Talk:The Andromeda Strain (miniseries)

Airing

I know for a fact that the first episode of the miniseries has already aired *somewhere*, but I find myself in the odd position of not knowing at all where. I suspect (since the rip of the first episode that appeared was done by the group FoV) that it was either in the U.K. or Canada, but I cannot be certain. Does anyone know for sure? Phil Urich (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is being aired in Australia at the moment--Coheed56 (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Part 1 aired on Sunday, April 20, 2008, on Showcase (Australia), and part 2 a week later. —Naddy (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Aired this evening (May 10th) on Sky Premier in the UK 91.84.13.71 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Being aired in US right now... While this is irrelevant, it's so ridiculously off the storyline of the book that one has to wonder if we should add a controversy section in there... KeineLust90 (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A "Reception" section giving infomation based upon critics reviews will do the same thing while being encyclopedic. dposse (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A&E Network was showing both parts back to back yesterday (May 27 2008), in Montreal, Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.85.2 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Disowned?

The opening credits say "based on the novel by J. Michael Crichton". What's up with the "J."? Has Michael Crichton ever used this initial before? Is this something like Cordwainer Bird? It's certainly plausible that Crichton would want to distance himself from this adaptation. —Naddy (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Although he may not have used that initial before, I have remembered him referred to as John Michael Crichton before (not really since he has become a brand more than an author, but definitely in times past), and furthermore it's hardly like the initial comes with no basis in his legal name . . . it seems like mere speculation, and considering how outspoken Crichton has been on many more volatile and important subjects, it would seem odd that he would not publicly comment if he strongly disapproved of an adaptation of one of his works. 75.152.155.22 (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

a) The official credits list him as J. Michael Crichton (watch the crawl at the end of the show)

b) It would have to be the most idiotic attempt at an alter ego in history if that was the case 68.145.170.208 (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Viral marketing link?

Do we really want a link to the viral marketing site? Sounds to me like it should be removed under WP:EL? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to adore the pun though :) --Blowdart | ^talk 17:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, regarding the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Andromeda_Strain_%282008_miniseries%29&diff=212873224&oldid=212631622 my link was not to a random blog at all. Ok, well it was, but since it's the only full review I know of currently in existence, I thought it appropriate. I won't add it back myself now as that would be dumb, but please people think about this before arbitrarily removing links which might actually be relevant. When a professional critic gets around to reviewing the miniseries, by all means replace the amateur article link with a professional one (or ideally add alongside it), but don't just go removing links to totally relevant material. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Andromeda's Plot?

All I read in the Plot section was: "...as Andromeda eats at the rubbers in the facility." Hmmm... I have GOT to see this miniseries! But, who's Andromeda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindeman75 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What got me was the 'and they all lived happily ever after....except the few hundred that died' - who the hell wrote the synopsis? A 10 year old? --Fordsierra4x4 (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote it. Jailerdaemon (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of plot, does anyone detect borrowing from Greg Bear's _Blood_Music_ plot? In particular, the intelligence, the adaptability, and the speed of mutation and physical spread? Or are those so generic that no influence can be imputed? --Wherbert (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the plot of the series itself, it seems to mix the plot of two Michael Crichton novels: Prey (adaptability, intelligence, malevolence, speed of spread) and The Andromeda strain (rate of mutation, late in the book it targets plastics instead of humans, etc.) -208.79.244.67 (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The ending of the plot area seems to be incorrect and speculative. It zooms out to show the symbol, etc but if you recall its shown on a computer with a man taking something. I believe this was in the opening scene so this would have been the present, not the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmclemons (talk • contribs) 09:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The plot was been completely re-written by mainly myself and Dposse, as well as other contributors, and should be complete now, unless an argument can be made for adding Nash's sub-plot article. Nitroblu (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Folks, the plot section is too damn long. I really wish people would stop spitting out the verbatim plot and just post a simple summary. Detailing the entire plot is for movie guides, not an encyclopedia. Therefore, I put the "Plot" tag on it. Please don't remove it until someone has edited the plot down to something more encyclopedic. 98.245.15.2 (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have separated the plot into episodes so it does not look too long and readers can easily understand it. If this looks good, please remove the 'too long' warning message. --Krish (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The Shanghai incident

The "Do Not Enter" (禁止進入) sign on the door is printed in the INSIDE of the door. -- Toytoy (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Inaccuracy" regarding buckyballs should be removed.

