How The Expanse went from game concept to blockbuster TV series(andrewliptak.substack.com)
andrewliptak.substack.com
How The Expanse went from game concept to blockbuster TV series
https://andrewliptak.substack.com/p/the-expanse-james-sa-corey-syfy-amazon
264 comments
I like the yearly rankings they do over at Reddit to try and find shows I've missed. (example: this years https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/kqnefi/results_...)
It's quite interesting if you look at The Expanse. Started barely top 100, then top 40, then top 20, and now this year people are ranking it #2 all time behind Breaking Bad. Seems like it took a bit for the word to get out about it, but people who take the time to watch it, seem to really enjoy it.
It's quite interesting if you look at The Expanse. Started barely top 100, then top 40, then top 20, and now this year people are ranking it #2 all time behind Breaking Bad. Seems like it took a bit for the word to get out about it, but people who take the time to watch it, seem to really enjoy it.
Never heard of those ratings but asking for any kind of recommendation in /r/scifi guarantees you a recommendation for The Expanse. Years of this practice were bound to produce results outside the sub.
I also encourage people to read the books / novellas. They are excellent.
As a counterpoint, while I consider the shows to be oscillating between enjoyable and watchable (though admittedly only barely if we are talking about season 3), I found the books to be completely unreadable (well the first one at least - I'm not a masochist. I stoped there).
Abraham and Franck's prose is at best unremarkable when it's not plain bad and they have a bad habit of relying on characters acting, well, out of character and contrary to their interest when the story is stuck (which actually happens quite often and is something the show can't entierely escape sadly).
Abraham and Franck's prose is at best unremarkable when it's not plain bad and they have a bad habit of relying on characters acting, well, out of character and contrary to their interest when the story is stuck (which actually happens quite often and is something the show can't entierely escape sadly).
Season 3 was the absolute pinnacle of the show and some of the best scifi ever on tv. It completely blew my mind, and I’ve watched my share of Star Trek, Stargate, Babylon 5, Farscape, BSG, etc over the years. It completely pays off for the buildup of seasons 1 and 2.
I agree, S03 was awesome, but I'm finding I like S05 even more. I'm really sorry to see Bezos cancel it after next season. I was hoping for many more.
Book 6/season 6 is the end of the "original" Expanse; book 7 takes place decades later. If they want to make books 7-9 into Expanse: TNG they might want to recast the actors. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the novellas made into pseudo-standalone movies.
Rumor is that is exactly what they are planning. A clean "break" at the show level and doing it as two "separate" shows would help simplify marketing and budgeting and contracts, especially with a recast.
This makes perfect sense to me. A time-skip of several decades would be tough to pull off.
I don't see an issue with using the same actors, people seem to live much longer lives anyway and some make-up will make them look older. I really want to watch the last three books as a big budget series. Jeff, if you're reading this, you should have the time and money now to make it happen. Please?
Blue Origin launching a streaming service would be so 2021.
Expanse but actually shot in space
Some of the novellas were actually part of the show.
Canceled it, then resigned as CEO, he knew what he was doing
Expanse enjoys the benefit of tighter plotting, modern special effects, better acting, and an almost total focus on the season's narrative arc as opposed to individual episodic stories (which have only minor world- and character-building). Still, I think B5, despite its many flaws, will always be the definitive TV space opera in terms of narrative arcs. Expanse has a tendency to get preachy, like BSG did, about politics. I found B5 a lot purer and more universal, but maybe that's just my selective memory/recollection.
I wish someone would remake B5 eventually, true to the original but dropping all the unnecessary material (and useless arcs), pulling in the TV movie plots, and addressing the telepath war.
Those other shows? I liked some individual episodes, but I think they're all a step down.
I wish someone would remake B5 eventually, true to the original but dropping all the unnecessary material (and useless arcs), pulling in the TV movie plots, and addressing the telepath war.
Those other shows? I liked some individual episodes, but I think they're all a step down.
I’ll concede on B5’s story arc and also DS9’s, even if it stole from B5. But I do still think Expanse S3 rivals any season from any other sci-fi show, while allowing that it benefits from the modern tv format and special effects. B5 done today would have been amazing.
> Expanse has a tendency to get preachy, like BSG did, about politics. I found B5 a lot purer and more universal, but maybe that's just my selective memory/recollection
I agree but it's not fair to rate these series on that basis. BSG was really preachy at some points, but they got some of the other things so right, that it doesn't really matter.
> Still, I think B5, despite its many flaws, will always be the definitive TV space opera in terms of narrative arcs.
I think we would agree to disagree. Bears, Beets, BSG
I agree but it's not fair to rate these series on that basis. BSG was really preachy at some points, but they got some of the other things so right, that it doesn't really matter.
> Still, I think B5, despite its many flaws, will always be the definitive TV space opera in terms of narrative arcs.
I think we would agree to disagree. Bears, Beets, BSG
> I wish someone would remake B5 eventually, true to the original but dropping all the unnecessary material (and useless arcs), pulling in the TV movie plots, and addressing the telepath war.
I'm actually curious as to what you think was unnecessary material. There was definitely some in S1, but the vast, vast majority of stuff spanning the first four seasons was important I'd say. Obviously the fifth season was different, but that wasn't really the fault of the show creator.
I'm actually curious as to what you think was unnecessary material. There was definitely some in S1, but the vast, vast majority of stuff spanning the first four seasons was important I'd say. Obviously the fifth season was different, but that wasn't really the fault of the show creator.
It was plotted and written in the era where a plot of the week had to carry an entire episode. Main characters can no longer be allowed to get entangled in a non-critical event for a full episode just to reveal something important about them for later. Writers have to be more clever than that. There's no room for "this time on B5, a rebellion/alien/telepath problem/encounter."
With 22-episode seasons like the original, I bet a good writing team could do something like this:
Season 1: building up the world, revealing the Shadows at the end
Season 2: Shadow war
Season 3: proxy wars
Season 4: Loose ends & Consequences, including Thirdspace and the telepath war. If there's enough material, maybe even move the telepath war to a 5th season. I always wanted to see what happened to the Vorlons' favorite telepath.
There should still be room, in seasons 1 and 2 especially, for some cute but essentially irrelevant subplots like Green vs Purple.
With 22-episode seasons like the original, I bet a good writing team could do something like this:
Season 1: building up the world, revealing the Shadows at the end
Season 2: Shadow war
Season 3: proxy wars
Season 4: Loose ends & Consequences, including Thirdspace and the telepath war. If there's enough material, maybe even move the telepath war to a 5th season. I always wanted to see what happened to the Vorlons' favorite telepath.
There should still be room, in seasons 1 and 2 especially, for some cute but essentially irrelevant subplots like Green vs Purple.
Damn, I can't believe I never watched Babylon 5, and I'm a big sci-fi fan. Still not too late, I guess, I rewatched Stargate SG-1 recently and it's just as good as I remember.
I envy you. That you can watch B5 fresh.
It has some dated CGI (Not bad for that time though) and some hammy, exaggerated acting. But the character development and story arc are phenomenal.
You will find many story lines are very topical _now_.
Well ahead of its time.
It has some dated CGI (Not bad for that time though) and some hammy, exaggerated acting. But the character development and story arc are phenomenal.
You will find many story lines are very topical _now_.
Well ahead of its time.
I agree, and I’m a bit disappointed by season 4 and 5. While they are enjoyable in their style, they are too much character focused compared to the perspective opened previously. Didn’t read the books, hope the story goes back to discovery and exploration after.
This does reflect the books. If they manage to continue, it'll... change in tone.
Personally, I feel the material for season 4 and 5 was indeed among the weakest in the books.
I hope that you will continue to watch, so we get to see how they do the rest.
I hope that you will continue to watch, so we get to see how they do the rest.
I must admit to having a completely opposite view to yours. I started with the show, and then read the books after having finished season 3. I absolutely devoured them at about 1 book a week until I caught up.
They're also quite different. The difference looks like two different groups of people playing the same published DND adventure: the worldbuilding is the same, the main events are the same, but the characters and their choices are very different, in my opinion (and it makes both the show and the books equally interesting).
And it should be made very clear that both writers of the books (they write under a single pseudonym) are heavily involved in the writing and production of the show. Character and story changes are done to accommodate the TV medium, or to better support a future storyline not originally thought out.
which is what tripped up some viewers with Season 5 as the books its based on were very individual character story driven.
how they handled the Cas Anvar (plays Alex) issue did require a change from the books but they did it at end of season so its not disruptive and gave the character a good exit (which the character deserved, not the actor)
how they handled the Cas Anvar (plays Alex) issue did require a change from the books but they did it at end of season so its not disruptive and gave the character a good exit (which the character deserved, not the actor)
Spoilers follow:
I'm pretty sure that they digitally removed him from some scenes on Luna at the end.
