I have to agree with the invidious comparison with Battlestar Galactica. There we have speculative intelligence, seamless scripts and rounded characterisation married with high production values. A for Andromeda starts from a fascinating premise but simply failed to convince dramatically.
David Roden, Bristol

Over-publicised and hugely disappointing. If you had given a soupcon of this publicity to the recent superb production of Marriage of Figaro, we would not have missed the first act. Please go for quality in future.
Andrew Hoellering, Exeter, Devon

A great show; rough around the edges, but the strength of it carried it through. Thumbs up! Keep em' coming.
Benz, Southampton

I've been a fan of Science Fiction for about the last 40 years (Doctor Who as a child was my favourite), so I was looking forward to this new adapted version of A for Andromeda. I watched the whole thing through, but there were many moments when I just felt like turning it off and going to bed.

On the whole this was truly poor viewing. It looked like the script had only partly been updated for 2006, there were parts where the direction and the script felt loosely tacked together and not part of a cohesive whole. Other than Tom Hardy none of the cast was even slightly believable. Jane Asher normally a competent actress just wandered around delivering lines but almost without any passion. Kelly Reilly was the weakest link in the whole sorry enterprise. Her acting was some of the worst I've ever seen, at no point did she look like a mathematician, she seemed to find it hard to walk across the set without doing Jim Carey like posturing. Only as the wooden biological robot Andromeda did she partly redeem herself.

The production values were so low that I can only think of Blake's 7 as a point of comparison. The alien supercomputer looked like a cheap flashing lampshade and I'm sure that I only saw three soldiers in the whole super secret complex. Please BBC, if you want to do sci-fi, spend more money, get much better writers, do a better job, because this is not acceptable. I advise all sci-fi lovers to avoid this production like the plague.
Paul Crowe, London

T for Terrific-as-usual Tom! How could anybody say the acting was bad when he was in it? I know now why I pay my TV licence. I was spellbound the whole time. More Tom please!
Deborah, Worcester Park

Brilliant drama, haven't seen anything that good for a long while. I never saw the original, but my dad told me it was good, and this remake didn't disappoint. Very good.
Alex, Dorking

I'm utterly shocked and dismayed to find so many bad comments on this! Granted, I have not seen the original 1961 version to compare, but it has been a long time since I saw anything on TV that I enjoyed as much as A for Andromeda. A visual as well as emotional thrill, the superb acting carried off the masterpiece script flawlessly. And, of course, it's always good to see Tom Hardy back on our screens. I have been disappointed with previous BBC Four productions but, as a sci-fi fan, I was more impressed by this production than I thought possible. I count the days to A for Andromeda's release on DVD!
Blancie, Shetland Isles, Scotland

A hugely disappointing programme. Obviously made for absolute peanuts (apart from the fees paid to the actors of course). I looked forward to it (especially after all the advertising and hype on all BBC channels), but what a let down!
F Preston, Durham

I was 11 years-old the first time round, and have always remembered it, along with Kubrick's 2001, as the best sci-fi ever. I absolutely loved this remake, updated for the internet age, but with the intellectual integrity of the original intact. Splendid performances and economical direction have left this new-age creation myth resonating in my mind these last couple of days.
Raymond Ffoulkes, Fecamp, France

I felt that this was rather disappointing. The acting was quite poor and the quality of the story was not up to modern standards. It needed to be made far more realistic.
Mark Hollingworth, Worcester

Not a patch on the original. I may have been younger then, and I may have been seduced by Julie Christie but this did not hold me or convince me at all.
Bill Gregory, Hampton

I was so disappointed by this programme. Weeks of hype then we're presented with a badly acted, badly shot, badly written play with so many mistakes as to be almost unwatchable. This is not what I pay my license fee for. Please try better next time.
Ewan Hyde, Nottingham

A totally implausible plot which failed to credibly debate the issues of the programme. The Jane Asher character was so naive to the point of laughter. It smacked of a poor, long episode of Doctor Who.
Marc Delamere, Cambridge

Absolutely fabulous. Now I know where the Americans got their ideas for Star Trek.
Jo Fullhart, Manchester

I never saw the original and I suspect it was not much better. The plot seemed to be missing important events and little or no explanations were given, the time line was also very jumpy. some of the effects were not up to the usual standard. It felt like a 70s straight to video production.
John, High Wycombe, Bucks

