At 22:00 17-02-01 -0800, "Christopher Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Who, in keeping with the "it would have been a fresh show in 1979" theme,
immediately reminded me (anyone else?) of Count Iblis from "Battlestar
Galactica."
In fact, the whole "feeling" of the show the first time I saw it reminded
me strongly of BG. (Which is not necessarily a compliment.) I wonder if
that might have been the impression Shane got that led to his review?
-- Ronn! :)
