Talk:The Andromeda Strain

Odd Man Hypothesis

I am sure that, in the book, each character is actually tested for reliability, rather than their "score" being extrapolated from different groups of people as described here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.32.84 (talk • contribs) 4 March 2006

The discussion of variance impacting the protocol was well-stated. However, at the risk of being facetious, I wanted to point out that Marion Jones doesn't run faster than most men because of any naturally-occurring variance; rather, it's because of the many, many steroid injections she's given herself. --35th and Shields 03:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the book had each character tested, but had also scores for larger groups, such as married men, unmarried men, women, single male scientists etc. --Soyweiser 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

The PoV in this article is so horribly blatant ... and I haven't even read the book. --ZBrisk 23:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Alkatolic?

I'm sorry, but the baby was basic, not Alkatolic. There is no such word. Not as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.134.110 (talk • contribs) 1 October 2006

It's the word Michael Crichton used in his novel. See Chapter 27. Scientific and technical words are often not found in popular dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster, Oxford, etc. —Quicksilver^{T @} 04:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the word used in the novel is "alkalotic", not "alkatolic" Mathnerd314 23:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Alkalosis, when pH of the blood exceeds 7.45 — the main cause of respiratory alkalosis is hyperventilation

WurmWoode^T 21:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong thing discussed in article

It is clear from the article that the contributors have been discussing The Andromeda Strain (film), not The Andromeda Strain (book). The article makes references to character names and events that only took place in the motion picture. These references need to be clarified, corrected or removed. —Quicksilver^{T @} 05:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Does not make sense

There are a couple of things that do not make sense in the article.

"At the end of the movie "The Andromeda Strain" floats over the Pacific Ocean and is carried by artificaly seeded rain into the sea where the ocean salts will destroy it. The last movie teaser shows the "Strain" dissolving into computer numbers which stop at "601"-a computer number which tells too much information at the same time."

What does it mean that the strain dissolves into computer numbers? Also, how does "601" give too much information.

"...Andromeda has mutated into a form that no longer turns blood to powder. It degrades rubber gaskets..." "An epilogue to the novel reveals that a spacecraft has burned up on reentry as its polymer-based heat shielding had failed. All spaceflight attempts will be discontinued until further notice. This suggests that the Andromeda organism had been aimed at Earth to curtail any attempts to explore space."

The strain did not mutate until it was brought down to Earth, so the effect that it had on the spacecraft (attacking polymers) could not have been predicted by the aliens that supposedly sent it to Earth. Also, polymers are not necessary for the outside of a spacecraft. If spacecraft were covered with a non-polymer material, they would be unaffected. -- Kjkolb 08:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"601" is an error code. The movie implies that it means "memory overflow". At the time the novel was written, computer memory was expensive and scarce, and it was common for computers to signal errors by means of a short numeric code to save memory; the operator would look up the code in a printed list of error codes to interpret its meaning. We're not told what the computer numbers mean as Andromeda dissipates. They could represent structural variations of the original organism, population estimates, or any number of other things. It's a form of cinematographer's technobabble that simply looks interesting. 71.116.123.170 (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In the movie the animation at the end is distinctly different than the earlier animation of Andromeda reproducing, implying this is a *new* germ, not Andromeda. It causes the same computer error as Andromeda.Spitzak (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The epileptic scientist was female

The scientist who zoned out and missed the slide that could kill Andromeda was female.She was the team member with epilepsy. I noticed the article referred to her as male in more than one instance. 24.5.201.14 10:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Dec. 4, 2006

Only in the movie, the character was male in the book, so the article is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.120.75.6 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 December 2006 UTC

Andromeda meant to impede space flight?

Where in the book is this suggested?

As I recall the Andromeda strain, as put in the book, was an Earth organism which for some reason migrated to the upper part of the atmosphere and mutated in order to survive in that hostile environment.

Now my two cents: Even if it was the original purpose of the Andromeda strain, what if we humans didn't develop polymers and instead we developed something else? Big "D'oh!" for those aliens.

