Andromeda

The Andromeda Strain
$9.99
Michael Crichton's first novel, "The Andromeda Strain", is an odyssey of timeless possibilities. The classic 1971 film vision, The Andromeda Strain (directed by Robert Wise), unfortunately could not include all of Crichton's little gems buried within the narrative of the text. The first time I tried reading the novel I couldn't get into the story, but recently I started over and actually forced myself to read the whole book. But this time it wasn't difficult once I got past the first parts and found myself compulsively reading it. I don't know what I was thinking the first time, but this book is exciting for the mind and still has much to offer even today.

The plot begins a little too slowly perhaps, but once the wave of ideas start coming it is a thoughtful and intelligent read. If you like his Jurassic Park, then this is an excellent novel to read for similar arguments about our human flaws. Like in "Jurassic Park", he questions the evolutionary and survival value of human intelligence. Are we too smart and powerful for our own good? Are we self-destructive like a ticking time bomb? All of these questions made famous by "Jurassic Park" get their start in this novel (Crichton's first). Besides his usual warnings against us humans trying to act as if we can control and manipulate nature without producing unknown, unpredictable, and potentially disastrous side effects, there are many other little gems for the imagination that I found even more interesting (and no I didn't find the Odd Man Hypothesis the most interesting idea).

Here are a few highlights to try to capture my meaning and point out all the excellent questions and SF possibilities mentioned in the text (most of which were not in the movie):

1. What sort of alien life are we likely to meet? It includes a table summarizing the odds of encountering certain types of alien life. The numbers indicate that we are most likely to discover non-complex and non-intelligent life. I found this interesting because Stephen Hawking notes a similar idea in his popular science book, The Universe in a Nutshell; he suggests that we are most likely to encounter lifeforms that are either less intelligent or much more intelligent than us.

2. What is life? He expresses skepticism over defining life in perfectly clear terms. Yes, most (if not all) definitions of life have counterexamples (just like almost all non-mathematical definitions)!

3. Could our first encounter come from below? He suggests a fascinating possibility that intelligent life might exist at tiny scales. Could we examine a piece of space debris under a microscope and see a message of greetings and peace from little aliens? Perhaps continuing trends of the miniaturization of technology would allow these little aliens to harness extreme types of power, at least for their size.

4. Would microorganisms from outer space be likely to harm us, or is it more likely that our environment will harm them? Bacteria on earth rarely exists in forms that are dangerous to humans, for over time microorganisms and humans co-evolved with each other and built immunities to each other. If a bacteria was too harmful and killed its host, then it is unlikely to survive in abundance.

4a. Though this means we are dependent on our 'good bugs' (our good bacteria) and we could be in danger if left 'naked' to our environment (the way an advanced alien life form would be, as H. G. Wells nicely used in The War of the Worlds (Modern Library Classics)). For example, Crichton discusses a kind of super-curing drug that could cure cancer completely by destroying all of one's microorganisms - including important ones in the stomach. Sounds great, but it would create the nasty side effect of undoing years of evolution and producing a quick death by some odd infection (that evolution regularly defends us against). So perhaps the odds are higher that bacteria will harm humans (or any life form) when man (or the life form) is stripped of centuries of co-evolution and left bare to the elements.

5. Is life as we know it 'normal' or could there be lifeforms very different? It speculates that an alien life form might use very different life-processes, such as not using amino acids (which we find in just about all life forms). Perhaps some sort of crystal life-processes could replace the 'normal' biological functions we observe on earth, and perhaps these processes would help equip such an alien life form to survive in space, travel the stars, meet new lifeforms, and seed new civilizations. Carl Sagan has an interesting discussion of life in his Cosmos: Carl Sagan (7 DVD Set) series and he suggests that carbon is essential for his classification of life, but Crichton is much more liberal about new life (in the tradition of Star Trek).

6. Would an atypical life form find other 'atypical' environments better for healthy life-functioning? Crichton points out that some forms of life survive best in very different environments than humans. Some live in the deep ocean in high pressure. So it may be possible that some lifeforms would survive best above the oxygen atmosphere of Earth. In the story, several scoops orbit the earth in search of microorganisms for the development of biological weapons.