I'm pretty sure that they digitally removed him from some scenes on Luna at the end.
I just watched that and was wondering why they killed Alex. But then remembered there was some kind of scandal with Cas Anvar. Too bad, the character is great in the books, was looking for his deepening relationship with Bobby.
It certainly switches from an almost procedural detective noir in space genre to a more gritty space opera.
One of my preferred parts. Even better that each story arch worked on itself, in the same world, and nicely connected together. And that worked in the books and the show.
During the transition there's an episode or two of glorious Space Gothic Romance as well. The genre shift is very impressive.
Same. Struggling through the 5th season, though.
Feels like it's lost its narrative drive.
Feels like it's lost its narrative drive.
I feel that Season 5 works a lot better if are a book reader. I totally get why the shift away from the gates is a bit confusing.
The Expanse was never a planet-of-the-week show. Exploring the impact of the new planets on the solar system and its people is also important.
One thing I'm a bit disappointed is the fact that they drop part of Mars storyline.
The Expanse was never a planet-of-the-week show. Exploring the impact of the new planets on the solar system and its people is also important.
One thing I'm a bit disappointed is the fact that they drop part of Mars storyline.
I have to second this. The parties motives, Mars and Inaros, make so much sense. Hard to convey that level of detail and complexity in a TV show. They managed to explain most Mars motivation rather well so, in the arc where Bobbie is chasing black marketeers.
I could imagine, so, that season 6 will answer most of these questions.
I could imagine, so, that season 6 will answer most of these questions.
Yes, S5 is basically only good because of the by now known actors and overall production quality. It's a much less interesting story than any of the previous seasons and keeps rehashing narratives and tropes.
S1 was completely mindblowing, film noir in space in a well fleshed out world and awesome production quality, S2 OK, S3 was a "must see" but then it went downhill.
S1 was completely mindblowing, film noir in space in a well fleshed out world and awesome production quality, S2 OK, S3 was a "must see" but then it went downhill.
For what it's worth, every season follows the books pretty faithfully.
Except for a notable character death in Season 5.
MotherF... I just watched the episode. Edit my previous comment to say two notable deaths in season 5 that didn't happen in the books.
Well, after some searching, aparently the actor was accused of sexual misconduct.
Well, after some searching, aparently the actor was accused of sexual misconduct.
And a much more fantastic rescue. Kinda mad that the book rescue wasn't in the show.
But it mostly was, no? Apart from Naomi repeatedly going out of the ship to signal with lights.
Or am I missing something?
Or am I missing something?
* book spoiler *
Bobby riding a missile like a surfboard is much more fantastic that what was in the show. It is one of the "big scenes" that I wanted to see on screen. It is explained in the book that her suit thrusters don't have the range to reach Naomi in time. So she mag boots on to one of the remaining missiles that were orbiting the Razorback (also missing from the show) and Alex flies the missile remotely to Naomi.
Bobby riding a missile like a surfboard is much more fantastic that what was in the show. It is one of the "big scenes" that I wanted to see on screen. It is explained in the book that her suit thrusters don't have the range to reach Naomi in time. So she mag boots on to one of the remaining missiles that were orbiting the Razorback (also missing from the show) and Alex flies the missile remotely to Naomi.
It's only cool until you think about the physics of it.
Thrust needs to be applied towards the center as mass if you want to move forwards. Apply the thrust off-center and you start spinning.
The scenario in the book is a great way to start spinning really fast without going anywhere. You'd need to huddle around the missile to align your own center of mass with it (the thrust vectoring can adjust for minor errors), but that's not very cinematic.
It's been a while since I've read the books, I completely forgot about that (so much so that I have to take your word on it). I do remember the missles though.
While I'm sure they could have CGI-ed it, that rescue might have just been too wild/insane to show on TV (it might cause the casual viewer to think the show is too crazy to continue watching).
While I'm sure they could have CGI-ed it, that rescue might have just been too wild/insane to show on TV (it might cause the casual viewer to think the show is too crazy to continue watching).
[deleted]
I'm the same - loved the first 4 seasons, but season 5 feels slow like they're really dragging things out. Also feel like some of the dialogue and acting are not very convincing. And it almost feels like a series of short stories, instead of one storyline.
Book 5 is pretty disjointed with 4/5 stories happening at the same time. So, your feeling is accurate to the book.
You're not wrong. The parts on Earth from season 5 was from "The Churn", a novella.
The parts on Earth are from book 5. "The Churn" novella is the story of Timmy becoming Amos that happened before Amos was on the Cant.
You're absolutely right.
Ah, I haven't read the books, and didn't even realise the series was based on books until this thread!
For a while I thought this was an unpopular opinion, but now I'm seeing more people agree. Relative to season 1-4, season 5 is extremely anti-climactic and at times even annoying (e.g. the looping Naomi transmission really got on my nerves). It's hard to believe season 6 will be the last after the complete disappointment season 5 has become.
Conversely I see hate for season 4, but I really liked it. I really love plot-lines around mysterious aliens or ancient technology. It's one of the reasons why Deep Space 9 and Babylon 5 are some of my favorite Sci-Fi series.
Conversely I see hate for season 4, but I really liked it. I really love plot-lines around mysterious aliens or ancient technology. It's one of the reasons why Deep Space 9 and Babylon 5 are some of my favorite Sci-Fi series.
Yeah the 5th season is a struggle for me, too. I stil love watching it but it's a bit slow. It feels it's all character build-up, with little story progression. Amos' prison & planet escape storyline makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. Sure it's a nice story, but it doesn't have much to do with the Expanse universe, the prison/planet escape could've been part of any generic movie, specially because it doesn't really explore the story of Baltimore all that much.
I still enjoy watching it and would've been happy to watch these episodes if the Expanse was like one of the half dozen star trek shows that ran 170-180 episodes each. But not in a 50 episode show like the Expanse is.
It also feels like the character building is a little too late. Exploring Amos' upbringings (maybe 10 minutes before the prison visit after which it's all wiped away) or Naomie being a parent in the second to last season, I don't know. Would've been good to integrate much of that sooner. Feels like we're kind of stuck building up characters as filler to not run out the story too fast. That's okay if it was more spread out over the seasons.
I still enjoy watching it and would've been happy to watch these episodes if the Expanse was like one of the half dozen star trek shows that ran 170-180 episodes each. But not in a 50 episode show like the Expanse is.
It also feels like the character building is a little too late. Exploring Amos' upbringings (maybe 10 minutes before the prison visit after which it's all wiped away) or Naomie being a parent in the second to last season, I don't know. Would've been good to integrate much of that sooner. Feels like we're kind of stuck building up characters as filler to not run out the story too fast. That's okay if it was more spread out over the seasons.
As others have mentioned, it makes more sense in the context of all 8 (eventually 9) books. The show is only around book 5 so far.
Wow really? I love season 5, so much depth to the world building and big actions. If it follows the book it builds to an amazing pay off IMO.
Stick with it! Its building into something magical if it follows the books.
Also, read the books they are incredible!
Also, read the books they are incredible!
Unfortunately, Season 6 will be the last Season of the series :( They've stated they are sticking to book 6 and not trying to cram the last 4 books into 1 season. The speculation is there will be "movies" for each of the final 3 books, but that's not confirmed in any meaningful way.
Ok, thanks - I'll give it a shot
I feel the same. I've fallen behind in terms of the episodes being released and don't feel any particular need to catch up.
I'll watch them eventually, but it's just not exciting enough for me to make it a priority.
I'll watch them eventually, but it's just not exciting enough for me to make it a priority.
I’m not a book reader and agree, although I’m only three episodes into season 5.
Amos was one of my favorite characters but am a bit put off by how his role has, to an extent, become fan service.
I appreciate that he’s a tough guy, enjoyed that aspect of earlier seasons, and want more of it. But don’t give me, the viewer, instant gratification just because I want it if it will erode my suspension of disbelief.
Feels like the characters and narratives are trending towards more traditionally defined arcs with characters getting in fights to show the audience they’re invincible or otherwise saved by cheap deus ex machina tricks.
Amos was one of my favorite characters but am a bit put off by how his role has, to an extent, become fan service.
I appreciate that he’s a tough guy, enjoyed that aspect of earlier seasons, and want more of it. But don’t give me, the viewer, instant gratification just because I want it if it will erode my suspension of disbelief.
Feels like the characters and narratives are trending towards more traditionally defined arcs with characters getting in fights to show the audience they’re invincible or otherwise saved by cheap deus ex machina tricks.