Made with recycled electrons and HTML by N. Macchiavelli 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember that from the book either, and it's original research otherwise. Tag it or remove it pending a specific source, I'd say. -- nae'blis 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In the epilogue, a manned spacecraft (Andros V)'s heat shield fails and burns up on reentry. Given Andromeda's properties, the implication is there. RahadyanS 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the implication is that Andromeda is responsible for the heat shield's failure. Nowhere in the book or film, IIRC, does it mention alien origins or intention. An interview with Crighton might prove me wrong, but again, we need a source... -- nae'blis 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure, I re-read my copy last night. You might recall that halfway in the book, a plane crashes after flying over the Piedmont area...all of her plastics just crumbled to dust before the pilot's eyes. Whatever implication, if any, might be we unleashed something we can't control. And that I feel would be more in line with Mr. Chrichton's outlook on tech.

Now, Mr. Chrichton himself could clarify this one, as Nae'blis points out. Somebody has a way to reach him?

Anyway, somebody else took notice and (i hope it was the article's author) changed the article.

Cheeri-o.... N. Macchiavelli 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no mention of aliens in the book. ☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 12:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 22 - After discovering Andromeda has no proteins, unlike all Earth organisms, they decide the origin is extra-terrestrial. Then Stone and Leavitt discuss the Messenger Theory, which speculates that advanced cultures might design organisms to communicate with life in other parts of the galaxy. 74.65.147.188 (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the hospitalized man?

There were originally 5 people to be placed on "Zed Kappa" status, what happened to Christian Kurke?

I wonder why Crichton chose to introduce a character that we would never meet?

The only influence I can think of that Kirke had would be to make the Odd Man Hypothesis amusing applied to the 4 remaining scientists' situation.

Reference these:

List of people- Ch.5 +2pages

Mention of hospitalization- Ch.5 +18pages

Character introduction- Ch.5 +19pages

-Snapizzle 18:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

His name was first mistyped in the summons, so the system put him on hold.

Then later fell down with apendicitis.

I'm speaking from memory but tonight I'll check my copy and make sure.

Hope this clears things up

Cheeri-o.... N. Macchiavelli 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirke was the first choice for what became Hall's slot. I think he's included in the book simply to illustrate that Hall wasn't really supposed to be there but saves the facility anyway.

Nah. Both of them were supposed to be there. I think Kirke is just there to give more examples of how glitchy everything is. Might as well ask why Crichton had Scoop II and III burn up on re-entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.94.161.238 (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Odd Man Hypothesis refers to the fact that an 'unmarried' man should carry out decisions involving CBW, not an 'odd' number of men. Also, it had nothing to do with the printout, as Burton and Hall were accepted. It was mentioned by personnel to Stone, and by Stone to the rest, that Kirke was in the hospital due to appendicitis. Dylan 20:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

akatolic

is a word that means blood ph is abnormally high... so basic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 35.11.246.63 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I think you meant alkalotic... ☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 13:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot is not the only element of literature out there

Sorry to blow everyone's bubble, but Michael Crichton is a talented writer. There is more to this novel than just a simple storyline. For example, Crichton shows us as readers the significantly low success rate of human intelligence, as compared to the unerring accuracy of technology (excepting, of course, by human error). This also explains the Odd Man Hypothosis, as people with less lasting relationships with others are prone to better descision making ability. After all, a computer has no human relations. However, in making these choices, they end up gaining the respect and admiration of others. Finally, the Strain itself is a symbol for, yes, life. The scientists at Wildfire try with the best of everything they know, and yet, they still never fully understood it. Just when they though that they knew all there was to know about it, the Strain mutated and they were comletely stumped once more. The parallels to how humans try to understand their lives here are amazing.

But anyhow, enough of that. Hopefully you all understand my point here.

Thanks, Anon44 20:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Point duly taken.

Anyway, I don't think anyone here has a beef with Mr. Crichton himself: as you accurately point out, he's a very talented person and a prolific writer, in a variety of fields (I myself confess to be an avid MC reader). I think he'd be very surprised to learn there's still people discussing a work almost 50 years old! What better tribute than that?

