Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

Andromeda And Mutant X Cancelled 442

dmehus writes "Science fiction fans may be dismayed to learn that "Mutant X" and "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda" have been cancelled, despite the fact "Andromeda" had been cleared for a final season beginning in the fall. That prospect seems highly unlikely as the show's producer, Fireworks Entertainment, is shutting its doors for good and owner CanWest Global Communications (which also owns canada.com, the National Post, Global Television, and a bunch of other media assets) announced it will take a $159 million writedown on Fireworks. The news means "Mutant X" has a series total of three seasons and 66 episodes, while "Andromeda" will have a series total of 88 episodes in four seasons. Slashdot has previously covered 'Andromeda'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Andromeda And Mutant X Cancelled

Comments Filter:
  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:39AM (#8994103)
    In TV-land, 100 is a magic number for a weekly series. When you hit 100 episodes, you have enough episodes to go 5-a-week and last 20 weeks without a repeat. That's good enough to survive on cable or syndication with a nearly infinite life. Lesser series have done it, but you've gotta be really deep to not risk burn-out.

    So, Andromida stopping at 88 is kinda an ugly number to get caught at. Sci-Fi might have an interest in funding a series-ending run of about 13 episodes to run as an exclusive event, and therefore give the show some life in daily reruns. 88 with an abrupt-stop ending just isn't that valuable for reruns in comparision.

    Of course, that depends on Sci-Fi being able to see the value in rerun rights. If the library of Fireworks assets including the 88 existing episodes get sold to a party that's not interested in letting Sci-Fi have the show on a 5-a-week daytime basis at a reasonable price... then there's no point in doing the deal.

    The Sci-Fi saves the show thread is a longshot, but it could happen so it can't be ignored. The show's not dead yet, but it's taken a usually-fatal blow.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:49AM (#8994149)
    Hmm my sentiments exactly. I got into Andromeda first, liked the first season dvd's immensely, then got introduced to firefly and now Andromeda just seems... tired, or tiresome.

    In anycase I've bought all the Andromeda dvd's.
    The most recent one that came out was 3.4 though, so how do you get access to season 4 dvds??

  • Re:88? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:57AM (#8994177) Homepage Journal
    You're thinking of the space battles. There were only about 4 space battles that were rendered and the rest a remixes with the same 3D graphics. There were some "girl of the week" episodes that hardly had any space battles. But it is a worry that a show only as tenth as good as DS9 could go on for half as long.
  • Re:And yet... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:58AM (#8994182)
    Enterprise keeps getting renewed because UPN needs something, anything, with the Star Trek brand in order to hold the network together. UPN is a constant sixth who sometimes risks falling to seventh behind Spanish-language Univision. It's main problem is any time Paramount has a good show, sister network CBS grabs it. Having to eat CBS's leftovers, and then having its backbone major-city affiliates also being treated as CBS's little sister just is no way to run a network.
  • by ericdano ( 113424 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:58AM (#8994185) Homepage
    Hence why a lot of good ANIME scifi is out there. Sol Bianca, Lost Universe, Captain Tyler, Macross, etc, etc.

    It's sad, but Enterprise just blows. Andromeda was way better I thought.

  • by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:02AM (#8994198) Homepage Journal
    And Andromeda...starts out with this gimmick of a holographic hot chick representing the ship (sort of a video version of Star Trek's talking female ship voice). Then they drop all pretense and somehow she becomes a walking talking hologram. And then later, I'm not sure, but did she end up turning into a real girl somehow?
    There are three distinct versions. A screen-only, all-business personality. A cynical hologram. And a modified "we robots don't have emotions and sometimes that makes me really sad" robot. It is to Lexa Doig's credit that she unflinchingly maintained these three distinct versions of the same character through all the bad scripts and questionable editing.
  • by JoeShmoe ( 90109 ) <askjoeshmoe@hotmail.com> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:15AM (#8994234)
    Thank you for clearing that up...not that it really matters but...I really question the direction and general quality of a show when major plot points are subject to such huge revisions. Case in point...

