Talk:A for Andromeda

Untitled
There seem to be a few plotholes in the (new) version - for example the Andromeda program was able to access the Web, but did not copy itself thereto (failing to make backup copies is a common weakness of sentient computers. Given that the Andromeda program came from a culture that was probably defunct by the time it was picked up by Earth/other cultures at an equivalent level, and seemingly wished to contribute to genetic developments/create a hybrid development, why not aid the existing population, rather than destroy it?

21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a mention of the fact that this book was written as (or perhaps just turned out to be) an allegory for how genes work? This is mentioned in 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins (sorry, don't have a copy here to check the page no.).

2006 BBC4 Version on DVD
I really enjoyed this movie for the, what I believe to be, highly relevant questions it asked and also incited me to ask. I'd really like to get ahold of a copy of it so I could share it with friends and family. Does anyone know if it will be coming out on DVD or even what BBC4 usually does with their film productions? Thank you in advance for any help here. -- ZDavies 03:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't there a novel as well?
The article should start with a description of the book the series was based on, since there is no separate article for that. 12.107.67.3 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Have added a section on the 1962 book . Lumos3 11:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The TV serial was not based on the novel. The TV production came first in 1961; the novel, which is faithful to the TV serial, was not published until 1962. Archzog 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack found?
According to the article, "After the release of this DVD, a home recording of the final episode soundtrack including the introductory preamble (missing from episode six) was returned to the BBC.". Is this true? Can someone provide a source? I've checked all the usual spots; missing-episodes.com, mausoleum club etc. and can't find anything. - Joe King 14:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is in hand - I already have enquiries on 'Missing Episodes' and 'Restoration Forum' - I suspect it will be a rumour ! Archzog 14:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I've kept the statement with tags attached. If no one can come up with a source, I'll delete it from the main article in a few days. Joe King 19:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I notice from this thread on the Doctor Who Restoration Team forum, that the story appears to be true. For record keeping purposes, I'm copying the relevant post into this talkpage as the RT forum periodically deletes old threads:


 * Shame that, as a posting on an internet forum, it's not enough to meet the requirements of WP:SOURCE; still maybe the news will be reported elsewhere. We can leave the tag up until then.
 * - Joe King 19:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
There really should be a Spoiler Warning at the top as the article contains a complete and detailed plot synopsis.

You state 'the tapes were wiped'; can you cite an authority for that ? I ask because as far as I know it was never on VT, only on 35mm and 16mm film.

I think you have lost the point about the breadth of the plot (ie being more than a simple sci-fi tale, and being set in the real 'political' world) by leaving it spread throughout plot synopsis.

Admittedly you do reference Andrew Pixley, but in refering to his viewing notes thirty-eight times I do wonder if there are potential copyright issues here. Archzog 20:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not Wikipedia policy to include a spoiler warning with article plot summaries: see WP:SPOILER for more information.
 * Good point about the tapes - you're absolutely right. I've made a small change that rectifies that.
 * I'm not 100% happy with the plot summary myself; I think it's very bitty. However your point that "you have lost the point about the breadth of the plot (ie being more than a simple sci-fi tale, and being set in the real 'political' world) by leaving it spread throughout plot synopsis" borders on WP:OR to me. There's also nothing "simple" about the SF in A for Andromeda (at least taken in the context of the time it was broadcast) whereas the "politics" of the serial are juvenile in the extreme - evidenced by the fact that The Andromeda Breakthrough was a total flop because it ditched the SF in favour of a dull political thriller.
 * I still have more edits, mainly to the remakes which will broaden things out from the production notes. In any case, what's referenced here accounts for only a fraction of the detail contained in that book.
 * -Joe King 23:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Several points:

You have 'dropped in' this re-write, which is a fairly major expansion on what was there before, without notice, or discussing the need for it here first while in the meantime several others have been slowly developing the original; their thoughts might have been invited, as a courtesy.

That said ...

I think the new version is now so detailed that it is in great danger of becoming self-defeating in that an enquirer is likely to be put off by the wealth of detail, and not bother wading through it. Would it not be better to keep a short article with basic detail (on the lines of the remaining entries for 1971-RAI and 2006-BBC) and link to more expansive detail on other pages ? I would certainly do that for the plot synopsis.

Absolutely true that AB flopped for lack of (and very late start of ) SF, but good SF content wasn't the only factor that made A4A a success. I did not intend to imply that the SF plot itself is simple, but rather the story isn't simply an SF story. I think the breadth of plot is a fact and that that is clearly evident simply from the cast list, viz. Fleming; (& upwards) his boss Reinhart, a Professor; his boss Osborne, a Whitehall civil servant; his boss, the Minister of Science; his boss, the Prime Minister; and then (downwards) the competing Department of Defence - the Minister; the MOD site director, Geers and his security man, Quadring: additionally; national security in Air Cmdr Watling; the US/NATO presence in Gen.Vandenburgh; and the industrial dimension in Kaufman. This aspect has been pointed out before (eg. a letter to editor in The Listener c.1990). Moreover, the Cold War was an issue of public concern at the time, and (quite apart form the whole interceptor plot which is pure Cold War/Space Race) there are Cold War references within the script, not least very topically, to the Berlin Wall going up; PM: "...and Berlin in 1961"; a mere three months later that line was distinctly chilling I remember.

The year before was the U2 spyplane incident, that year the first man in space (USSR), the Bay of Pigs and the Berlin Wall; I seriously disagree with your statement that the politics of the serial were juvenile.