Hee hee hee. Daniel Dae Kim's character says "bucky balls" are named after Buckminster Fuller, the inventor. That's not the same as claiming that Buckminster Fuller is the inventor of buckyballs, only that the Buckminster Fuller fellow he referred to was an inventor.

Imagine if I were to say to you that the cartoon character Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle "Michelangelo" was named after Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, the artist. Clearly I'm not claiming that Mr. Buonarroti Simoni drew the cartoon character; I'm just filling you in on his vocation.

It's a bit of an "Eats Shoots and Leaves" issue, methinks. It's not an inaccuracy. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awumawum (talk • contribs) 03:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuked.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What is inaccurate, is that Buckyballs DO exist, and aren't merely theoretical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.13.109 (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

i would say they were discovered not invented --123.211.101.8 (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cast

I added a cast, I can't believe no one added it yet. I didn't get that familiar with the character's names, so I just put down a few. The survivor (the older male) I couldn't find him (through imdb) I could of sworn that it was Tom McBeath (there is no wiki article on him, but he has an imdb page and it does not list him under the cast for the andromeda strain) [he was colonel Maybourne in Sg-1] Is it really him and he is just not listed on imdb or is it someone else? (I couldn't recall his character's name in Andromeda strain) Tydamann (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I watched the second part last night and in the credits it shows Tom McBeath's name. (I didn't watch the credits for the first part, so I don't know if he was mentioned in those ones) I got the cast information from imdb.com and I never saw him on there. I still can't recall his character's name, so I won't add it. But I took out some of the actor's name (listed after who they protrayed) in the plot section, because that information has it's own section now, and added Rick Schroder. Tydamann (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tom was definitely in it, though. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of watching if we know everything?

The entire series has been given in the article! Thanks for saving me a dozen hours.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.151.248 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPOILER. It is your fault that you were spoiled. Wikipedia is here to give out verifiably correct infomation, not to worry about if someone reads spoilers. dposse (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nash

Why isn't Nash mentioned in the Plot section? CoW mAnX (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nash should be mentioned, as the governmental conspiracy is a major part of the plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.234.92 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nash's role is in the sub-plot of the mini-series, and adds no real value towards the main plot of the show. His actions had no real implication on the main events. Nitroblu (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I for one would like to see something on the Nash subplot. For instance, I'm unclear why Nash's buddy on the motorcycle was assassinated. Was it all about Project Scoop being kept secret? More on project scoop would be good also. Rd4wiki (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just speaking from my own perspective, I think it was made very apparent by the mini-series' writers that Wheezer (Nash's source) was killed because he found out about Project Scoop and released the tape to Nash, and that it was about keeping Project Scoop a secret. Mancheck and Beeter obviously both wanted to keep Project Scoop a secret; Mancheck tells Stone that he didn't tell him about it earlier because it was need-to-know. Even the President at the end tells Stone that he had no idea of Project Scoop. And Beeter had Ferrus and Mancheck assassinated at the end to prevent the conspiracy behind Project Scoop from being revealed (remember Mancheck tells Stone he's now "converted" after the Andromeda events, and tells Ferrus he knows what they did (most likely a preclude that he would have revealed the conspiracy). So it was made very clear it was meant to be kept a secret, and many TV critics who reviewed the show will agree with this, as many mentioned it was not suspenseful and quite transparent. As such, it's quite clear why Wheezer was killed. As I mentioned before, Nash's actions really had no effect on the plot. I agree he did reveal Project Scoop to Stone first, but Mancheck ended up revealing the whole thing to Stone anyway, so adding Nash's sub-plot will only make the article longer than it needs to be (as the plot is already quite bulky for a mini-series). I also believe the current description on Project Scoop is good enough. I'm not sure how much more could possibly be added to explain it better. Nitroblu (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't this article use the television infobox rather than the film one ? The only issue seems to be you lose the image - which seems a shame, so I've left it alone for the moment. The only issue leaving it this way is that the infobox gives it an 'English-language films' category, which (as I said at the start) probably isn't technically correct... CultureDrone (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was being called a 'made for t.v. movie' I don't know how wikipedia would classify that, but in my opinion it could be either. Tydamann (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reception and Ratings.