    Enterprise was sold on the principle of a "simpler, earlier Trek". Remember the exolinguist Hoshi? Remember the struggle to communicate? Wasn't that supposed to be a major theme of the series? It took precisely five episodes for the show to go from "omg omg omg the computer will take six hours to translate this so we know if this alien is hostile" to "I'm Captain Archer onboard an alien prison ship but apparently everyone speaks English or the Universal Translator is now small enough to fit invisibly in my ear". Enterprise has pretty much thrown out everything it was based on, giving us episodes involving time plots and DeathStars more complicated that anything from the other so-called advanced series.

    Back to Andromeda...I gave it a try or two for the first half season or so then promptly forgot about it. A couple years later when I revisited it during a bout of insomnia, I remember thinking that absolutely nothing was the same. The angry fend for himself bounty hunter was somehoe like the chief ship security officer, the pacifist preacher was doing some kind of ninja kung fu, and the hologram of the ship was somehow walking around and trying to get laid. Or something like that. Anyway, I got the sense that the series had probably been through two or three shark jumps and flipped back to Cheers reruns for the 10000th time.

    - JoeShmoe
    .
  • by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:16AM (#8994236) Homepage Journal
    Hmm my sentiments exactly. I got into Andromeda first, liked the first season dvd's immensely, then got introduced to firefly and now Andromeda just seems... tired, or tiresome.
    Snap. I'm almost ashamed to have the Firefly box set in the same media tower as Andromeda.
    In anycase I've bought all the Andromeda dvd's. The most recent one that came out was 3.4 though, so how do you get access to season 4 dvds??
    Apparently Australia has been getting DVDs the fastest. Might have something to do with the fact that no free-to-air station will touch it. I think cable hasn't even started showing season four here.
  • Shows have survived in syndication with less. There were, if I remember right, 79 episodes of Star Trek (plus the original pilot, which remained unaired til the mid-1990s, although it was released on video around 1984-85) when it went into syndication.
    That said - the original Star Trek was a good series. I've seen some Andromeda, and while it looked okay and had the occasional interesting moment (not to mention some impressive visuals and sets - I remember seeing a giant observation deck with a diplomatic function going on), it never hooked me. Probably part of it was that I can't stand Kevin Sorbo - although DeepWater Black's Gordon Michael Wolvett was a welcome addition to the cast, and Lexa Doig is reasonably easy on the eye.

    No offence to those who like Andromeda, but I think it's about time people stopped cashing in on Gene Roddenberry's name just to get ratings. (modern Trek's high point was DS9 - since then, it's just been flogging a dead franchise!)

    DISCLAIMER: The above views of TV shows are just my opinion. Yours may vary. Remember, opinions are like assholes - kindly stop shoving yours in my face ;-)
  • by sTalking_Goat ( 670565 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:19AM (#8994245) Homepage
    "Mutant X" has a series total of three seasons and 66 episodes

    That's 67 episodes (I'm fining them an extra one...) too many as far as I'm concerned. Andromeda was just barely watchable and only because I of Keith Hamilton Cobb's (Tyr Anasazi) overacting while he was still there. I tuned in to see just how much he would ham it up this week.

    Mutant X on the other hand was unexcusably horrible on all levels.

    Sci-Fi Channel must be kicking themselves in the ass. The passed on Firefly to get a show whose studio goes belly-up before they even air an original episode.

  • by sTalking_Goat ( 670565 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:25AM (#8994257) Homepage
    Not saying I know when it jumped the shark

    One good (bad) thing I can say about Andromeda is that it excelled at shark jumping. Too many characters for one thing. While some shows can make that work (Firefly) Andromeda didn't seem to have the budget (or the writing talent) to have all the characvters in each episode. Also whats the point of having a ship staffed by thousands if 6 and an AI can do the job just as well. I could go on and on, but I'd rather go to bed...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:44AM (#8994308)
    Anything seen to be on the fringe or where the freak and geeks reside tend to present the same statistics, regardless of a number of factors. In their eyes, why kill yourself to produce a higher-level quality which won't produce a product which will return the expected revenue.