I abandoned the show after season 4. The fourth season was disappointing and sounds like the fifth might be a let down as well. The first 3 seasons were absolutely fantastic.
5th season is based on the 5th book which is easily top 3 of the whole series.
the 4th season and the 4th book are widely considered below average for the series.
if you liked the first 3 seasons, you'll feel right at home with s5.
the 4th season and the 4th book are widely considered below average for the series.
if you liked the first 3 seasons, you'll feel right at home with s5.
I was bored by the cookie-cutter Scary Alien Machine Planet and weird physics in S4, but season 5 is a great improvement. It brings the story back to Earth and the Rim, with real people making consequential decisions.
Exactly. 4th season felt superfluous/boring. 5th gets back to basics. Maybe a little repetition (razorback, nuke, Mrs.) but it is fun.
That's not at all how I feel, Season 5 is the best of all of them IMO. 4 was definitely a let down but 5 has been fantastic.
Many people have said this, but it really does reflect the book material.
The upside is that we can expect the last season to pick up again.
The upside is that we can expect the last season to pick up again.
Fifth one is better then 4th and I would say also better then 3th.
For me 4th was boring and even more disappointing considering that, after all they suffered to open the portal, all that they found was a ruined, minefield piece of shit planet.
Fith is being a little more entertaining but also turning the back to the portal.
Edit: also there's sound in space. IIRC that wasn't the case in the first seasons.
Fith is being a little more entertaining but also turning the back to the portal.
Edit: also there's sound in space. IIRC that wasn't the case in the first seasons.
> Edit: also there's sound in space. IIRC that wasn't the case in the first seasons.
I haven't noticed. I usually interpret the sound in space as sound that ship makes inside, the one that came to you through comm or something etc.
I haven't noticed. I usually interpret the sound in space as sound that ship makes inside, the one that came to you through comm or something etc.
Nah, it's systemic. At some moment there were some missiles. There's no way to explain that, unless you believe the missiles make a transmition to the ship that launched them, to say in their noisy missile language that they're pursuing the target :)
Just want to add on that:
Amos: "I'm that guy"
... was the line of all 4 series. Haha. Loved the build up to that moment. standing ovation in the cinema audience kind of a moment
Amos: "I'm that guy"
... was the line of all 4 series. Haha. Loved the build up to that moment. standing ovation in the cinema audience kind of a moment
Last nights episode made S5 worth the space-opera vibes. Really happy it’s getting back to sci-fi and hopefully leaving game-of-thrones-in-space behind a bit
If you liked the show I highly recommend the books.
Rich, emotional, textured. More extensive world building.
And somehow made me appreciate the show more.
Rich, emotional, textured. More extensive world building.
And somehow made me appreciate the show more.
Yeah, I really enjoyed it even though there were some slower parts like the slugs (and I found the Holden character irritating).
Somewhat tangential, it's wild to me that Devs was suggested alongside The Expanse in that Clubhouse Elon chat. I thought Devs was unwatchable. There's a point in the first episode where they're just saying fibonacci out loud to show how 'smart' they are. I looked up some of the plot after that to see what I was missing and it didn't look like it was going to get better.
Somewhat tangential, it's wild to me that Devs was suggested alongside The Expanse in that Clubhouse Elon chat. I thought Devs was unwatchable. There's a point in the first episode where they're just saying fibonacci out loud to show how 'smart' they are. I looked up some of the plot after that to see what I was missing and it didn't look like it was going to get better.
Are the protagonists mainly women? I have a hard time relating to shows without male protagonists.
The main protagonist is male but there are plenty of female protagonists as well.
As far as relating goes for most story lines you should be able to relate as much as one possibly could to a space opera.
As far as relating goes for most story lines you should be able to relate as much as one possibly could to a space opera.
Protagonist means "the main representative". So there can be only one protagonist.
By the way, it seems to me Expanse does not have a protagonist.
By the way, it seems to me Expanse does not have a protagonist.
I'm kind of surprised how many nerdy people I know who have never watched this show. It is by far the best (maybe only?) hard sci-fi TV show ever, and almost every episode is better than any hard sci-fi movie ever made.
If AC Clarke and Stanley Kubrick were alive they'd be heaping praise on this show for getting so many of the technical details exactly right.
If AC Clarke and Stanley Kubrick were alive they'd be heaping praise on this show for getting so many of the technical details exactly right.
I don't know if I'd say the get the technical details exactly right, as there are some concessions to story-telling over physics - the (probably) impossibly efficient fusion drives, and the protomolecule is kinda magic sometimes, but it get is right enough, and way more so than any other sci-fi show I've seen.
It's like Mass Effect. The mass effect phenomena is basically space magic, but most of the rest of the lore is realistic (aside from a few things like the quantum communicators in the third game).
Eh... Mass Effect is fairly soft sci-fi and more of classic space opera.
All these things happen in Mass Effect:
Sounds in space, spaceships bunched way too close together, impossibly slow projectiles for space (especially the classic "blob of light/plasma thingy" traveling at what appears to be subsonic speeds), giant 18th-century infantry-style spaceship firing lines, in general heavy reliance on "spaceships as just extensions of naval warfare" trope, all alien communication neatly glossed over with universal translation, nearly universally bipedal humanoid aliens, etc.
None of these are bad things! Mass Effect is simply much more similar in tradition to something like Star Wars or Star Trek than the Expanse.
All these things happen in Mass Effect:
Sounds in space, spaceships bunched way too close together, impossibly slow projectiles for space (especially the classic "blob of light/plasma thingy" traveling at what appears to be subsonic speeds), giant 18th-century infantry-style spaceship firing lines, in general heavy reliance on "spaceships as just extensions of naval warfare" trope, all alien communication neatly glossed over with universal translation, nearly universally bipedal humanoid aliens, etc.
None of these are bad things! Mass Effect is simply much more similar in tradition to something like Star Wars or Star Trek than the Expanse.
Shohreh Aghdashloo (Avasarala) was a voice actress in Mass Effect 2, so there's some additional relationships.
There is one scene where Avasarala comes aboard the Roccinante and is dressed in a white textured jumpsuit straight out of Mass Effect. The camera lingers slightly too long on her, it is a clear homage imo.
Agree - I love the show but the two nits I have with it are the sounds in space (engines/guns most notably, although it makes for a better show) and the fact that they can't film in zero-G.
The weightless thing is obviously understandable but it's the kind of thing where you can't unsee the things they do to convince you there is no gravity (magnets everywhere!)
The weightless thing is obviously understandable but it's the kind of thing where you can't unsee the things they do to convince you there is no gravity (magnets everywhere!)
Other nitpicky things:
- Lights inside helmets to light up a person's face is a pretty dumb thing when you think about it, but it makes complete sense in a tv series, as you definitely want to see the actor's face.
- Transparent/Glass tablets & phones is still a complete mystery to me how this could be useful in any way... other than it "looks cool".
- Lights inside helmets to light up a person's face is a pretty dumb thing when you think about it, but it makes complete sense in a tv series, as you definitely want to see the actor's face.
- Transparent/Glass tablets & phones is still a complete mystery to me how this could be useful in any way... other than it "looks cool".
> Lights inside helmets to light up a person's face is a pretty dumb thing when you think about it
Only if you are doing EVA astronomy and need pitch black darkness to see stuff outside. Because you can light up someone's face enough and still not interfere with their activities.
Otherwise – it would be important to be able to see the other person's face, both to interact with them, and to gauge their well-being.
Their phones are not exactly transparent, they are "holographic". They can project images larger than their own size. Same as many screens depicted in the show.
Only if you are doing EVA astronomy and need pitch black darkness to see stuff outside. Because you can light up someone's face enough and still not interfere with their activities.
Otherwise – it would be important to be able to see the other person's face, both to interact with them, and to gauge their well-being.
Their phones are not exactly transparent, they are "holographic". They can project images larger than their own size. Same as many screens depicted in the show.
Are lights in a helmet dumb? Being able to see companion's facial expressions while not critical would be absolutely useful in day-to-day life in space - TV production reasons aside.
On the transparent glass phones: "looks cool" is reason enough for most any consumer product. I haven't read the series, so I don't know if there is some lore explanation somewhere -- but --- if the technology is lying around as some component of a space habitat AND it looks cool, yeah, that tech is definitely going in a phone.
On the transparent glass phones: "looks cool" is reason enough for most any consumer product. I haven't read the series, so I don't know if there is some lore explanation somewhere -- but --- if the technology is lying around as some component of a space habitat AND it looks cool, yeah, that tech is definitely going in a phone.