Good idea, but script, set design and acting second rate. Come on guys Watch 'Contact' writen by Carl Sagan for how an alien signal should look.
Tony, Merseyside

Well made and well acted, and as with Quatermass, I'm pleased to see the BBC producing serious science fiction, driven by concepts and not effects. Having said that, I must voice a certain disappointment with the story itself. It suffered from the same problem I often see in televised SF, of taking an interesting initial premise (a message from an alien intelligence) and failing to really go anywhere interesting with it, instead settling for a predicatable outcome (the message represents a threat, thus allowing the writers to dust off those well-worn Frankensteinian cliches of Things Man Was Not Meant To Know and so on). In general, I must concur with a previous commentator who felt that the makers, if they wanted to do SF, could have been more adventurous than remaking a 40+ year old story, when there is plenty of good contemporary source material to choose from. So - wonderful to see the BBC doing real SF again, but I hope to see more boldness, imagination and new ideas in future endeavours. After all, isn't that what SF is supposed to be about? One point that I don't remember being addressed in the programme was the 2 million year time delay between a signal being sent from Andromeda and received on Earth (and vice versa) - as invasion plans go, this one seems slightly flawed.
Robin Floyd, Edinburgh

In September 1961, when the original serial of A for Andromeda was shown, I was 18, an avid sci-fi fan and had recently started a job as a very junior computer programmer. So I watched the original with great interest. In 1961 the story was spread over 7 episodes of 45 minutes. I don't remember feeling that this was too protracted and it held my attention to the rather disappointing and inconclusive finale. Last night I found that 90 minutes was too short; everything seemed telescoped and rushed. Two things, or rather two personalities, from the original stand out in my mind; Peter Halliday playing Dr John Fleming. The early 1960s was the heyday of the 'angry young man' and Peter Halliday played his part in this vein superbly, something I find it difficult to say of Tom Hardy, though today it might have seemed OTT if Fleming had come across too strongly. The other personality that stands out in my memory is, of course, Julie Christie as Christine/Andromeda. Here Kelly Reilly gave Julie Christie a run for her money. The scene from the original when Christine stands between and grasps the electrodes of the computer and is killed was a great dramatic opportunity missed from the new production. David Haig played the overbearing MOD project director very well. Again this was in contrast to the weary character played by the late Esmond Knight in the original. Of the two characters I don't remember much of from the original production, Prof Madeleine Dawnay was played, in this production, by the ever stunningly beautiful Jane Asher. Prof Dawnay's intially enthusiastic acceptance of the 'gift' from the computer is gradually tempered by her realisation that the MOD only wants to use this gift as yet another weapon. Frank Bough played Dennis Bridger in the original his part being taken last night by Charlie Cox who played it as a very low-key almost shadowy character. In the original Bridger is supplying the project's secrets to an external agency and is killed when he is discovered, chased by security guards and falls over a cliff. When I saw the opening scene of Fleming and Bridger rock climbing last night I wrongly thought to myself "Ah! This is how Bridger is to die this time." Again Bridger's demise was played down almost to the point of an aside. However, for all its shortcomings the new production was very good and I'm sure if the original had survived it would have many faults that time has erased from my memory. But talking of memory, there is one which will go with me to my grave. That is the scene from the original where Andromeda has been punished by the computer for some misdemeanour and is dragging herself across the floor of the computer room. As programmes were shown live in those days the production couldn't halt while Julie Christie had her dress mended. So she had to hold the front of her dress up with one hand while dragging herself with the other!
Chris Smith, Plaistow, West Sussex

What, by virtue of its source material, was a very linear and well-established sci-fi narrative, became enlivened and made new by the brilliant cast. I thought I would turn on and switch off after having a 'taste' of its directorial flavour: instead, I missed the Tottenham game. Well done, you.
Jeremy Clarke, Immingham, Lincolnshire

I remember seeing the original series as a young boy. I have always been puzzled as to why it has never been repeated until now, while so much other mediocre material is recycled ad nauseam. The new version did not disappoint, perhaps bacause of (rather than in spite of) it being so very different. I felt it captured the spirit of the original very well.
Neville Dean, Cambridge

The set appeared to have been four old school rooms with some black and yellow tape to make it look 'scientific'. I laughed out loud when they started to grow the being in an old chest freezer. Nice idea poorly executed.
Melanie Ayling, Darlington