These two sections need to be expanded. We need to find the ratings for the second part, which aired last night in the US. We also need to find reviews from notable sources. Thanks. dposse (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to write it right now, but I have found a few articles. LA Times, IGN, Rotten Tomatoes, NY Times. I think ratings figures usually take a few days to be released. Thanks! Blackngold29 15:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The section on the ratings doesn't currently make sense. It states that the first part (with 4.8 million viewers) was A&E's 2nd rated show after Flight 93. It then says that the second part got 5 million viewers. I realize that these facts are quoted from the linked articles, but putting them together like that is illogical. Surely the second part would then be the 2nd rated (or first, depending on what the actual numbers were for Flight 93), and the first part should be demoted to third rated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedragon1971 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ontological Paradox

"The camera then zooms out to show that this all took place within a space station, hinting that in some time in the future the Andromeda strain comes down from the space station, and the future humanity sends the means to destroy Andromeda back in time via a wormhole, thus creating a ontological paradox."

How was this conclusion reached? Perhaps I didn't follow the story very carefully--I do not understand how one came to the conclusion that the entire show took place within a space station. (I do agree with humanity sending back Andromeda via a wormhole creating an ontological paradox.)

00:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Directly from the Wikipedia article on ontological paradox: "However, a scenario can occur where items or information are passed from the future to the past, which then become the same items or information that are subsequently passed back." It is implied it is an ontological paradox because the sample that was saved at the end was the sample that was sent back from the future to the "present", from where all the events stemmed. The sample was saved at the end, which creates the cycle defined by an ontological paradox. It has nothing to do with where the events were set, and obviously no parts of the show took place on the space station except for the final scene. Nitroblu (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As I stated, I was not disagreeing that it was an ontological paradox. I was contesting the assertion that the entire show took place on the space station. The paragraph has been rephrased and the ambiguity removed. 04:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.96.50 (talk)

In fact, it *didn't* all take place on a space station. This is made pretty clear during the mini-series because we know the entire lab is on dry ground (actually buried underground). So it's a moot point. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost there

I think if we can expand the Filming section to include things like casting, etc. And the Ratings section; we may just have a GA. Although, that's still a good deal to do and filming info may be difficult to find. Blackngold29 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Differences from the Book

I would like to see a section listing differences between the book and this miniseries. Rd4wiki (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

running time

Can someone look at the DVD and see how much the running time actually is without commercials? We shouldn't include commercials within the running time because they have nothing to do with the actual program. dposse (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

plot holes, factual errors, discontinuities

I think the only thing that's valuable in this series was the enormous amount of errors, false facts, and illogical character behaviour present. On those grounds I think it needs a section to address these. You have to admit, it was 3 hrs of the worst BS ever to play on TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.13.109 (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you have the right to have it. However, none of it matters on Wikipedia. Please see WP:NPOV. We already have a Reception section giving the reviews by critics. dposse (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Major Bill Keane, M.D.