7. Last on my list but not least -- How could an advanced civilization explore the universe within the constraints of vast distances, immense time intervals, and the rigors of space travel? One exciting option is that an advanced civilization might choose to send out microbiological organisms that adapt well to deep space. These microorganisms could announce the existence of their civilization and contact other life around the universe. And perhaps, just maybe, these organisms would have the ability to replicate and reproduce once they land in the right environment. They might even grow into a full life form, examine any life forms found in its area, and greet new life and new civilizations! How could they not put that into the movie!

The plot nicely weaves these seven questions into the story. The story is similar to the one in the movie. A group of scientists get a call to action to study a new microorganism scooped from an orbit around the earth. The scientists must find a way to defeat the deadly microorganism before it spreads, but many of their safety precautions produce unpredicted side effects. So they also have to battle against the limits of their humanity as well. They spend an immense amount of time decontaminating, and they go over the Odd Man Hypothesis in which studies show that a single person makes the right decisions more often than a married person. The Odd Man would have to decide whether to explode the entire facility if the microorganism gets out of control; and, by the way, only the Odd Man can turn off the count down to detonation.

I found the story surprisingly full of ideas, as if the author took his time and took great care to produce a near masterpiece. Some of his other stories seem too stock. Some of his stories carry along one or two interesting ideas near the end. But then he has "Jurassic Park" and "The Andromeda Strain" -- my two favorites by far. I also love Prey for a couple ideas but I didn't find it nearly as filled with gems as "The Andromeda Strain". I highly suggest this novel even though it was a little difficult for me to get into initially and science has probably advanced quite a bit since it was written. But the vision of the text and many imaginative possibilities seem very well intact (if not timeless).

Andromeda - Season 3 Collection
$69.98
ANDROMEDA in Season Three continues to embody many of the worst stereotypes of bad TV Sci-fi and shows why it is one of the least respected TV genres. As someone who loves both quality TV and Sci-fi. The show's vices are many: bumpy headed aliens, repeated use of almost magical scientific solutions to problems, simplistic good guys and bad guys, a complete lack of character development (except for Trance, one of the few truly interesting characters on the show), and the use of one TV cliche after another. Even after three seasons the show remains astonishingly superficial.

Nonetheless, while objectively one can say that ANDROMEDA is not a very good series, it is occasionally likable. Kevin Sorbo's tagline could be, "I'm not a hero, but I play one on TV." He isn't terribly convincing as a hero, but like in HERCULES, he is likable to the degree that he doesn't take himself seriously. As long as he keeps his tongue firmly inside his cheek, he isn't too bad. When he is supposed to be taken seriously, the result can be groanworthy, especially when he begins kissing some girl a couple of minutes after meeting them. One potentially good thing for the series is the departure at the end of Season Three of the worst character on the show, the unrelentingly macho and wooden Tyr. Because I am watching this series for the first time, I don't know yet whether or not this will improve matters on the show or not, but we can hope. The rest of the cast stayed pretty much the same. Easily the most intriguing character on the show is Trance, and during the season we got a bit more about what her deal is. We've not yet gotten to the bottom of things and if we don't by the end of Season Five, when the show comes to an end, I'll be quite disappointed.

Narratively, Season Three was approximately along the same quality as Season Two. The stories were sometimes decent enough, but weren't integrated into much of an overall narrative. The "commonwealth" story in the background never feels like more than window dressing rather than a story that the writers are truly committed to. The main reason for the improvement in Season Three was a dramatic increase in the quality of special effects. Most probably a new CGI software program became available. But even here the limited vision of the show's makers is apparent. The resulting CGI is vastly more detailed than what was seen in the first two seasons, but it is persistently unrealistic and super detailed. Why is the latter a problem? Contrast the CGI on FIREFLY and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. Most probably the shows use the same software. But on FIREFLY, made at the same time as ANDROMEDA, the decision was to give the look of the software a realistic feel. The "camera" would sometimes be out of focus looking on a scene and would sometimes zoom in on the object of interest. Even after focusing, the image would be complicated by smoke or distorting heat exhaust or some such thing. The same is true on BSG. But on ANDROMEDA every CGI shot is in perfect focus with no visual obstacles to the viewer.

But the biggest problem on the show is the lack of character development. Take the romantic situations on the show. The characters are like the figures on Keats's "Ode to a Grecian Urn," forever chasing others but never catching them. Romy is attracted to Dylan. Harper is attracted to Romy. Beka and Dylan are attracted to one another. Beka and Tyr share some attraction. Does anything happen? No. Why? Partly because the characters are not, by the rules laid down by the writers, allowed to ever change. And perhaps because the writers realize that this is one of those Sci-fi series -- unlike FIREFLY, BSG, and FARSCAPE -- that appeals more to teens and young boys than it does to adults. I suspect they feared that allowing any interesting emotional involvements on the show might alienate their younger viewers. As a result, another reason for why the show never really becomes very interesting is added.