I was surprised to read that the writer had adapted it to a "contemporary audience". Today's audience would expect more debate about the morality and consequences - all but one character was quite happy to build an alien computer and have it create its version of life.
Marc Delamere, Cambridge

Sorry, but I found it really boring. I had high hopes for the programme but it fell well short. The story didn't really amount to much and the characters were flat and simply not believeable. One of the worst dramas I've seen on the BBC for a very long time.
Wayne, Macclesfield

I haven't seen the 1960s version but really enjoyed this production. I hope the BBC will show the original some time? What struck me was the originality of the idea, for its time. I couldn't help thinking of some modern books/films that may have 'borrowed' themes from it; Contact, Jurassic Park...
Paul Andrews, Chippenham, Wiltshire

I rarely comment on any drama, but I feel compelled to do so because this programme was so awful. A combination of an almost entirely miscast set of actors, low quality and poorly thought-out sets and an adviser who had clearly no notion of how the MOD or a research environment operates; and I haven't even mentioned the pathetically weak and simplistic plot. Considering the high quality material the BBC has created recently (Poliakoff) this is truly dreadful.
Andrew Kennell, London

This is the kind of programme that explains why kids are turning away from science. Did the author/director consult anyone remotely connected with science? There was so much that was wrong. In the fields of astronomy, computers, genetics and general science the writing was absolutely abysmal. By throwing in a few 'science' words did they hope to make it authentic? The plot had so many holes in it you could drive a bus through it. What made me laugh the most was the biologist typing into the computer in 0s and 1s. Please, please take a look at some quality sci-fi like Doctor Who and don't broadcast such trash.
Sam Lewis, Northampton

Excellent viewing. Casting could not have been better. More of these classy dramas please.
Karin, Warwickshire

I thought it was stunning: intelligent, tense, and beautifully made. There wasn't a second's worth of unneccesary material in the whole 90 minutes. I was slightly fearful it would be studio-bound, but the outdoor scenes on the mountains put the whole thing in perspective. I was spellbound.
Peter King, Bexhill, East Sussex

Brilliant stuff - thoroughly enjoyed by my family - more please. How about The Andromeda Breathrough next or Nigel Kneale's lost classic, The Road. You might also consider some of the 'lost' Out of the Unknowns.
Roger Anderson, Bristol

I do remember the original - not in detail as I was young, but enough to remember that I was scared witless but still watched it all. I was incredibly disapponted with this new version. It lacked any tension at all and, to be honest the actors generally seemed to lack any depth of character except for Andromeda herself, who really captured the role very well indeed.
Mary, Loughborough

What a missed opportunity. After last year's brilliant live Quatermass, this was truly awful. Bad direction, no feeling of time passing, some terrible acting. Where on earth did Richard Fell get the idea that people would be interested in this old tosh anyway? I thought we were heading back into Quatermass territory, instead we get a story that is so dated and so lacking in tension, that I found myself playing around with the remote control and staring at the wall for long moments. If Fell is considering remaking The Andromeda Breakthrough then I certainly won't be tuning in again. Try a remake of Nigel Kneale's The Creature or The Road or even Quatermass II, stories with a shred of interest and tension at least.
Terry J, Lincoln

I read a copy of the novel this was based on - after Richard Dawkins mentioned it in his book The Selfish Gene. Nice to see some dark and disturbing British Science Fiction on the BBC.
Paul Cripps, Isle of Man

Is BBC Four dumbing down? This poorly scripted and over-hyped effort followed by The Avengers? A for Andromeda may have passed muster for a Doctor Who script but for an after watershed production on BBC Four it really should have been much much better. 4/10.
Phil Biggs, Richmond, Yorks

A great programme and exactly the sort of intelligent sci-fi that has been missing from the likes of the new dumbed-down Doctor Who. It was reminiscent of the quality of Play for Today classics like The Flipside of Dominick Hide or Z for Zachariah. I hope that further sci-fi dramatisations follow along these lines.
Pete, London

Am I alone in thinking that this 'flagship drama' was hugely disappointing? As a committed sci-fi fan, I was eagerly awaiting this - but instead of an intelligent, coherent drama we were fed something so implausible, so full of plot holes and so badly acted that it almost became comedic. It had none of the intelligence and wit of Doctor Who, and all the production values of Crossroads. B is for utter...
Jason Porthouse, Stawell, Somerset

