The Andromeda Strain

[effowe]

Ok, so what was the deal with the ending? I saw the first one years ago but don't remember much of it. They put the Andromeda sample into the special numbered (and symboled) container on a space station. I think the first one took place on a space station, I could be wrong. Can someone explain this?

 

[Bibble]

Originally posted by: effowe
Ok, so what was the deal with the ending? I saw the first one years ago but don't remember much of it. They put the Andromeda sample into the special numbered (and symboled) container on a space station. I think the first one took place on a space station, I could be wrong. Can someone explain this?

The first one did NOT take place on a space station. This was a new twist they threw in which, in my opinion, cheapened what is a great story.

 

[Iron Woode]

well, its over.

I really wish they had just followed the book and updated the technology. Instead they make an X-files-esque movie with no coherent storyline.

I feel cheated out of a good story.

 

[Aharami]

what the hell was the meaning of that symbol anyways - the one they derived from the binary coded black stuff and the same symbol was on the casing for the andromeda sample they stored away at the end.

and what a weak ending

 

[bucwylde23]

Kind of disappointed.

They just HAD to throw some kind of love story in it. I hate that....

 

[Bibble]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
well, its over.

I really wish they had just followed the book and updated the technology. Instead they make an X-files-esque movie with no coherent storyline.

I feel cheated out of a good story.

I share your exact sentiments.

Why did they feel the need to provide an explanation for the source of Andromeda? It worked wonderfully in the book and first movie as a mystery, just as the specifics behind the resolution were also unclear (SPOILER: No reason is given for why it mutated to become harmless). Trying to come up with such a fantastic and ridiculous sci-fi explanation cheapened the whole movie.

I also did not care for the side story of the reporter.

Also, as far as I saw no explanation was provided for why the black doctor lived other than she was exposed to a "non-lethal strain." This is an extremely important part of the book and this movie totally blew it off.

 

[Ultralight]

Originally posted by: Bibble

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
well, its over.

I really wish they had just followed the book and updated the technology. Instead they make an X-files-esque movie with no coherent storyline.

I feel cheated out of a good story.

I share your exact sentiments.

Why did they feel the need to provide an explanation for the source of Andromeda? It worked wonderfully in the book and first movie as a mystery, just as the specifics behind the resolution were also unclear (SPOILER: No reason is given for why it mutated to become harmless). Trying to come up with such a fantastic and ridiculous sci-fi explanation cheapened the whole movie.

I also did not care for the side story of the reporter.

Also, as far as I saw no explanation was provided for why the black doctor lived other than she was exposed to a "non-lethal strain." This is an extremely important part of the book and this movie totally blew it off.

Right on, both of you. As someone mentioned earlier the book and the original movie really was a race against the clock and it made for GREAT suspense. I remember seeing it in the movies and the entire crowd was into it right up until the end.

And Bibble, I thought the same thing: Why the need for an explanation on Andromeda??? The original story gives great reasonning

Now let's count the cliches in this new one:

1. Intrepid reporter who is in trouble with his boss because of bad behavior/poor life choices but he has a "killer" lead so the boss gives him three days.

2. The General who knows more then he is letting on because he is cahoots with evil Corporate America.

3. Government assassins killing the intrepid reporter's source.

4. Our U.S. forces "used" to carry out neferious plans.

* How many times have we seen these cliches?

Check out the 1995 movie Outbreak. Now that I think about it it certainly borrowed from Andromeda but in a California kind of way. And Donald Sutherland played an evil Major General...

 

[maddogchen]

Hot female F-16 pilot there....

 

[AndrewR]

I thought it was ok until the end. There were some stupid plot twists that were just unbearably moronic. The redundant-and-failsafe lab has a simple interface for shutting down the NUCLEAR DEVICE that can be destroyed with one small jab with a cart? I won't even bother listing others -- it was just disappointing. I'm surprised they didn't have to cut out an eyeball for a retinal scan like in Demolition Man. Oh, and HELLUVA throw straight up from a seated position!

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: Ultralight

Originally posted by: Bibble

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
well, its over.

I really wish they had just followed the book and updated the technology. Instead they make an X-files-esque movie with no coherent storyline.

I feel cheated out of a good story.

I share your exact sentiments.