The actual mechanics of phones aren’t really explored in the books, which I kind of like. Going into the physical design of them would be like a novel set in 2021 going into detail about the design of an iPhone.
They’re also always referred to as hand terminals, which is so much of a better name for the devices we carry around and very rarely use as phones.
They’re also always referred to as hand terminals, which is so much of a better name for the devices we carry around and very rarely use as phones.
if you have lights on one side of a piece of glass and the black void of space on the other, it turns the visor into a mirror for the wearer. not very practical.
It's not just about looking cool. It's tough to make a film where characters are interacting with a screen or drawing on a whiteboard because the director usually wants to show the actor's face along with the screen so we can see their reactions. Which is why so often you see shows where actors draw on clear glass whiteboards even though no real office would ever have them. Likewise transparent phones: It's an unrealistic moviemaking concession that audiences mostly tolerate.
[deleted]
The phones, yeah... Everyone can see what you're doing, how is that a good thing? I guess privacy has taken a nosedive in the future :D
See through devices don't make much sense. But, the Expanse has omnipresent person tracking through their profile and camera systems. The computers of a ship or station can be queried to find a person. There seems to be a system wide registry of people and ships. Each ship and station has a copy of both. The whole system makes me think of tests of blockchain based vessel registries.
There’s a few nice touches like that. Fairly frequently there’s references to many different “feeds”, which every time makes me think of the entire solar system clustering around subreddits.
This is only a real problem with external shots. And only some of them. If you were as close to engine exhaust as some of the shots - assuming you were not incinerated - you'd definitely hear something as the exhaust impacted you.
There's also budget constraints, they can't accurately portray things every time. Although we know the producers know about the issues.
Examples: the first belter we see is more accurate to what they should look like than subsequent ones. Taller, and more frail.
Coriolis effects as Mueller was pouring his drink.
More recently, Avasarala pouring liquor while at the Moon. Even though the actors don't look like they are in the Moon (because in real life they are not), the producers will waste some CGI budget from time to time to remind us that – "hey! we know this is supposed to be the Moon. Look!"
There's also budget constraints, they can't accurately portray things every time. Although we know the producers know about the issues.
Examples: the first belter we see is more accurate to what they should look like than subsequent ones. Taller, and more frail.
Coriolis effects as Mueller was pouring his drink.
More recently, Avasarala pouring liquor while at the Moon. Even though the actors don't look like they are in the Moon (because in real life they are not), the producers will waste some CGI budget from time to time to remind us that – "hey! we know this is supposed to be the Moon. Look!"
one issue I have is that despite being on the moon or one of the planetoids in the belt - they don't have that shuffling walk due to gravity being a fraction of a 1g.
> sounds in space
This criticism doesn't really make sense to me. We're watching through the lens of an invisible space camera with some sort of amazing lighting rig to make things look better. Why can't that space camera also have a laser microphone and sound synthesizer which makes things make noise to provide audio cues that the audience can latch on to? Alternately: the gun and engine noise comes from the same place that the background music comes from, and nobody questions that.
This criticism doesn't really make sense to me. We're watching through the lens of an invisible space camera with some sort of amazing lighting rig to make things look better. Why can't that space camera also have a laser microphone and sound synthesizer which makes things make noise to provide audio cues that the audience can latch on to? Alternately: the gun and engine noise comes from the same place that the background music comes from, and nobody questions that.
> Why can't that space camera also have a laser microphone and sound synthesizer which makes things make noise to provide audio cues that the audience can latch on to
That's the excuse provided by EVE Online. The lore is that they have extremely cheap "camera" drones. And that the neural interface synthesizes sounds (and other senses) to increase your awareness.
The Expanse does sounds inside ships just fine. You hear your own ship firing, you don't hear others. And whenever actors (as opposed to a disembodied camera) are in space, they don't hear anything.
That's the excuse provided by EVE Online. The lore is that they have extremely cheap "camera" drones. And that the neural interface synthesizes sounds (and other senses) to increase your awareness.
The Expanse does sounds inside ships just fine. You hear your own ship firing, you don't hear others. And whenever actors (as opposed to a disembodied camera) are in space, they don't hear anything.
Tbf, more than half the time they're either accelerating, decelerating or are in a centrifuge. Ships are designed with the floors towards the engine, so there's actual gravity in the first two cases, and stations are using centripedal force.
Wouldn't our science just be magic to our ancestors, too? I hope in 100 years there are things that seem impossible to me now and I enjoy when the fiction I consume reflects that.
Yeah I know a few trekkies who hated The Expanse, but love ST Discovery. I watched half of season 1 of STD and had to switch it off. I've never hated a TV show so much as STD.
The Expanse on the other hand is the best SciFi since Battlestar Galactica.
Edit - to expand on why I hate STD so much, it's the completely unlikeable characters. I just couldn't root for a single one of them.
The Expanse on the other hand is the best SciFi since Battlestar Galactica.
Edit - to expand on why I hate STD so much, it's the completely unlikeable characters. I just couldn't root for a single one of them.
I have to agree with you on Discovery. The characters are really unlikeable. The actors aren't good or at least, not at their best (I absolutely adore Michelle Yeoh, but she really doesn't shine here). The storylines are absurd, but that's par for the course for this kind of TV show -- it's the characters which really break this. The main character Michael is almost insufferable.
There's also that hilarious moment in S2 where a supporting character dies and everyone goes "oh no, she was my best friend!" and gets a teary send-off, but we -- the audience -- barely knew her and she didn't really speak with anyone and there was no evidence she was actually friends with anyone before. Like bad writing 101, almost an in-joke by the writers.
There's also that hilarious moment in S2 where a supporting character dies and everyone goes "oh no, she was my best friend!" and gets a teary send-off, but we -- the audience -- barely knew her and she didn't really speak with anyone and there was no evidence she was actually friends with anyone before. Like bad writing 101, almost an in-joke by the writers.
Btw they did similar mistake in the reverse, where some no name crew character dies and the surviving crew stars are completely oblivious to it, "yeah whatever, we do not really need him, let's move on". I like how one ST fan characterized it, classic trek always cared about people, but STD just razes through people's deaths as unimportant plot points.
Trekkie here (more or less). I like The Orville better than Discovery. Discovery is down-right disappointing and stupid. Picard is better than Discovery, but still didn't live up to my expectations.
You're probably right about Battlestar Galactica and The Expanse being the best hard sci-fi.
It's hard to beat the episodes/stories in the earlier Star Trek shows. The Twilight Zone was able to pull off a faithful modern reboot, why can't Star Trek?
(Someone else mentioned Planetes further down in the comments. That is also good hard sci-fi.)
You're probably right about Battlestar Galactica and The Expanse being the best hard sci-fi.
It's hard to beat the episodes/stories in the earlier Star Trek shows. The Twilight Zone was able to pull off a faithful modern reboot, why can't Star Trek?
(Someone else mentioned Planetes further down in the comments. That is also good hard sci-fi.)
> The Orville
It took me awhile to discover it, but what a great show. Personally, and it probably has to do with when I grew up, Star Trek TNG is my favorite sci-fi (though not necessarily 'hard' sci-fi) show.
It took me awhile to discover it, but what a great show. Personally, and it probably has to do with when I grew up, Star Trek TNG is my favorite sci-fi (though not necessarily 'hard' sci-fi) show.
Picard was disappointing to me because it was boring. It had a few nice elements but fundamentally it felt like a four-episode story stretched out to fill 10 (or however many it was).
> The Twilight Zone was able to pull off a faithful modern reboot, why can't Star Trek?
It can be done by the right people, see Enterprise which had the trekky heart and was good on start (it did have increasing problems in later seasons).
Trek is in wrong hands now. Some commentators say the main showrunners actually hate the previous classic Star Trek, and they are trying hard to revision it.
It can be done by the right people, see Enterprise which had the trekky heart and was good on start (it did have increasing problems in later seasons).
Trek is in wrong hands now. Some commentators say the main showrunners actually hate the previous classic Star Trek, and they are trying hard to revision it.
> Some commentators say the main showrunners actually hate the previous classic Star Trek, and they are trying hard to revision it.
That's exactly what it feels like to me: Either they know nothing about the Star Trek universe or they actively hate it and want to kill it.
That's exactly what it feels like to me: Either they know nothing about the Star Trek universe or they actively hate it and want to kill it.
Which is odd, since the one of the other contemporary Trek shows, Lower Decks, is a love-letter to 90s-era Trek.
STD is so eager to hit you over the head with “see how HORRIBLE society is?!?!?”
The Expanse actually has its own world with its own problems that isn’t just a shallow mirror of the writers view of today. Also much less melodrama, although not none.