    When the shows are signed & the first few episodes are in the can, the executives have a pretty good sense (or so they say - and what's not to say they're predisposed to certain shows and establishing their own ratings?) regarding which shows will suck and be replaced by the first sweeps (November) and which will do okay, particularly if they've got a show runner. They do, however give the shows a chance.

    One noticeable show to climb out of the predetermined pit of doom? CSI. The suits were totally baffled by this.
  • make that 3.5 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Rizz ( 1319 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:53AM (#8994336)
    Stargate is pretty much guaranteed to run its whole plot out without getting cancelled (since there's only 1 season left, and production is already a good deal underway). Unfortunately, the later seasons' plotlines aren't as good as the earler ones... but at least it's another to add to the list.

    Also, there is ReBoot ... well, sorta. They finished off the story started in season 2 when they were picked up (nearly 5 years later) for season 3. Then a few years later they got the greenlight to do new episodes and started a new major plot ... just in time to get cancelled mid-plotline yet again!
    However, it is animated so it may not count in this list, anyway.
  • Its still running? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OriginalChops ( 773524 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:20AM (#8994411)
    You know that momnet in time where you switch the TV on and it shows you something on the channel you left it, just before you decide to change channels?

    Well, thats probably all the entertainment i got out of Andromida after the first episode. The quote "Did you see the size of him? He looks like some ancient Greek God or something!" did it for me...

    Did any of you manage to see "John Doe"? Now that I was sad to see canseled. And canselation of Firefly should be considered an act of treason, any an all people involved in that decision should be procecuted to the full extent of the law in all countries Firefly was shown.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:38AM (#8994469)
    If all today's sci-fi is so bad, what shows are worth watching?
    I've started to watch Andromeda just now, I've heard that Lexx is a kick-ass show. Ofcurse I fell in love with Farscape.
    SO... Farscape will have 4 more episodes, Andromeda in cancelled and I don't now about Lexx.

    What is worth watching which still is in production?
  • by mrshowtime ( 562809 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:48AM (#8994493)
    Really, Mutant X was beyond horrid and Andromeda had some good moments, but both were shitty in just about every aspect. But, this brings up an interesting topic; what is left to watch that is "Sci-Fi?" Stargate? Enterprise? What else? I am so beyond glad that the best Sci-fi show EVER is coming back, Dr. Who of course!
  • Scifi? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mukaikubo ( 724906 ) <gtg430b@pris m . g atech.edu> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @06:49AM (#8994635) Journal
    The SciFi channel is in a "Oh my God, you want us to SPEND MONEY on PRODUCTION!?" phase. They kinda forgot the spending money part of "You have to spend money to make money" proposition... Witness, Farscape, and only funding a measly 4 extra episodes after the biggest fan backlash in history against them, and every company that advertises with them.
  • by JackJudge ( 679488 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @07:12AM (#8994700) Journal
    I wouldn't include B5 in that list, the original 5 year arc was truncated to 4 then at the last minute got it's fifth and final year, when JMS had so obviously run out of steam.
    Even though there wasn't much of an overall arc I guess TNG went through it's natural lifespan, likewise DS9.
    Buffy and to a degree Angel both got to live out their natural lives, but I agree, investing your time and commitment to an SF show these days seems to be doomed to failure these days. Even now I still have trouble getting my head around Farscape's cancellation, Firefly I could sort of understand from the studio's POV, though losing the Serenity crew was, surprisingly, a worse shock to the system.
  • Re:And yet... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @07:34AM (#8994777) Homepage Journal
    Enterprise gets picked up for another season.

    Isn't it obvious? GOOD SF doesn't sell. Cheap commercialized tripe does.


    Did you just call Andromeda and Mutant X good sci-fi?

    Andromeda has spaceships making race car noises, and Mutant X had its Xavier-wannabe use communication satellites to download the DNA needed to stop an epidemic in mutants!