I approve of ...

Your inclusion of the viewing figures, but I would be inclined to put them at the beginning; they are good basic information, and they go to showing the importance of this serial in TV SF; they shouldn't be buried within a morass of detail.

Your inclusion of Writer(s) in the infobox, (... but (on all the credits I've seen) Michael Hayes was never credited as 'Director' (no one was). Whilst he clearly filled that role I think the infobox should stick to what was published (Was a director credited in Radio Times ?)) Archzog 09:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dave, I could just as equally ask why you didn't discuss your changes on the talkpage before making edits. It is perhaps unfortunate that we both decided to turn our attention to this article on almost exactly the same day. Before that, according to the history, this article has barely been touched by any editor for some months. Hence my reasonable assumption that no one was paying any attention to improving this article. This point of view is also backed up by the fact that our discussion takes up over half the entire talk page. I would also point out that, as it says at the foot of the edit page, one should not make contributions to Wikipedia unless one is prepared to see one's contributions mercilessly edited by other users. In this respect see also WP:BOLD.


 * Regarding the level of detail, there may be some room to make cuts; however, I would point out that we could enjoy the best of both worlds and have both a detailed article and "a short article with basic detail" by working on the lede section per WP:LEDE - I usually leave that to last since the lede should be a succint summary of the body of the article. I would also point out that the article is split into logical sections along the lines of the article layout guidelines at WP:TV and with a table of contents that can guide people to specific areas of interest if they have no interest in digesting the entire article. Personally, I see Wikipedia as an important tool in making information freely available to the masses; in this respect, with an absolute dearth of information of the web about A4A, I think that providing a modicum of detail is reasonable. One of my main motivations for contributing to Wikipedia is that there is very little you can key into Google without the Wikipedia article coming first or second in any search result (a cynic like me might say that Wikipedia is a means of providing free labour for Google but that's off topic for this conversation). As a result I feel strongly that anyone who visits with interests similar to mine should be presented with a fairly detailed, well researched and, most importantly, well referenced article. I think the rewrite meets all of these criteria.


 * I've clarified the inclusion of Michael Hayes in the "director" field of the infobox by adding "uncredited" in brackets after his name. Since the purpose of the infobox is to provide very brief summary detail of the programme in question, I think for a casual visitor, who may not want to read the whole article, the exclusion of the director would be confusing.


 * By the way, if you want to reply to this, don't be offended if you don't get a reply for a while; I'm away on my hols from tomorrow and will be away from Wikipedia until July. All the best. - Joe King 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not discuss my changes because they were minor improvments and refinements to an existing article (and I gave details in the edit boxes). From the size of your rewrite you must have been preparing it for some time, and notice of your intent would have been courteous. I shall take no more part in the development of this article, beyond now expressing the view that as it stands now it is now considerably over-detailed in places [and over referenced ;-)] and requires considerable editing. Archzog 12:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive status
I'd like to suggest a gentle overhaul of the archive status section of the article. Firstly, AFAIK, no moving footage from episode 3 exists - the Points of View extract was for many years thought to be from ep 3 (my 1995 Kaleidoscope Drama Guide lists it as such) due to incorrect documentation, but it's actually from episode 1. Also it's a telerecording of a telerecording and hence poor quality, though this might be a bit "anal" for the article itself ;-) Secondly, the extracts from episode 2 are exclusively the surviving 35mm film inserts I believe, and I think this is worth noting explicitly but prepared to discuss if others disagree.  Also the footage from episode 7 is about fifteen minutes (very possibly one of the original broadcast spools: it is apparently a pristine 35mm negative) and far more than "a few clips" and I think we should note this as well.  Thoughts everyone?

Dominic Jackson 21:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aforandromeda.jpg
Image:Aforandromeda.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

nice article
But I don't see how the article covers the book. It looks like instead it covers the a tv show with a book as a mention. I've deleted the Novel Project boxJask99 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's because the work was originally made as a TV serial and only subsequently novelised. There is certainly scope for a separate article about the book to be created: my SF Group reading circle is discussing it (and possibly its sequel) in September, so I might suggest we expand our efforts to create a new Wiki-article. No promises, though. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The 'creature' Andromeda
The plot summary doesn't make it clear that Andromeda is a beautiful young woman, or a very good simulacrum of one. This is relevant, as it makes people less inclined to destroy her even when her purpose is becoming evident, and it enables her to charm various (male) politicians and administrators. If no-one objects, I'll revise the text slightly. PhilUK (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a BBC DVD of this series which includes a lot more material than one would expect from reading the article. Caitlynmaire (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on A for Andromeda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929105134/http://www.btinternet.com/~m.brown1/andnews.htm to http://www.btinternet.com/~m.brown1/andnews.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A Third Opinion was requested, but there has been no recent discussion here. Third Opinion follows discussion at a talk page. If there is a question, discuss it first before going to Third Opinion, which would be a First Opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A for Andromeda. 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/20070723060415/http://case.glam.ac.uk/CASE/StaffPages/MartinGriffiths/MGPubs/SETi_SF_ET.pdf to http://case.glam.ac.uk/CASE/StaffPages/MartinGriffiths/MGPubs/SETi_SF_ET.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrong Geoffrey Lewis Linked
Not a biggie, but I believe the "Geoffrey Lewis" the cast list refers to is not the American actor who appeared in many Clint Eastwood movies, but the Dudley-born British actor. Indieshack (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)