The Expanse actually has its own world with its own problems that isn’t just a shallow mirror of the writers view of today. Also much less melodrama, although not none.
It seems STD is trying really hard to push certain ideaologies, especially around diversity - but it feels so "fake" as if they're trying too hard. The Expanse on the other hand has a diverse cast but it feels natural and realistic.
Very fake, forced and the overall script/narrative is pathetic with some minor bright moments. STD looks to me to be more like a political bidding/propaganda piece than a science fiction TV show.
For me, it's the focus on the lead character Space Jesus Michael Burnham, who has to be in every damn plot point, often whisper-talking, sometimes crying, and we know squat about most of the crew. After three seasons, I don't even know all the bridge crew names, let alone their motivations.
Extremely unlikable is right.
Extremely unlikable is right.
And lest we forget: She's Spock's sister. Who was never mentioned once in the entire previous Star Trek canon. And now every episode is about her. Riiiiight.
I'd go so far as to say the Expanse beats Battlestar Galactica. It's a classic for sure but too bogged down by the single self contained episode format that made it less enjoyable for me to watch.
Whoa, shots fired (joke). Seriously, I think when such a show reaches certain level of quality one does not need to pronounce one better than the other. They are so good they are worth your while. Of course, if we focus on specific aspects, you may be right. BSG was dark and very serious, paranoid/survival kind of stuff. Expanse is much easier to watch, you know nothing too bad is going to happen to main characters.
Right there with you. I loathe STD. It reads like bad Star Trek fanfic written by people who never watched any real Star Trek.
I could go on a long rant here but I'll just mention one of the ultra-ridiculous plot points of STD: The ship runs on mold. Seriously -- not dilithium crystals, but mold. They even imply that the very fabric of subspace is -- a fungus.
Stupidest show on television.
I could go on a long rant here but I'll just mention one of the ultra-ridiculous plot points of STD: The ship runs on mold. Seriously -- not dilithium crystals, but mold. They even imply that the very fabric of subspace is -- a fungus.
Stupidest show on television.
The first season is a bit slow, I only got hooked on my second try. Which is a bit odd as the first book is quite fast-paced.
I wouldn't exactly call it hard sci-fi, but it at least makes an effort to keep some parts realistic, with the obvious exception of major plot elements like the protomolecule and all stuff derived from it. You can certainly nitpick many details about how gravity is handled, they make an effort to explain it without resorting to magic, but in the end simulating microgravity just isn't feasible on a TV budget.
I wouldn't exactly call it hard sci-fi, but it at least makes an effort to keep some parts realistic, with the obvious exception of major plot elements like the protomolecule and all stuff derived from it. You can certainly nitpick many details about how gravity is handled, they make an effort to explain it without resorting to magic, but in the end simulating microgravity just isn't feasible on a TV budget.
What's also great here is that it's not just technically right, but it doesn't ignore the human element: we squabble, fight and make up, and that's a key part of the world they've constructed.
Spoilers follow:
I had been thinking a great deal about the joke which was left unfinished early in S5 about what a Belter, a Martian, and an Earther would drink. I initially thought that it was never going to be completed so I was kind of happy when they did and was rather let down by the joke.
That wasn't the point of it. Delgado started telling the joke before the rocks fell and finished it well afterward. You might think that his views on Belters had changed after they attacked Earth, but the punchline reinforces that he thought that all Belters were complete trash before all of that.
Showing the human element is something that they do very well, and a lot of it is a thin projection of what we, as humans, often do between different races, countries, classes, and beliefs. It's somehow easier to discuss when it's Belters, Earthers, and Martians instead of black, white, etc, even though they really represent the same thing.
I had been thinking a great deal about the joke which was left unfinished early in S5 about what a Belter, a Martian, and an Earther would drink. I initially thought that it was never going to be completed so I was kind of happy when they did and was rather let down by the joke.
That wasn't the point of it. Delgado started telling the joke before the rocks fell and finished it well afterward. You might think that his views on Belters had changed after they attacked Earth, but the punchline reinforces that he thought that all Belters were complete trash before all of that.
Showing the human element is something that they do very well, and a lot of it is a thin projection of what we, as humans, often do between different races, countries, classes, and beliefs. It's somehow easier to discuss when it's Belters, Earthers, and Martians instead of black, white, etc, even though they really represent the same thing.
If memory serves, he finishes this joke after Avasarala tells him she still wants to work with him and he looks at her like, "why on earth would you want to do that??". He knows he's damaged goods and she still trusts him anyway.
He follows up with, "That used to be funnier" putting him into the 'self-aware wolves' category at least.
He follows up with, "That used to be funnier" putting him into the 'self-aware wolves' category at least.
Same as zombies: ethically safe way to kill loads of “other people” in fiction.
Yeah, I think it shows what humans of right now would be like in space, if we had the same technical progression, rather than imagining how we would be instead.
Yeah. That's a key thing. I think it's the same reason why Babylon 5 has really held up.
Babylon 5 has been fully remastered, by the way, available for purchase or on HBO Max. Just dropped last week, and it’s excellent. The previous DVD remaster was an abomination.
Warner Bros spent 6 years on the new remaster. It was reportedly a labor of love by those involved.
Warner Bros spent 6 years on the new remaster. It was reportedly a labor of love by those involved.
can you elaborate on how the remastering affects the quality? what do you see in the remastered version that you didn't see in the older version or the original?
I haven't watched the HBO Max version yet, just seen some comparison vids and shots, but the DVD conversion handled the special effects shots very poorly. The original show was broadcast in SD 4:3 which is what the effects were rendered at. The DVD conversion went to 16:9 widescreen, since that's what the film was shot at, but then decided to get 16:9 effects shots by zooming in and cropping the already-low-SD-resolution renders. So it's now basically half resolution, and then run that through an interlaced DVD and put it on a big HDTV, and it looks awful. The effects shots also include a lot of conversations and other shots with people, since they used quite a few virtual sets.
From the comparison shots I've seen of the new version, they kept everything 4:3, and instead of cropping the effects shots, did a pretty decent job upscaling them instead. So it's not HD quality like if they were rendered in HD, but at least it's not sub-broadcast-quality anymore.
From the comparison shots I've seen of the new version, they kept everything 4:3, and instead of cropping the effects shots, did a pretty decent job upscaling them instead. So it's not HD quality like if they were rendered in HD, but at least it's not sub-broadcast-quality anymore.
That’s a very good explanation.
Also, this:
https://www.engadget.com/2018-06-22-babylon-5-digital-video-...
There used to be a website which had examples of the CGI before and after the DVD remaster, but I can’t find it at the moment.
Also, this:
https://www.engadget.com/2018-06-22-babylon-5-digital-video-...
There used to be a website which had examples of the CGI before and after the DVD remaster, but I can’t find it at the moment.
I knew Ron Thornton a little bit back when he was doing the CGI for B5 because of his use of the Amiga and Lightwave. I didn't know he had died until I saw this article. He was an amazing artist.
This makes me think - I suppose it should be possible to remake a series like B5 by literally rebuilding all the CGI scenes with modern technology...
A fan did just that, but it's rather painstaking work.
https://thewertzone.blogspot.com/2020/07/babylon-5-fan-re-re...
https://thewertzone.blogspot.com/2020/07/babylon-5-fan-re-re...
I only saw it when it first came out but IMO it's a show you need to know what you're going to get. There are certainly things to strongly recommend it but, at the same time, (just) some of the acting is pretty weak, the CGI was innovative mostly in the context of working within a small budget, and the pacing/plotting towards the end was disrupted because the show didn't know if it would be renewed.
re B5: yeah! I've been watching it all week.
IOW what all the really good scifi is about. technical details are... technical details?
I'm not sure I'd call it hard sci-fi along the lines of Lem. The protomolecule has a deeply magical element to it, almost like the One Ring from LotR.
It's the hard sci-fi equivalent of magical realism. Everything is "accurate" except for this one alien element.
In other words, it's in the "One Big Lie"-category on Moh's Scale of Science Fiction Hardness[0]. Fair warning, it's a TVTropes thing.
[0]: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardnessWhich is a brilliantly entertaining balance imho. I love it.
Yes, in some parts it became like Game of Thrones in space, except with protomolecule soldiers instead of the white walkers.
And what was the planet Solaris if not a somewhat larger version of the protomolecule?
It depends if we're talking Solaris the movie or the Solaris the book. The book makes it clear that the ocean is reading the minds of the space ship inhabitants somehow and attempting communications with them by recreating familiar objects through neutrinos that they can somehow physically interact with. Subsequently the book is all about an attempt to establish communication with the ocean while at the same time enduring its phantoms, with the end result being that humans are unable to decipher the intentions of the ocean or communicate with it in any way.
