In season 4 things foundered and it was not the Andromeda of before. I have to wonder if there was a major change in management and writing talent at this point. 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. It's at the end of season 3 when the series took a notable nose dive. While not as good as seasons 1 & 2 by any means, season 3 is still watchable. 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. It was evocative of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire as the Dark Ages set in. 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. 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. They both had interesting concepts, good characters and could have gone somewhere. Like Earth: Final Conflict, another Roddenberry posthumous series, it started out rather good, with a lot of potential. Shows like this make me wish IMDb allowed us to rate individual seasons.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |