Ronn Blankenship wrote:
> the first time I saw "Andromeda", I saw very little
> original in it, but was reminded of bits and pieces of other shows and
> stories.
and when was the last time that you saw _anything_ that was
_actually original_? not just something that you thought was original
- something that was actually original. originality isn't a concern -
the quality of the implementation is. (i went to a concert by Arlo
Gutherie and the Seattle Symphony Orchestra a few nights ago. nothing
that they played was new to me - and one of the Aaron Copland pieces
incorporated a song i grew up singing! but i would gladly go see the
whole thing again, even though _none_ of it was original the first
time.)
> In fact, parts of it were extremely painful to watch, as some of
> the elements of the show reminded me of some early stories I had written
> about the time I was in high school
i can find lots of faults with a lot of what is on television, and
in particular with a lot of what is marketed as 'science fiction' -
are you saying that you thought 'Andromeda' compared poorly to the
various 'Star Trek' and other shows? or are you comparing it to some
of the better _written_ science fiction? (this is television after
all, and aimed at a mass market. their primary target audience rarely
reads a science fiction book. science fiction fans are a secondary
audience for them.)
> Just to show that our reactions are not unique, here's a link to a review
> of "Andromeda" that calls it "the best new science fiction program to hit
> the airwaves in years! . . . [i]f this was
> 1979.": <http://www.zealot.com/reviews/archives/andromeda.php3>
unfortunately the reviewer doesn't say what he finds wrong with the
execution - he stops with saying it is bad. i'm not particularly
impressed with reviews that don't explain why they hold those
opinions.
personally i feel that 'Andromeda' is at least as good as a typical
'Star Trek' episode, and better than most of the shows that the
Sci-Fi channel produces. they are pretty good at consistency and
there is some subtle character development. (and it should be subtle
- after all we're only seeing 'snapshots' of the character's lives.)
i'm particularly intrigued by the 'Trance Gemini' character, she
seems to know and be able to do a lot more than she admits to...and
seems to have some long-term goals in mind, bonsai among others.
(tonight's' episode - 'Harper 2.0' - hints that she may be a
librarian - and introduces a mysterious and very bad villain.) the
actress who plays 'Andromeda' is also very good at expressing
skepticism.... All in all, i think the acting is pretty good, and
occasionally very good. (the actor who plays 'Tyr' is very good at
conveying emotion while maintaining the illusion of stoicism.)
it could be a better show - and we should ask for better - but we
shouldn't let our desire for quality blind us to the quality that is
there. feel free to ignore it if you want - but if you watch it keep
an eye on the details and watch to see how those plot points are
developed.
cheers,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