Now, about your interpretation, well, it's as good as anyone else's. Don't you think?

Cheeri-o N. Macchiavelli 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said this. Crichton points out the flaws of technology as well, like the Zed Kappa Printout (later in the book I believe there is more printouts with Ls instead of 1s). Although I still was confused on the ending. I know that the strain no longer hurt humans, but were there not any polymers in LA? Come on, plastic disintegration needs to be noticed on more then just one space reentry. Dylan 20:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Article needs to be rewritten

I haven't noticed before or maybe the scope of this talk page was changed...thing is, this talk page was not meant to host a discussion on the book BUT to discuss improvements to the article in order to bring it up to standards. So far the person who originally wrote this piece did well enough to merit a "Start" rating; still, it could use some more work. I'm planning to work on a rewrite myself but, the original author must logically take precedence if he or she is willing to do some rewriting.

Any takers??

Cheeri-o N. Macchiavelli 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Andromeda Strain (BB cover).jpg

Image:Andromeda Strain (BB cover).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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems the original uploader failed to answer to this, so for the time being it will do if the imagen is deleted. I'll go try to get another, proper one. In the meantime if anyone else gets ahold of another image please post it.

N. Macchiavelli 23:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded that image a while back before people started demanding fair use rationales, or at least enforcing them. I didn't really feel like going in and adding one, although in hindsight it probably would have taken me no more than 30 seconds. By the way, there was nothing "unproper" about that image. Just like any book cover anyone could have added a legitimate fair use rationale if they chose to before it got deleted. What's the point of searching for a new image when that one would have worked just as well? --Mad Max 04:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Still, wikipedia dudes won't replace the image. Figure they're putting off legal issues.

N. Macchiavelli 00:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

I'm curious .. I was looking at the copyright page from my copy of Andromeda Strain, and apparently the copyright belongs to "Centesis Corporation". Any idea why Crichton doesn't hold the copyright in his own name? I can't find any reference to this company, other than in reference to this novel. --68.146.238.207 17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Crichton presumably set it up for tax reasons - it appears that Centesis was quickly merged into Constant C Productions, which later went on to produce ER and so forth. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The article mentions the name "Andromeda," attributed to the organism, is not mentioned in the book or film; however, Dr. Leavitt, in the film, begins to give the reason it is so named, but she is cut off by Dr. Stone's excited reading from the teletype page.

In the book, chapter 21, Stone requests a code name from Central Codes for an extraterrestrial organism, tentatively classified as a bacterial strain. Central Codes replies with Andromeda Strain, presumably "Andromeda" because it is the closest galaxy or because starts with an A, or maybe both. 74.65.147.188 (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Standard practice with nuclear weapons tests towards the end of the underground testing era was to give the test a totally random name, so that the name could give nothing away. I suspect "Andromeda" would have been selected totally at random from a list of names in the same manner. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Burton or Dutton?

I've only seen the film, not read the book... but the one of the scientists is named Charles Dutton in the film. Can someone verify that the character is really Burton in the book as mentioned in the article? I changed the section about the movie to read "David Wayne as Dutton", I'm not sure which name would be more appropriate if the name was indeed changed for the film. All for perfection's sake, right? :) Wempain 04:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Real Life Occurance/Coincidence

perhaps we should include a link to the real life event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_%28spacecraft%29 that is remarkably similar to the circumstances of the book.

The parallels seem very weak to me. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The Colour Out of Space?