Expanse is more along the lines of "geopolitics in space" with the protomolecule being a MacGuffin to drive the plot along and create space zombies and wormholes. Which isn't to be derisive, as I find it very entertaining, but I don't feel like it's delving deep into the scientific or philosophical ramifications of first contact.
Expanse is more along the lines of "geopolitics in space" with the protomolecule being a MacGuffin to drive the plot along and create space zombies and wormholes. Which isn't to be derisive, as I find it very entertaining, but I don't feel like it's delving deep into the scientific or philosophical ramifications of first contact.
Planetes is also hard sci-fi and quite good.
I concur, excellent show and much "harder" then The Expanse. Some people have an aversion to anime but it transcends that in my opinion.
Howabout Gundam? Angsty teen/preteen protagonist trope can get annoying, but I'd classify a lot of UC Gundam as pretty "hard" SF. Granted there are some deus ex machina type elements to it (psychic newtypes, Minovsky particles, etc.).
Gundam was always about societies experiencing large-scale changes that no individual person has a handle on, and the struggles of people who try to make a difference anyway. In that sense, it's comparable to The Expanse, and the "magical" elements serve more or less the same purpose.
Planetes, on the other hand, isn't much like either of these. Its subject matter is intensely personal, and even when the characters occasionally get involved in high-stakes situations, it's less to do with changes in society (which occur much more slowly) and more to do with someone turning their small-scale private difficulties into everybody else's problem. The political elements intrude for a while and disappear again, and I don't remember them nearly as well as the bits about a lost watch, or a marriage proposal.
In a nutshell, if Gundam and The Expanse need magic because they're larger-than-life, Planetes has no use for it, because it's exactly-the-same-size-as-life.
Planetes, on the other hand, isn't much like either of these. Its subject matter is intensely personal, and even when the characters occasionally get involved in high-stakes situations, it's less to do with changes in society (which occur much more slowly) and more to do with someone turning their small-scale private difficulties into everybody else's problem. The political elements intrude for a while and disappear again, and I don't remember them nearly as well as the bits about a lost watch, or a marriage proposal.
In a nutshell, if Gundam and The Expanse need magic because they're larger-than-life, Planetes has no use for it, because it's exactly-the-same-size-as-life.
In a way you're right- Gundam was considered a "real robot" show in contrast to more magical shows like Ultraman.
But Planetes is on a different level, with accurate depictions of orbital dynamics and spacer life.
But Planetes is on a different level, with accurate depictions of orbital dynamics and spacer life.
Haven't heard of it. Will check it out.
Oh, I've heard of this, but haven't checked it out before. Will add it to the list.
I've been into Sci-Fi as long as I can remember and I watched The Expanse but found it quite dull most of the time. I continued to watch it only because "it's Sci-Fi".
I feels like the actual story is quite short but is being stretched between the first and last episode with repetitive tropes. It's too bad because it does have more potential.
I feels like the actual story is quite short but is being stretched between the first and last episode with repetitive tropes. It's too bad because it does have more potential.
It's funny that you mention that, I grew up reading Clarke's books, along with Asimov, Frederik Pohl and many others. I've also read The Expanse and by the end of the last book I hated every word of it, I just can't make myself watch the TV series.
Why, you may ask? The behavior of human characters in The Expanse is... terrible. They fight each other, everybody has their own agenda, they behave irrationally. Case in point: in the second book (as far as I remember) an alien ship appears in the Solar system - clearly a hostile force. Earth and Mars send soldiers on the ship and what do they do? They start fighting each other. No, I do not want to believe that humans would behave that way. If you read Clarke's books, when facing the new and possibly dangerous things humans behave logically, calmly. You do not see human vs human conflict in Rama, Childhood's End, The Fountains of Paradise, Space odyssey, Sands of Mars or almost any other of his books. It's about exploration, human unity, positivism, and there is nothing of that kind in the Expanse. I could not find a single character in the Expanse that behaves in the way Clarke's characters would. I apologize for the harsh words but I refuse to believe that Clarke would write such an abomination.
And no, it is not just the Expanse's writers, I see it everywhere nowadays, it seems that the writers nowadays need to insert human conflict so they introduce whatever irrational behavior leads to it.
</end rant>
Why, you may ask? The behavior of human characters in The Expanse is... terrible. They fight each other, everybody has their own agenda, they behave irrationally. Case in point: in the second book (as far as I remember) an alien ship appears in the Solar system - clearly a hostile force. Earth and Mars send soldiers on the ship and what do they do? They start fighting each other. No, I do not want to believe that humans would behave that way. If you read Clarke's books, when facing the new and possibly dangerous things humans behave logically, calmly. You do not see human vs human conflict in Rama, Childhood's End, The Fountains of Paradise, Space odyssey, Sands of Mars or almost any other of his books. It's about exploration, human unity, positivism, and there is nothing of that kind in the Expanse. I could not find a single character in the Expanse that behaves in the way Clarke's characters would. I apologize for the harsh words but I refuse to believe that Clarke would write such an abomination.
And no, it is not just the Expanse's writers, I see it everywhere nowadays, it seems that the writers nowadays need to insert human conflict so they introduce whatever irrational behavior leads to it.
</end rant>
> everybody has their own agenda, they behave irrationally
Just like real life?
There's a difference between being irrational versus being self-centered.
> No, I do not want to believe that humans would behave that way
Humanity is currently facing a potential extinction level threat due to climate change and you have plenty of people fighting one another and making emotional - versus rational - arguments.
Just like real life?
There's a difference between being irrational versus being self-centered.
> No, I do not want to believe that humans would behave that way
Humanity is currently facing a potential extinction level threat due to climate change and you have plenty of people fighting one another and making emotional - versus rational - arguments.
the dialogue sometimes feels like it's disproportionately characters barking or hissing at each other, even if they're in a very formal or very familiar environment where that level of rudeness and overt hostility seems out of place.
The last 2 seasons have been really boring. Going no where really.
Season 5 is really good so far if you ask me.
The only reason I haven't watched is that I've read the books and am wary (perhaps unreasonably so) of being disappointed.
I do like the technical details, but I fell out of watching it one episode in to season 4.
> getting so many of the technical details exactly right
I'm with you.
It bothers me when people are given sci fi on the hard spectrum but then debate 'how hard it really is' for the purpose of defining then diminishing the value of the material; feels very self congratulatory.
Everyone who praises the expanse's 'hardness' are just as aware that protomolecule is space magic.
Space magic has its place but the expanse also offers a level of hardness I appreciate outside the narrative elements requiring the space magic.
I think its an important discussion in any talk of scifi to point out where the lens is callibrated with regard to hardness resolution.
Turns "expanse is hard scifi" debate on its head by simply changing that statement to "I like the level of scifi hardness in the expanse".
My nephew was reading a book and a character in it built a metal detector out of a radio in a survival scenario.
Due to my interests my nephew asked me if it was possible; if 'he could do that'.
I explained that i suppose you could construct a device to detect eddy currents out of the components of a radio, but it would be so terrible and unreliable that itd fail to detect any metal in any meaningful survival sense.
My nephew was satisfied with the answer, he honestly was uninterested in if it would 'work' but rather 'how probable' it was.
You could tell he was inspired to learn more about the topics that subjectively could allow someone know how to do that regardless of its objective viability.
So, the story could have cut ahead to after its been magically built off screen or could magically source parts from the devices without the actual necessary base components to achieve the conversion ignoring the whole radio aspect or the character could reasonably source components that "magically" works well enough to allow their knowledge to save them (the level this story choose) or the character could sit down and read through a data sheet and spend screen time soldering components to pcbs then accept they wasted all that time, and narrative space, because its an untenable goal given what they have to work with.
I think there are arguments for each of these levels depending on the narrative's slated goals, and being accessible to a broader audience is an important one of these goals.
I feel the further you move down that hard ladder the smaller the audience becomes and leaves less of the 'fi' element of sci fi for you to work with narratively.
I love ben eater's 6502 series and find it extremely entertaining, but does anyone expect that level of detail in a sci fi television show? Is that the end goal of these hardness debates?
I simply appreciate where the Expanse chooses to push that line into the esoteric, and yes even in the other direction of space magic, while still remaining accessible to a broader audience allowing people with less technical knowledge to be inspired to pursue expanding their knowledge within those fields.
I'm with you.
It bothers me when people are given sci fi on the hard spectrum but then debate 'how hard it really is' for the purpose of defining then diminishing the value of the material; feels very self congratulatory.
Everyone who praises the expanse's 'hardness' are just as aware that protomolecule is space magic.