I think it may be worth noting the positive and heroic portrayal of a gay U.S servicemember with Ricky Schroder's Major Bill Keane, M.D. I just watched the series on dvd rental (and loved it) and was taken back by the revealing scene where Dr Charlene Barton askes about Keane's home life, and joaks "Can't find a date, huh?" and Bill Keane bravely replys "If you don't ask I wont tell." Then continues to make the point that the one person judged to make the most rational decision regarding the use of Odd-Man Hypothesis is the one person judge to be incompadable with open service in the US military. The point is the positive portray of a gay man, not a sterotype. Prehaps this can be addressed somewhere, somehow? ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Reread the artical, it is mentioned, hehe. Strike above :P ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it ever actually revealed he is a homosexual? That reply by Keane is ambiguous and I think can be interpreted in many ways. A Wikipedia article is meant to present fact or supported information, not inferences. I have removed this part from the plot because it adds no real information to the plot line, but more importantly, the way the additional information is presented, it cannot be integrated into the article while maintaining the flow of the article and written very poorly to begin with (re-read the section in the article's History and you will see what I mean). Nitroblu (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That was the revealing moment... It was pretty clear, unless you are in denial I think. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a personal attack was necessary, and it's not in line with Wikipedia policies. I'm not homophobic, I just honestly do not remember a defining scene where it was blatantly revealed he was gay, and I've watched the whole thing twice. The quotes above again can be interpreted in more than one way. It could also mean he is embarrassed by a problem with meeting women. Either way, it adds no relevance to the plot.Nitroblu (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming you are referring to me? There was no personal attack, I am sorry if you interpreted it that way. My stance still stands. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The scene is unambigious, lol. It was clearly represented the Major was gay.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I just reread the artical and it was removed? Why?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Differences from the Novel?

Does the article warrant a differences from the novel section? I've seen them a lot recently. The only thing I can think of is that it would be extremely difficult to collect all the differences, as the writers basically threw out everything in the novel but the back of the book with the plot summary. (All five are present, one is female, every outside world storyline was added, Project Scoop wasn't even known about by Dr. Stone-in the book he created it, the bomb was actually dropped, Andromeda never stopped being aggressive, etc). Dylan (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help if, as you point out, there are more differences than similarities. You can accomplish everything you want just by adding the word "loosely" to the phrase "based on the novel" in the first sentence. Spejic (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)'

Soundtrack

Don't know if this is of any use, but perhaps someone might find it useful:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/andromeda-strain-original/id300898613

http://www.emusic.com/listen/#/album/joel-j-richard/the-andromeda-strain-original-tv-mini-series-soundtrack/11390685/

92.97.235.110 (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Plot is still too long

I have replaced the plot template that was placed five years ago, which was subsequently removed by people who then added more cruft. Folks, Wikipedia allows for plot summaries of 600 to 700 words. ONLY. Please stop padding this out with additional detail. It is currently 1520 words, more than twice the allowable limit. It needs to be pared down to essentials. I'll leave this to someone with more familiarity with the miniseries, because I have not seen it. But if it remains in this state the next time I stumble onto this article and someone has removed the plot template, then I will approach it with a scorched earth mentality and it will be less than 600 words when I am done with it. 207.155.212.66 (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Andromeda Strain (miniseries). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430212125/http://www.aetv.com/the-andromeda-strain/ to http://www.aetv.com/the-andromeda-strain/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20080725132525/http://www.whathappenedinpiedmont.com/aboutme/ to http://www.whathappenedinpiedmont.com/aboutme/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/inc/quickread/e3ied2fbcd4ab52837360fd929fb1119eec?KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=310&width=600

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ending does not support time travel plot statement.

The ending doesn't support the conclusion of time travel. While it may be true, an equally possible ending is the wormhole is from a race on another planet. This would relate to Dr. Stone's final words about its creators knowing about us and learning from the ending of their weapon. --67.167.223.132 (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I created the above entry on the ending, while thinking I was on the system (but wasn't). --Bmoshier (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)