    Not that I'm defending Enterprise, I think Rick Berman should be stoned to death, but Andromeda? Mutant X? Good riddance!
  • Finally (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Snaller ( 147050 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @08:28AM (#8995042) Journal
    Now perhaps we'll get to see Lexa Doig (Rommie) on Stargate SG1, she's married to Michael Shanks who plays Dr. Jackson on that show - (damn him) - he's done a guest show on Andromeda, so there was talk about her doing the opposite.
  • What about Jeremiah? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by The_Whole_Fn_Show ( 767848 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @09:53AM (#8995647)
    First off, I refuse to call Mutant X "sci fi", b/c that's insulting to all of the great sci fi shows that exist(ed). Andromeda was more like VIP, if I didn't feel like thinking (at all) for an hour, I could handle it, but you were never going to see anything worth mentioning.

    I've never seen Firefly, as watching 2 minutes of Dark Angel had me convinced that the big four networks were incapable of putting out any good sci fi. If it's as good as everyone says, I may have to check it out.

    B5 was pretty good, and I'm already sad over the impending end of SG-1 (especially if they screw up Atlantis, which I have a feeling they will), but I was rather suprised to see the end of Jeremiah.

    Granted, they covered in one season what I thought should have been at least a 3 season arc, and then kind of lost their way, but it was a far superior show to either Mutant X or Andromeda. It was a rather dark show w/ interesting characters. I thought that Perry and Warner were very good, especially considering the cheezy crap that they've worked on previously. And almost every episode has at least one cool moment (Perry laying on the gas filling the semi trailer w/ exhaust to try to kill some punks, Astin talking a guy into grenading himself and his thugs, etc.). The only entertaining moment from Mutant X was from an early episode when Vicky Pratt was fighting w/ someone. They zoomed in on a kick she threw, but only showed a close up of her ass. I laughed about that for quite some time.

    I wish they'd bring back shows like Jeremiah, Family Guy, Futurama, Farscape (though I didn't get into it until nearly the end) for starters. Shows like Andromeda or Mutant X should go the way of Odyssey 5, dead and stay that way.
  • Re:DS9...Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Chalybeous ( 728116 ) <chalybeous@@@yahoo...co...uk> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @10:40AM (#8996121) Homepage Journal
    No, I'm calling it the high point of modern (post-1987, non-theatrical) Trek. Sure, like any show, it had trash and treasure - but it also had some well-made, thoughtful episodes, a reasonably good Dominion War arc, and the lovingly produced 30th anniversary special, "Trials and Tribbleations". Remember, even TOS had "Spock's Brain" - and weighing it up on my favourite episodes, it outshines TNG, Voyager and Enterprise. Of course, DS9 will never be as good as classic Trek...

    It's not the best TV scifi ever made, but it beats the pants off Voyager!
    (The best recent scifi are the three Fs - Farscape, Firefly and Futurama!)
  • There's a lot of stuff in Roddenberry's notes, and I acknowledge that Andromeda was drawn from there. But basically, the Andromeda we have now was made from those notes and updated by other people, and Gene's name was only used as a crowd-puller (i.e. brand recognition for Trekkies).

    All I'm saying is, Gene's been dead for over a decade. Isn't it about time TV stopped making shows from his thirty year-old rough drafts? Strikes me as a combination of authorised plagarism (his widow and son are involved in it) and grave robbery...
  • Re:Bah! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Glytch ( 4881 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:39AM (#8996803)
    Sounds like you're talking about Lexx. What a great show. Cheesy as hell CGI, but I love a show that can out-weird anything else on TV.
  • Ripoff... yes... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Raptor CK ( 10482 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:56AM (#8997000) Journal
    In fact, it was such a ripoff that they even had Marvel slap their name on it!

    As I recall, the reasoning behind Mutant X was that Marvel has some agreement with Fox regarding any X-Men TV series, but they weren't getting anywhere, so they scrambled to get *some* mutant-related show on the air with any other network.