Having seen the 1960s serial and read the book, I eagerly looked forward to this version. Sadly, given a 90-minute slot, the story had to be taken at a gallop, which meant that character development was limited and elements of the plot completely missed or barely touched upon. The sets seemed to be limited to what looked like a few Portakabins that had been badly converted rather than the 'no money spared' government research station. All in all, slightly disappointing.
John Edwards, Wilmslow, Cheshire

This was absolutely fantastic - a good example of a great TV drama. It was beautifully acted, very well shot and a cracking story. Thanks very much for putting it on. I really enjoyed it.
Alasdair McGregor, London

Superb. It's refreshing to see intelligent SF by the BBC (like last year's live version of Quatermass). Now let's see an updated Out of the Unknown and perhaps a shot at Nigel Kneale's The Road, along with some original contemporary SF. There's great work out there.
Adrian White, St Helens

I'm glad the BBC is using my licence fee for something I approve of. After losing the original version of A for Andromeda, and thus depriving us of seeing it, at least they have had the sense to remake it. They've done so with great success, using just the right mix of special effects and strong characterisation to carry it off. Well done BBC - even if my wife wasn't too impressed!
Duncan, Birmingham

Excellent. I actually bought my digibox to watch this programme and was not disappointed! The performances by all were very good. If this was made in America, there would have been guns, helicopters and goodness knows what ruining an otherwise almost plausible scenario. Well done.
Graham Morgan, Abingdon

Brilliant! I think the updating of the script helped make it more plausible than the Quatermass revival, where we couldn't be sure when the story was set.
Austen Redman, Hull

Not a patch on the original. Lacked the tension and the drama. I suspect that the re-write was done by someone who wasn't even born when the first Andromeda was broadcast. Nevertheless, bravo BBC for trying to recreate a classic. What a pity you erased the original tapes!
Graham Richardson, Much Wenlock

I vaguely remember the original and I'm afraid this new version seemed strangely muted by comparison. It just didn't seem to have the rawness of the original. Better than most TV fare though.
A Howlett, Manchester

Tom Hardy finally gets the chance to be the lead character - and he does not disappoint.
Lee B, Bristol

I saw the original and the sequel back in the early sixties. The 2006 version was not a patch on the original. The script, sets and some of the acting should have been improved upon. The drama of something alien and inscrutable was missing, as were the monster eye thing, the electrocuting coils of the machine, the perfection of the cloned replica 'Christine' and, of course, the axe with which Dr Fleming smashed it all up! Please find the original film or script and put it on again.
Robin Palmer, Saffron Walden

Unlike a lot of sci-fi these days, where the viewer is left with no satisfactory ending, A for Andromeda had a proper beginning and a sad but proper ending. Well done to all those who took part in this up-to-date version of the 1960s series.
David Parsons, Eastleigh

I saw the original as a child and looked forward to this remake. Sadly, I've had more fun watching paint dry! Slow, dry and lacking excitement.
Max Jones, Pontypridd, Mid-Glamorgan.

Absolute crap! Couldn't stop laughing as there was hardly any sense of suspense. The dialogue was a cross between Barbara Cartland and the worst bits of Doctor Who. I loved it when Kelly Reilly suddenly focused and spent a good ten seconds jiggling dials - if only she'd said, "Now, if I can just reverse the neutron flow"! The rest of the time she spent draping herself over everyone, like scientists do, and acting as though she was a stranded supermodel practising her pouts. Was the director on attachment from daytime chat shows or what? Growing bodies in an ice-cream freezer full of lights and dry ice, endless tracking shots of the Joe 90 'Big Rat' contraption, stock galaxy footage, and wailing women on the soundtrack to boot. Best comedy I've seen in years!
Griffin, London

A very creditable updating and abridging of the original seven-episode serialisation, managed without losing the essence of the story or straying too far from the book.
John Palmer, Bristol