Space magic has its place but the expanse also offers a level of hardness I appreciate outside the narrative elements requiring the space magic.
I think its an important discussion in any talk of scifi to point out where the lens is callibrated with regard to hardness resolution.
Turns "expanse is hard scifi" debate on its head by simply changing that statement to "I like the level of scifi hardness in the expanse".
My nephew was reading a book and a character in it built a metal detector out of a radio in a survival scenario.
Due to my interests my nephew asked me if it was possible; if 'he could do that'.
I explained that i suppose you could construct a device to detect eddy currents out of the components of a radio, but it would be so terrible and unreliable that itd fail to detect any metal in any meaningful survival sense.
My nephew was satisfied with the answer, he honestly was uninterested in if it would 'work' but rather 'how probable' it was.
You could tell he was inspired to learn more about the topics that subjectively could allow someone know how to do that regardless of its objective viability.
So, the story could have cut ahead to after its been magically built off screen or could magically source parts from the devices without the actual necessary base components to achieve the conversion ignoring the whole radio aspect or the character could reasonably source components that "magically" works well enough to allow their knowledge to save them (the level this story choose) or the character could sit down and read through a data sheet and spend screen time soldering components to pcbs then accept they wasted all that time, and narrative space, because its an untenable goal given what they have to work with.
I think there are arguments for each of these levels depending on the narrative's slated goals, and being accessible to a broader audience is an important one of these goals.
I feel the further you move down that hard ladder the smaller the audience becomes and leaves less of the 'fi' element of sci fi for you to work with narratively.
I love ben eater's 6502 series and find it extremely entertaining, but does anyone expect that level of detail in a sci fi television show? Is that the end goal of these hardness debates?
I simply appreciate where the Expanse chooses to push that line into the esoteric, and yes even in the other direction of space magic, while still remaining accessible to a broader audience allowing people with less technical knowledge to be inspired to pursue expanding their knowledge within those fields.
There was a time when Star Trek's mobile computers would be considered as negatively affecting its "hardness score", ala "these handheld devices are ridiculous! computers are the size of shipping containers"
So does that mean that Star Trek is "harder" now without even changing its material content simply because it inspired people to build those very devices seemingly run on 'space magic'?
So does that mean that Star Trek is "harder" now without even changing its material content simply because it inspired people to build those very devices seemingly run on 'space magic'?
“Exactly like that, but smaller” is less interesting and less hard than projecting completely new things within plausible bounds of known physics, or speculating new things that might require new kinds of physics but some plausible Levenshtein distance from present theory.
I guess part of what I am saying is that when I was younger I gained value from scifi with a wide range of 'hardness' without knowing the physics, and even now, that I've come to understand the physics, I still find value in the same.
But I've found the more I know about something the more I know about all the stuff I have yet to know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_p...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_m...
I feel the 'protomolecule' plays pretty well within these "plausible bounds" of uknown physics.
I think it's a fine metric but how or where you apply the function is subjective.
There is potential for issues even taking this route though.
There is an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where Picard is musing on Fermat's Last Theorem; a yet still unsolved problem in mathematics in the 24th century.
To the character the idea of solving it, even in a far future, was implausible. Yet when we watch it now it plays anachronistic because we are the 'more educated more informed viewer from 30 years later' who know Fermat's Last Theorem was solved by Andrew Wiles in 1994.
But it's still fun. Both then and now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royale
But I've found the more I know about something the more I know about all the stuff I have yet to know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_p...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_m...
I feel the 'protomolecule' plays pretty well within these "plausible bounds" of uknown physics.
I think it's a fine metric but how or where you apply the function is subjective.
There is potential for issues even taking this route though.
There is an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where Picard is musing on Fermat's Last Theorem; a yet still unsolved problem in mathematics in the 24th century.
To the character the idea of solving it, even in a far future, was implausible. Yet when we watch it now it plays anachronistic because we are the 'more educated more informed viewer from 30 years later' who know Fermat's Last Theorem was solved by Andrew Wiles in 1994.
But it's still fun. Both then and now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royale
100% agree.
Sorry but you can't call something that has sounds in space hard sci-fi. Overall they do a good job but to me no sounds in a vacuum is a key marker of hard sci-fi.
If you pay attention, it's actually much more subtly done than that.
The engine whooshing noises are more like what you'd hear on board, if you were on board. If they left those sounds out, the conveyed sensation of motion would lose a lot of its impact.
But consider how the characters touch helmets in order to communicate when their radios are down, or when they want to communicate privately.
Or consider Naomi's trial on board the Chetzemoka most recently. She needed to examine the ship spec plate to find out the air volume so she could calculate how many trips she could make to the unpressurized parts of the ship; she marks the number of trips on a wall, which doubles as a narrative device to demonstrate how many trips she made. Note also the way she touched her helmet to the hull in order to hear the radio broadcast while she was in the unpressurized area.
Some of my favourite parts have been the battles, the way they demonstrate the harshness of space and the way the lack of gravity confounds expectations. The way the railgun punched through multiple walls of the Donnager, into open space, and the rush to patch up the holes. Or when Prax and Amos were in the cargo bay and some tools came lose, and they flew around the bay based on the ship's manouevers - or rather, tried to stay still while the ship moved around them.
The engine whooshing noises are more like what you'd hear on board, if you were on board. If they left those sounds out, the conveyed sensation of motion would lose a lot of its impact.
But consider how the characters touch helmets in order to communicate when their radios are down, or when they want to communicate privately.
Or consider Naomi's trial on board the Chetzemoka most recently. She needed to examine the ship spec plate to find out the air volume so she could calculate how many trips she could make to the unpressurized parts of the ship; she marks the number of trips on a wall, which doubles as a narrative device to demonstrate how many trips she made. Note also the way she touched her helmet to the hull in order to hear the radio broadcast while she was in the unpressurized area.
Some of my favourite parts have been the battles, the way they demonstrate the harshness of space and the way the lack of gravity confounds expectations. The way the railgun punched through multiple walls of the Donnager, into open space, and the rush to patch up the holes. Or when Prax and Amos were in the cargo bay and some tools came lose, and they flew around the bay based on the ship's manouevers - or rather, tried to stay still while the ship moved around them.
Like I said, they get a lot right and I love the show. But the engine sounds are rarely what they'd be inside.
The Razorback propulsion sounds, for example, are always a rocket engine blasting by the camera.
The Razorback propulsion sounds, for example, are always a rocket engine blasting by the camera.
Not sure if praise from ~~that person from Ceylon~~ Arthur C. Clarke is worth anything. We don't go around quoting Jimmy Savile, do we?
Edit: replaced the circumlocution with the paedophile's name.
Edit: replaced the circumlocution with the paedophile's name.
I don't really think that's an appropriate comparison.
Television / Radio personality not really the same as one of the most important film directors of all time, is it?
Television / Radio personality not really the same as one of the most important film directors of all time, is it?
I love the little things in The Expanse that other space shows would typically not bother about. Like when Avasarala is pouring her liquor on the moon base and it floats away. Or when you sometimes have people simultaneously walking on both "floors" of a space station/ship using magboots.
Agree completely. There's one episode in the 3rd season, I believe, where a lot of damage occurs on a ship full of people (being vague). I always loved how in that episode, they go a lot into the added difficulties of injuries in space. For example, the inability of the body to stop bleeding and clot if there's no artificial gravity, so even minor wounds become deadly. I also think the Expanse presents a more realistic picture of what humans of today would be like in space, not the usual more optimistic version of us...
Really wish they had the budget to pull off how deformed (from our perspective on Earth) Belters appear in the books. Astronauts have to do physical therapy after coming back from space, imagine living your life out there.
I comment on this elsewhere in this thread.
The first belter shown has clearly different proportions compared to Earth humans. Easier to do because that one was restrained and wasn't a main character. But they are aware of that.
> imagine living your life out there.
Worse than that, imagine multiple generations out there. We don't know what's the effect of zero-g on bone growth is.
The first belter shown has clearly different proportions compared to Earth humans. Easier to do because that one was restrained and wasn't a main character. But they are aware of that.
> imagine living your life out there.
Worse than that, imagine multiple generations out there. We don't know what's the effect of zero-g on bone growth is.
> inability of the body to stop bleeding and clot if there's no artificial gravity
I doubt that. Citation needed.
I doubt that. Citation needed.
The claim is plausible:
* https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36411/healing-of-b...
Thankfully no one to date has been injured for a 'full test' to have been done. Blood flowing backwards has been observed:
* https://www.newscientist.com/article/2223705-low-gravity-in-...
* https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36411/healing-of-b...
Thankfully no one to date has been injured for a 'full test' to have been done. Blood flowing backwards has been observed:
* https://www.newscientist.com/article/2223705-low-gravity-in-...
