ride!

Shows like this make me wish IMDb allowed us to rate individual seasons.

Like Earth: Final Conflict, another Roddenberry posthumous series, it started out rather good, with a lot of potential. They both had interesting concepts, good characters and could have gone somewhere. Yet, as happened with EFC, the seasons got progressively worse until finally ending up as a joke, the likes of which you might expect to come from the SciFi Channel in the post-2003 era.

Andromeda's best seasons were 1 and 2. The plots surrounded the overall concept which was an idealistic captain from an idyllic fallen civilization seeking to restore an order to the fractured systems across 3 galaxies. It was evocative of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire as the Dark Ages set in.

In season 3, the series lost its aim. There were still interesting plots but the overall aim of a lone captain in a powerful ship on a lone quest to restore the Commonwealth had been lost. While not as good as seasons 1 & 2 by any means, season 3 is still watchable.

It's at the end of season 3 when the series took a notable nose dive. Season 3 ended with a cliffhanger which made you think everything had changed; yet when season 4 began it was clear the only thing which had changed was that everything became less logical and the writing noticeably worse. I have to wonder if there was a major change in management and writing talent at this point. In season 4 things foundered and it was not the Andromeda of before.

Season 5 became a joke. The end of season 4 obviously set up a "reset" for the entire series but instead it appears in season 5 they ignored this set-up and created a scenario hardly worthy of Andromeda. Instead of roaming 3 galaxies trying to establish a grand civilization, the crew, which inexplicably survived clearly being killed, is now trapped by an absurd force in a single solar system plagued with ailments while Andromeda sits crippled. Season 4 was a disappointment but season 5 was so far removed from the original series that it only served as the butt of jokes from former fans.

All in all, Andromeda serves as an example that you should know when to end your show before it becomes pitiful. I average it out as a 5/10 because the last 2 seasons bring down the total score considerably. I would rank the seasons as follows:

Season 1: 8/10 Season 2: 7/10 Season 3: 6/10 Season 4: 4/10 Season 5: 2/10

The Over-all Plot of Andromeda is based on Gene-Roddenberry's Genesis II. In Both, Dylan Hunt is somehow brought into the future. In the future he finds that the world (galaxy) has turned barbaric. He, with a little help from his friends, try to restore order against the barbaric powers. Many similarities between Genesis II and its retooled, more futuristic update exist but either way both were and are still good watching

When I first started watching Andromeda I was blown away. A great universe, with great ideas, both in technology and philosophy. Now, I was a little concerned with Hercules being the captain of the ship, but I said what the hell, Kevin Sorbo deserves a break.

Unfortunately, the only thing broken was the show. After the first season it all went up in smoke. The universe turned silly, the fights idiotic, the logic nonexistent. You can see how the first season had such a powerful effect on me because I spent the last two days watching the fifth season, even if it sucked immensely.

What started as a great saga, adventure, call it what you like, ended up in a silly fight against an impossible evil, moronic opponents and allies like avatars of stars, moons, hot chick androids that functioned differently in every episode. You might want to see suns that move from system to system while the heroes "evacuate" entire planets with two ships, or even black hole avatars converted into code uploaded to a solar sail energy deflector.

So, I gather Gene Roddenberry must be turning in his grave after his great ideas were perverted by money hungry TV producers with no technical expertise, no strategic thinking, no feel for the wishes of the audience or of the original creator of the series. The "Abyss" has won and it destroyed yet another great opportunity for a great sci-fi show.

This is NOT Gene Roddenberrys Andromeda, its someone else's.

What Andromeda does well:

1. The cast is, on the whole, quite good. Kevin Sorbo is the solid core (typical) central character one expects in this type of story, but the other characters are generally original and well-played. I especially like Harper and Beka, who manage to be fresh and compelling without being so iconoclastic as to distract the viewer from the plot. I also like that Rommie is not only an AI "learning to be human" but is also The Ship.

2. Backstory and plot are as interesting as any sci-fi franchise on television. The tale of Dylan's having been "stuck in a singularity" for 300 years, while scientifically suspect, makes a good yarn.

3. Effects and art direction are up to the best modern syndie TV can offer: benefitting from the advances in computer tech while likewise suffering from the vague sense of unreality it creates.

Where Andromeda falls short:

1. As the biggest "power that be," Sorbo has a slight tendency to overstress his character's importance. Dylan is, of course, the most important character, but as a fairly stereotyped "strong, silent captain," he's far from the most interesting character. The other characters should not only be allowed to carry some episodes, they should also be allowed to "be the hero" in more stories, even when Dylan is also featured. No captain, no matter how heroic, is always right.

2. Individual episodes are hit-and-miss. Not only are occasional episodes not much fun to watch, they don't even have much to do with the ongoing story. While I recognize that we can't get a barnburner every week, we do need *some* reason to tune in, whether it's humor or romance or whatever.

3. Not every unique touch has played out: Rev Bem was interesting in conception but not really in execution. I don't fault Brent Stait; I just think a Magog monk was compelling for about a week tops. I don't really mind that he was written out (for whatever reason). Another character who has failed to reach critical mass: Tyr. KHC is a good actor and undeniably an impressive physical specimen, but as the seasons have gone by, Tyr has never really developed much beyond a surly, untrustworthy bore. I think the problem lies largely with the concept of Nietzscheans in general; to make him more interesting, they would necessarily undermine the underpinnings of the character--it's a catch-22. I'm also underwhelmed by the "new Trance." The character as originally played was enigmatic and sweet; now she's just confusing.

4. Season 3 already misses the "rebuilding the Commonwealth" story thread. While the stories this year have been interesting, the show lacks dramatic impetus. Now that they're not concentrating on preparing for the Magog invasion or on strengthening the Commonwealth, they seem to be floundering around a bit. The plot lacks direction.

All told, I like Andromeda as much as anything on right now. But I can't help but feel it's not living up to potential. I'm afraid they may be trying to please a focus group rather than trying to make compelling television.