I am a sci-fi fan and love what the BBC produce with programmes like Doctor Who, which I can watch with my 11-year-old daughter. However, with A for Andromeda, my husband and I were hoping for an adult approach to sci-fi. Boy, did you let us down! I haven't seen the 60s series but it was very obvious, after seeing this, that it should not have been condensed into one-and-a-half hours of TV. The story didn't seem to flow and the editing was jumpy. What point were the programme-makers trying to make with the colour of the clothing that was worn? I can understand the white lab coats but would a mathematician only wear a combination of white clothing? And why did she wear blue when someone died? Did we miss a really big point with this?
Maria Phillips, King's Lynn, Norfolk

I remember being spellbound by the original, the books and the sequel, Andromeda Breakthrough. I enjoyed the new one but felt a tiny bit let down, perhaps because I was looking forward to it so much, but probably because it was so short compared with the original series. It seemed to lack a bit of impact - perhaps it needed a bit more action? Delighted to see some intelligent sci-fi rather than the shoot-it-all stuff though - hope there's much more.
Kevin Jagger, Bradford

Words fail me for such tosh that lacked any semblance of drama, suspense or surprise. Wooden characters, leaden dialogue delivered in downbeat fashion by actors who didn't believe it either and an excruciatingly laughable script devoid of credible science. Not to mention bad editing creating continuity errors galore and a total disregard of common-sense behaviour. Please - no more from the same stable.
Mark Oakland, Diss

Always been curious about this piece and it was a really worthy, intelligent piece of science fiction of the sort that British TV used to be good at and is starting to find its feet with again. It suffered from a few sci-fi clichés about the wicked military taking over super technology, so it was refreshing that Kelly Reilly's Andromeda didn't ask if this is what you humans call love. Great cast and always good to see the underused Jane Asher.
Ian Young, Cambridge

As a lad I saw the original programme and wrote to Julie Christie saying that she would make a fantastic actress. What an understatement! Subsequently, she wrote to me telling me of her upcoming films. I'm now 59 and lost contact with Julie many years ago. Nevertheless, it was great to see this version; it brought back some good memories. What a contrast to the low-tech original.
Dave Hurr, Coventry

Just finished watching the show. Firstly, thanks to the people who worked on it. Being too young to have seen the original, I was intrigued. The story was presented well, however I was left a little cold by the very dated dialectic: human versus machine, logic versus emotion. It could be just my personal taste but I was more interested in motives of the message. The dialogue in the final stages of the awakening of the 'biological robot' did not hit the mark for me, perhaps because the subject matter is borrowed from a different time. This show did demonstrate to me a more subtle and emotive form of storytelling within the genre, despite some quirky acting modes: "Mmm... I'm a scientist so will avoid eye contact and talk rapidly". The ancient themes of temptation, such as lust for knowledge, were nicely, if at times too obviously, put across.
Phil John, Bristol

What a disappointment! The scientific content was clearly written by someone with a 1960s understanding of computers and biology. The script was stilted and the characters all 20th-century stereotypes. It had no menace or intelligent discussion of the issues involved. An opportunity missed!
Andy Wakelin, Montrose, Angus

Fantastic. It's great to watch something that's very thought-provoking and makes the viewer think that we are not alone.
Ian Stephens, Cwmbran, Gwent

Really good sci-fi drama of a very high quality that makes you think after watching it. Well done.
Alex Parker, Colchester

A for Andromeda was an excellent production with atmospheric music, strong acting and an intelligent script. If this could be repeated with more Plays for Today that would be a suitable way to spend licence payers' money. And this proved that you don't need to have huge budgets to make good science fiction or single dramas. Well done.
Jonathan Messias, London

What an astonishingly bad programme. The only good thing I can think of to say about this complete non-event is that it looked like it cost about £2.50 to make. An alien invasion simulated with a tub of hair gel, a Portakabin and an oversized spinning lampshade from Ikea. Of course, science fiction is about ideas, not special effects. And there were no ideas in it either beyond a breathtakingly obvious one that was repeated many times. Thirty years on and this was less inspired than Sapphire & Steel. Heck, a Tom Baker Doctor Who episode contains a more interesting plot and better acting. This is 2006 and you're not up against these relics, you're up against Battlestar Galactica and this was simply embarrassing.
Dixon, Ipswich

A for Andromeda imprinted on me when I was 13. I was waiting for the staring eye of the 1961 alien but instead was captured by Kelly Reilly's. Her wraith-like performance hinted of qualities on a par with early Christie and Asher. The technical credibility was lacking (as is usual of the BBC) but became forgotten as the acting and music enthralled. A long overdue remake with theme and message as valid now as then.
Iain D, Aberdeen