    Mutant X is basically just X-Men tweaked to the point where isn't legally X-Men, and can therefore be aired on UPN. Of course it's crap, but I doubt it can be called a ripoff when it's done by the same people. Unoriginal, sure. Derivative, certainly. Ripoff? Not so much.

  • by Watts Martin ( 3616 ) <layotl&gmail,com> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @01:45PM (#8998298) Homepage
    I got the sense that the series had probably been through two or three shark jumps...

    Yes. The show was never great television, but really, the first season had more promise than I think people like to give it credit for. The show's head writer (and the real creator, despite the Roddenberry name), Robert Hewitt Wolfe, was floundering toward a long story arc with a dark, complex background. The first season had perhaps too much of a penchant for visiting old Trek tropes, but it frequently found rather clever, interesting takes on them -- no tractor beams, but Buckytube tow cables; no transporter technology, and an episode with the engineer trying to invent it, blowing up watermelons as he tried to send them from one side of the room to the other. The writing was uneven but when it was good, it was, well, good. The universe got more complex the more we saw of it, and it was clear Wolfe had a direction he wanted to go in, an epic story he wanted to tell over several seasons.

    Then, halfway through the second season, the producers -- notably Sorbo himself -- decided that Wolfe was asking viewers to think too much. Really. IIRC, I'm not paraphrasing by very much. Wolfe got the boot and the show just veered right off into the twilight zone. I watched about ten minutes of a new episode a month ago, and it clearly wasn't even a related show to the first season.

    It may have always been cheese, but in the beginning it had aspirations to be Blue Stilton. It ended up as day-old nacho sauce.

  • by Creepy ( 93888 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:28PM (#8998926) Journal
    I agree on Robotech - too much action for network TV and probably even cable TV (outside companies willing to risk big $$ like HBO, but that doesn't really fit their core audience). The biggest obstacle to good sci-fi on network TV, though, is that the networks are moving almost completely to sitcoms and reality TV to cut expense. I wouldn't be surprised if that eventually backfires and they lose share to cable, but I haven't seen any slowdown in popularity yet. Even cable is jumping on that bandwagon... maybe in 10 years, the ONLY things to watch will be reality, sitcom, crime drama, or sports. I imagine I'd throw my TV out around then.

    The other thing I hate about network TV is their consistent unbelievable science in sci-fi and characters that are basically untouchable. Dark Angel jumping through a pane of inch-thick glass, falling 4 stories and running away uninjured, for instance. Genetically engineered or not, she's gonna get sliced up and probably break her legs in that fall. Then there's dodging pretty much every bullet... *groan*
    Execs should watch Alias to know how to create this kind of character right. She's not invincible, but is superhuman in some ways (and this is explained in a realistic way - a cold war CIA project designed to create superspies), has flaws, shows fear, and yet still succeeds in most (but not all) missions. Missions that fail? That's so refreshing to see in any show. I was also happy to see a Cold Case show that didn't produce enough evidence to pin the murderer as well. Maybe networks are waking up to reality - we don't always win every battle.

    My biggest peeve with sci-fi, though is the 20th century medicine in shows like Star Trek and even the new Battlestar Galactica, though. If you can build a spaceship that big, you probably have the med-tech to cure cancer and revive the dead for several minutes - heck, they probably could convert entire body structures. Hmm... today, I think I'll be a Trellian...

    To be honest, I actually didn't think the Tick worked well in either live action or cartoon form, probably because it didn't fit the genre. Both had funny moments, but not the laugh-until-you-wet-your-pants moments from the comic book. The live action shows biggest fault was that it was paced too slow. The cartoon had to make sacrifices for its audience and took away too much of the adult humor.

    I thought TMNT (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) worked much better in both comic and live action, and I'm not really a fan of that series (aside from the first couple of gore-fest comic books). It's probably because it meets people's expectations (superhero=action heavy) and was already dumbed down in the comic book when the writers found they were getting more pre-teen fans/interest than adult spoof audience fans/interest.

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Working...