Recently at comic-con, I saw a short preview of the upcoming film based off the book, and I couldn't help but think... "didn't H. P. Lovecraft do this 80 years ago?"68.198.123.132 (talk)

There are similarities, but the stories are hardly identical. -67.171.230.129 (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Techno-thriller

While you can describe the book as science fiction, techno-thriler seems more accurate, plus it is the primary example currently given in the entry for the latter.MartinSFSA (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kalocin

Looking up the name of this fictional antibiotic is precisely what I want from such an entry; if the text is removed can this still be noted on the page? MartinSFSA (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Translations

The Norwegian translation by Hans Jacob Brinchmann is named "Døden fra rommet" (The death from space). njaard (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Mutations Do Not Work Like That

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000379.html Matthew Miller (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, when I read the ending it bugged me that it was such a lazy cop out, which totally undermined the book's reputation as "hard SciFi". Crichton's later books similarly misrepresent actual science (and in the case of State of Fear, it's possibly on purpose), and often it doesn't seem to be because of a choice of either accurate science or good narrative; a lot of it is viciously anti-scientist, if not anti-science. Rolf Schmidt (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it just underlines how feeble Crichton's understanding of science is; reference the 'science' in his other works which is equally risible if examined critically, if entertaining. Stub Mandrel (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Just How Fictional Is This?

The Acknowledgments in the novel, at least in my 1970 printed version, gives the impression that the book recounts actual events. All of the characters are real people, even with their own wikipedia entries (Jeremy Stone, for example), there is no mention whatsoever of any of the book being fiction. The author thanks real people, claims to have spoken with them all in person, even states that the transcripts of the debriefings are 20 volumes stored in Substation Seven in Arlington Hall. He even references Project Procedures Manual: Scoop (U.S. Gov't Printing Office, publication #PJS-4431). What's the real story? This is really just fiction, right? 74.65.147.188 (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

False document. Jmj713 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice, however, that the Odd Man Hypothesis research, which is the part referred to in the article as False document style, is one of the few things NOT credited in the references section, implying that the references section is not actually part of the false document style. 74.65.147.188 (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

At the front of the 2004 Avon paperback version, near the copyright data, it reads:

"This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents are products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously and are not to be construed as real. Any resemblance to actual events, locales, organizations, or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental."

I was confused and disappointed after reading that, as well. However, the entire Acknowledgements section comes after the initial "Reading the following is a federal offense" bit, which I think would make it all part of the false document premise. 76.209.31.66 (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything is fictional. Do some research if you don't believe me. 00:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by N. Macchiavelli (talk • contribs)

the animals

How did they make the Monkey twitch and convulse like it did when it was apparently exposed to a deadly virus...There was also a Rat that did the same....How did they do it...it looked too real to be fake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennywtt (talk • contribs) 09:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"How did they make the monkey die? The monkey was contained in a cage filled with normal air. The cage was then placed in a set filled with carbon dioxide (CO2). When the door to the monkey's cage was opened, the CO2 rendered the monkey unconscious for a few seconds before it was immediately resuscitated. This was all performed under the watchful eyes of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)." Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066769/faq --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible Sources/Influences

The article omits any discussion of possible source material for Crichton's novel, apparently taking it for granted that the work is entirely original. Not so. A 1957 film titled The Monolith Monsters displays some uncanny resemblances to The Andromeda Strain. Among these are an extraterrestrial invader found in the desert, silicate based, multiplying uncontrollably, whose victims turn literally stone dead upon contact with it. Orthotox (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a huge leap of imagination - I saw TMM the year it was released, have it on video, and comparisons to Crichton's story are extremely tenuous. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

why did they chose the monkeys and rats to kill ? Why not other animals ??.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.176.72 (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, ever been to a biological laboratory? Rats and mice are very common-use animals. Monkeys, as primates, are often used as test animals to see if the material tested would have an affect on Man. However, they didn't use animals "to kill" - they used them to solve a dangerous epidemic problem. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Still seems to have elements from adaptations that differ from the book

If my recollection is not off, Flatrock, Nevada, is placed in the northwest corner of Nevada in the book; the location sixty miles south of Las Vegas is from the film. Likewise, there is no mention of an indestructible biofilm in the book, only a supercolony; I'm guessing biofilm is from the miniseries adaption, which I have not seen.

It seems like some more proofreading by folks who have actually read the book recently is in order. If other editors agree with the differences I seem to remember and just mentioned, I'll go change those. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Another boner: In the book, Piedmont is located in Arizona, not New Mexico. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)