One last comment. Despite my not thinking that this is a very good show, it is odd that only parts are available new. I had to buy the first three seasons used, but was able to buy Seasons 4 and 5 new. It would be nice if the whole series were available somehow.

Andromeda - Season 4 Collection
$69.98
Season Four has a great ending, but that is one of the few great things about it. There were some subtle improvements, such as the CGI, which got better in each season of the series. While the CGI was crude and unimpressive in the first couple of seasons, by Season four it rivaled that of far better shows like FARSCAPE, FIREFLY, and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. But the narrative remained flat and generally uninteresting.

Yes, the narrative. Ultimately how a show tells a story is what makes or dooms it. In an article in ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY during the first season of LOST. Show runner Damon Lindelhof was talking about what makes good TV narrative and what does not. He argued, and I think correctly, that shows that focus on plot rather than character development ultimately will be lessened for it. His goal was to keep LOST focused on character development like BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER rather than those that focus on plot. He didn't mention ANDROMEDA, but it is a classic example of a series that is seriously hampered by an almost complete lack of concern with character development. Most of the characters on ANDROMEDA never change, never alter, never develop or mature. Dylan Hunt is still precisely the same character he was in Season One. The same is true of Beka, Harper, and Romy. That this is true is especially tragic with Romy, since the possible growth as a person of someone who is an android would have made for a fascinating story. As it were, the only character who evolves at all is Trance.

After three seasons of clothing Trance in mystery, we finally discover what her major secrets were in Season Four. And it was hardly disappointing. One can wonder why she was the only character on the show allowed to grow at all in the first four seasons.

What should have been a great improvement in the show was the departure of Tyr. Unfortunately, Steve Bacic's Rhade, a direct descendent of the Rhade who tried to kill Dylan in the series pilot (and who made several appearances on the show in the first three seasons), ended up a profoundly uninteresting character, far less interesting than he had been when he was only guest starring.

Most of the show continued to perpetuate the problems that crippled the show in the first three seasons: an unrelenting reliance on the worst stereotypes of TV Sci-fi, superficial storylines, facile dire circumstances each week and their equally facile solutions, and a long string of one-dimensional characters. Plus, the show simply revels in the unreality of things. For instance, people fly al the spaceships. The idea that people would pilot spaceships is an absurd one. Even today U. S. military pilots do not do the majority of the piloting of their aircraft.

One interesting scene in Season Four takes place in the abandoned potash silo that has been repeatedly in Vancouver-based Sci-fi series. It was used in THE X-FILES in their Vancouver years. It was used in the short-lived BIONIC WOMAN remake. BATTLESTAR GALACTICA used it twice. The first time it was used as Ragnar Station in the miniseries. Then in Season Three it was used for the Temple of Five. The only time that the exterior has been used that I know of was in the series DARK ANGEL, when Max and Zack attacked it to rescue their "sister" from Manticore. There are shots inside, but shots outside as well. I don't remember it having been in SMALLVILLE, but I'm sure it has been. I'd also be willing to bet that it was used in one of more of the STARGATEs. The structure is notable for its enormous height and the huge rod that runs from the middle of the area to the top. I'm certain that when they built the silo that they had no idea that it would become one of Vancouver's most heavily used locations.

Fans of BSG will enjoy guest appearances by two actresses who were probably filming their roles in the same year that they were filming the miniseries for BSG. The two are Grace Park aka Sharon Valerii/Agathon and Kandyse McClure aka Dualla. There is also an appearance by Aaron Douglas aka Chief Galen Tyrol (in the same episode that Erica Durance, later Lois Lane of SMALLVILLE, and Missy Peregrym from REAPER - unfortunately, the episode is an absolutely awful one).

All in all, the series continues to disappoint. I suppose that the one group of people who would enjoy this are those who just enjoy superficial action series with traditional heroes and villains. But if you want good story telling and less than superficial characters, you need to look elsewhere.

Andromeda - Season 5 Collection
$69.98
The final season of Andromeda is different from the first 4 seasons and a little on the existential side of things. It is, however, a fitting end to the series and worth watching. I give it 4 stars.