I think I may have expected too much from this drama but, regrettably, pace, excitement, tension, a decent script, a satisfying end and just about everything that makes TV interesting were missing. A very poor effort.
Martyn Winters, Cardiff

Science fiction can be intelligent, dramatic and have real worth to society in exploring not just what we've done, but where we're going. I like to think we're returning to an age of intelligent science fiction, something the British have been doing better than anyone else since HG Wells. A for Andromeda is a respectable start so well done to the BBC. I hope they tackle an original piece next.
Paul Scott, Bishop Middleham

I saw the original and its sequel. This was risible nonsense. The script was dreadful and it looked as though it had been filmed by rank amateurs. A huge waste of time and resources. Please don't let the same team loose on Andromeda Breakthrough.
Mr BR Peters, Coventry

E for Excellent! The fabulous Mr Tom Hardy was amazing as usual! Hope there will be a DVD.
Karen Gordon, Glasgow

As in 1961, so now in 2006. What a refreshing change to watch something that has all the real hallmarks of a BBC drama production. More please and less of this so-called reality muck.
Tony Malcolm, Cleckheaton

Dreadful. No real shock at contact from outer space. The lead man seemingly incapable of eye contact with anybody. Total lack of anything remotely resembling emotion. Sudden compassion out of nowhere between the two main 'characters'. Such a shame. Looked like it was done on a weekend between not terribly talented friends. I hope somebody has another go at it some day. It is potentially a great story that grips the heart and deserves far better treatment. It was rubbish.
Merle Esson, Oxon

2D characters, clichéd naughty government men, army extras from 1970s Doctor Who and best of all a computer from Joe 90. Did I mention the computer expert who didn't know her neural networks from spaghetti? Still, at least the sets didn't wobble as the actors walked by.
Mark Murphy, London

The original, which was shown when I was 13, inspired in me an interest in astronomy and science and I ended up working in space research. This almost inspired me to have an early night.
Angela Bramham, Farnborough, Hants

Thank you for creating something both thought-provoking and entertaining. This, along with the live remake of Quatermass, has finally provided some science fiction that relies on drama and is not driven by special effects. I look forward to the next offering and hope that we will see more drama like this.
Phill, Newcastle

I have never before felt inclined to comment on a TV programme but this was superb. It stimulated thought and was an excellent drama - nice one, BBC Four!
Paul Clarke, Sudbury, Suffolk

Nice to see some TV science fiction that doesn't feature starships flitting between systems, goody-goody two shoes aliens or green invaders in flying saucers. This was a story that required some thought. A fine re-working of Mary Shelley, well made and acted.
Bob Clay, Kilkhampton

I remember reading the original novel by Fred Hoyle many years ago. This production was excellent, and shifting from the original setting (Jodrell Bank) to an MOD research station seemed to bring it right up to date.
Mark Cresswell, Manchester

It's good to see any decent sci-fi stories on television but I can't help wondering if the production values of this programme are more about pleasing a Hollywood-style audience and not what I would class as gritty, British, intelligent storylines.
Alan Walsh, Liverpool

Blimey, that was tedious. Was this an attempt to show that British-produced sci-fi doesn't have to be as good as Doctor Who, but can be leaden and boring like most of the US output too? It's time to stop trying to revisit past glories and to try something new.
Loz, London

A for Acting classes needed more like. This programme was truly awful.
Sarah, Kingtson

Super adaptation. I'm sure if the Americans had done it, it would have had too many special effects. Thank goodness for low budgets! The script, acting and production by the BBC was, as usual, terrific! Let's have more.
Peter Moon, Keighley, West Yorkshire

An excellent programme spoiled by too many redundant pauses for shots of the galaxy that could've been filled with more exposition via dialogue. And why mess with the original, hopeful ending? Is that considered too hackneyed in this cynical age? If it hadn't been for Kelly Reilly's brilliant performance, they might as well have shown the original series.
Chris Page, Letchworth Garden City

An excellent 90 minutes viewing and Kelly Reilly was truly stunning. I saw the original in the 60s which majored on scare techniques but this was different: intelligent, logical and very interesting. Are you going to re-make The Trollenberg Terror as well?
Trevor Northan, United Kingdom