Why did they feel the need to provide an explanation for the source of Andromeda? It worked wonderfully in the book and first movie as a mystery, just as the specifics behind the resolution were also unclear (SPOILER: No reason is given for why it mutated to become harmless). Trying to come up with such a fantastic and ridiculous sci-fi explanation cheapened the whole movie.

I also did not care for the side story of the reporter.

Also, as far as I saw no explanation was provided for why the black doctor lived other than she was exposed to a "non-lethal strain." This is an extremely important part of the book and this movie totally blew it off.

Right on, both of you. As someone mentioned earlier the book and the original movie really was a race against the clock and it made for GREAT suspense. I remember seeing it in the movies and the entire crowd was into it right up until the end.

And Bibble, I thought the same thing: Why the need for an explanation on Andromeda??? The original story gives great reasonning

Now let's count the cliches in this new one:

1. Intrepid reporter who is in trouble with his boss because of bad behavior/poor life choices but he has a "killer" lead so the boss gives him three days.

2. The General who knows more then he is letting on because he is cahoots with evil Corporate America.

3. Government assassins killing the intrepid reporter's source.

4. Our U.S. forces "used" to carry out neferious plans.

* How many times have we seen these cliches?

Check out the 1995 movie Outbreak. Now that I think about it it certainly borrowed from Andromeda but in a California kind of way. And Donald Sutherland played an evil Major General...

its certainly not hard to nit-pick this movie.

If I remember correctly, Stone already knew about Project Scoop. Scoop was just to randomly gather samples from the upper boundary layer of our atmosphere.

Andromeda mutated so rapidly probably because of being in a new environment and reproducing by the billions. There's bound to be mutations at that point.

People have chided Chriton's ending as anti-climatic, but it does follow the logic of the story. This version has no logic.

Manchek only had a minor role in the book.

Yes, the book discussed the possibility of alien life, but only as a form of first contact and only on a microbial level. Andromeda evolved on Earth and ascended to the upper atmosphere and adapted to its new environment.

Wildfire itself was a top secret facility and would not have been broadcast on the news.

the list goes on and on.

 

[everman]

They really re-wrote the whole thing, not much similarity to the book or original movie. It was good for a TV movie in itself.

 

[d33pt]

can't believe i just wasted 4 hours of my life. what a way to butcher the book..

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: d33pt
can't believe i just wasted 4 hours of my life. what a way to butcher the book..

I had the same feeling. I'm not getting any younger.

 

[dawp]

I could have done with out the conspiracy theory, and when nash was in the inflatable hut after he was capture, the inflatable door closed with a thud.

 

[0roo0roo]

bad bad bad dialog. its like theres one character talking from different bodies.
and the way they visualized it as a fog...kinda lame looking.

 

[DrPizza]

Thank you! I considered watching it, then realized that it meant dedicating 4 hours of my evening to it. Would it be worth it, I wondered?

Total television viewing for me: "Simpsons Did It" episode on Southpark, then I went outside and toasted marshmellows on the campfire, had a beer, and gazed at the stars.

And now I know I won't be compelled to waste 3 hours watching a recording of the show.

 

[Kev]

.

 

[Joemonkey]

I didn't think it was THAT bad, and I'm a huge fan of the book. They sensationized it and made it modern, which means no one expects this to be a modern classic. The firefight against the birds was fucking great.

 

[eplebnista]

I didn't like it. Too many changes to the original story. :thumbsdown:

 

[thecoolnessrune]

I liked it alot. But I never read the original so I was able to simple watch it for what it is instead of comparing it.

 

[dr150]

Originally posted by: d33pt
can't believe i just wasted 4 hours of my life. what a way to butcher the book..

The only thing in common with the book is the title.

 

[AnthroAndStargate]

Originally posted by: dawp
I could have done with out the conspiracy theory, and when nash was in the inflatable hut after he was capture, the inflatable door closed with a thud.

You know in a situation like that Dick Cheney would be ordering the exact same nonsense.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Darn. No cable, else I would. I hope I can get it via torrent.

 

[screwd01]

thank goodness i don't read because I enjoyed it

 

[TitanDiddly]

Watched the 60s version tonight. Great stuff. We'll see how the new stuff measures up this weekend.