My favorite is when a certain pilot spends an entire episode running hundreds of combat simulations to program his ship for about fifteen seconds of combat towards the end of the episode- since the fight happens so quickly a human can't react quickly enough.
In preparing for space combat they vent the ship and wear space suits, expecting the ship to be poked full of holes.
When ships travel through space, they can be seen traveling in "reverse" as they arrive, because they are burning their engines to decelerate.
Ships only have "gravity" when they are running their engines.
When ships travel through space, they can be seen traveling in "reverse" as they arrive, because they are burning their engines to decelerate.
Ships only have "gravity" when they are running their engines.
The scene in the first season when the Martian ship is attacked by projectiles that pierce it right through, and the characters struggle to plug the hole with a binder - that was awesome.
This is incidentally also done on real ships.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXC6U0NfJg8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXC6U0NfJg8
Yes, and current Royal Navy warships may still have planks of wood strapped to bulkheads because they are an excellent way of shoring something up in an emergency.
Same with US Navy and US Merchant Marine ships.
[deleted]
That was from the rail guns on the Anubis-class ships owned by Jules-Pierre Mao.
I don't think they would've attempted to show people walking on multiple "floors" simultaneously in past seasons (pre-Amazon), due to budget constraints. If anything, I'm hopeful that we'll be seeing more interesting visual quirks in future episodes.
They also "fixed" the music in bar scenes. In the early series it was some dubstep / EDM vibe music which I think is highly improbably that in 320 years it will be any similar to what we listen to today. In the later series, ambient music got more weird.
Is that Moon base on the surface or in orbit - if its the former then I don't think things would "float away" as it has about a sixth of the gravity that we have on the surface of the Earth?
It's on the surface. And the whiskey doesn't float away so much as it looks less anchored to the bottom of the glass & a bit unsteady. I have no idea if they've 100% accurately portrayed the lower gravity, but it makes it clear that there's gravity, just weaker than on Earth.
The final episode has a bottle of whiskey fall from 10 stories at about 3mph. They do a really good job of portraying the weak gravity of the lunar base.
The books are EXCELLENT, and better than the TV show (which I also like a lot).
https://www.amazon.com/gp/bookseries/B00K7B2CRQ
There are 9 books total, not including the novellas. The last book of the series is scheduled for later this year.
It's structured as 3 trilogies. The tone and pace of the first book is maintained (for the most part) through the entire series. So, if you like the first book, you'll probably like the entire thing.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/bookseries/B00K7B2CRQ
There are 9 books total, not including the novellas. The last book of the series is scheduled for later this year.
It's structured as 3 trilogies. The tone and pace of the first book is maintained (for the most part) through the entire series. So, if you like the first book, you'll probably like the entire thing.
The authors have actually said that they look at the books as duologies, rather than trilogies (except for the last three). They're also planning to collect all the novellas / short stories into one volume at some point.
I think of them as trilogies. Pre-ring (1-3), post-ring (4-6), and Laconia trilogies (7-9).
Good to know! Kind of crazy they work as trilogies, too. (or maybe I'm just seeing things that aren't there).
I always thought about them as trilogies, so you're not the only person.
I read the first six quickly, then took a long-ish break to read Worm. I had a little difficulty getting back into Persepolis Rising for some reason.
> I had a little difficulty getting back into Persepolis Rising for some reason.
I can see that. It's a bit of a reset (without giving away the plot) but it sets up 8 extremely well, which was a great book. I'm really excited to see how they wrap up the 9th and final.
I can see that. It's a bit of a reset (without giving away the plot) but it sets up 8 extremely well, which was a great book. I'm really excited to see how they wrap up the 9th and final.
I have Tiamat's Wrath waiting, maybe I'll pick it up again this weekend.
The Expanse is easily my favorite show. I love the mostly hard SciFi story that is still exciting and action packed. It's just really really smart TV. I hope it starts a new trend of smart hardish SciFi series.
Also I think RPG DM's and gamers don't get enough credit for the incredible storytelling and world building that a lot of us take part in. A number of great fiction series have come from RPG games.
Also I think RPG DM's and gamers don't get enough credit for the incredible storytelling and world building that a lot of us take part in. A number of great fiction series have come from RPG games.
If anyone in here has played the game Children of a Dead Earth, it may make you appreciate The Expanse even more (if that’s possible!). The game is a true-to-physics representation of how space battles would actually happen, and the scenes in The Expanse replicate them wonderfully, albeit they look much more pretty. Hats off to the developers of this show, they really did their homework.
PS Season 5 is great.
PS Season 5 is great.
I'm a huge fan of The Expanse, Atomic Rockets, and Kerbal Space Program, so I felt like I should have loved Children of a Dead Earth too. But try as I might, I just couldn't find it fun.
I have a feeling that if the game controls were slightly more abstract, it might be better. Less "burn 100m/s retrograde" and more "intercept target", "pull alongside target", etc.
But part of it might just be that realistic spaceship combat isn't very exciting; it's not conducted at human-relevant distances and timescales, it's all over in the blink of an eye, and it's hard to judge whether your salvo of nuclear missiles will beat their swarm of laser drones.
The Expanse does a much better job of making ship-to-ship combat interesting, but I think they only manage that by ignoring some of the more pedantic hard sci-fi rules (stealth ships in S1E4 "CQB"), and they contrive battle settings (Thoth Station in S2E2 "Doors & Corners") that are more interesting than CoaDE's open space.
Still glad CoaDE was made, and it's worth a few bucks for the experience. :)
I have a feeling that if the game controls were slightly more abstract, it might be better. Less "burn 100m/s retrograde" and more "intercept target", "pull alongside target", etc.
But part of it might just be that realistic spaceship combat isn't very exciting; it's not conducted at human-relevant distances and timescales, it's all over in the blink of an eye, and it's hard to judge whether your salvo of nuclear missiles will beat their swarm of laser drones.
The Expanse does a much better job of making ship-to-ship combat interesting, but I think they only manage that by ignoring some of the more pedantic hard sci-fi rules (stealth ships in S1E4 "CQB"), and they contrive battle settings (Thoth Station in S2E2 "Doors & Corners") that are more interesting than CoaDE's open space.
Still glad CoaDE was made, and it's worth a few bucks for the experience. :)
> I have a feeling that if the game controls were slightly more abstract, it might be better. Less "burn 100m/s retrograde" and more "intercept target", "pull alongside target", etc.
I believe this reflects the creator's conclusions regarding the nature of space combat. that is, the outcome of the battle is more or less determined by the weapons loadout and approach speed/direction. so the real "fight" is maneuvering for a favorable approach and/or forcing the enemy to waste their delta-v, which the game definitely stresses. there aren't a lot of meaningful tactical choices once you're within gun range.
could be a case of being too realistic for its own good. I do think the game would be less frustrating if it had checkpoints within missions. very annoying to have to redo some complicated orbit transfer over and over because you keep losing the final battle.
I believe this reflects the creator's conclusions regarding the nature of space combat. that is, the outcome of the battle is more or less determined by the weapons loadout and approach speed/direction. so the real "fight" is maneuvering for a favorable approach and/or forcing the enemy to waste their delta-v, which the game definitely stresses. there aren't a lot of meaningful tactical choices once you're within gun range.
could be a case of being too realistic for its own good. I do think the game would be less frustrating if it had checkpoints within missions. very annoying to have to redo some complicated orbit transfer over and over because you keep losing the final battle.
> and/or forcing the enemy to waste their delta-v, which the game definitely stresses
Totally agree, and this is another case where controls at a slightly higher abstraction would be nice. In the game, sometimes the enemy jukes your intercept, so you do another burn to re-acquire, and the cycle repeats.
A show like The Expanse would operate at that level of abstraction:
Totally agree, and this is another case where controls at a slightly higher abstraction would be nice. In the game, sometimes the enemy jukes your intercept, so you do another burn to re-acquire, and the cycle repeats.
A show like The Expanse would operate at that level of abstraction:
Sensor Officer: "Captain, they've detected us and are taking evasive action!"
Captain: "Navigator, match course and speed. We can't lose them."
XO (aside): "Captain, that's a Cortéz-class recon ship; they've got more than enough thrust AND delta-v to outmaneuver us. We need to change the game."
Navigator: "They're evading again; re-acquiring intercept."
100% agree, an update to CoaDE (is there still active development on that game? Blog/website hasn't seen updates in some time [1]) could add some save points and maybe some better tutorials. Though, I kind of liked the steep learning curve tbh. I've played probably 300+ hours of KSP and it was nice to see the hard maneuvers based on DV in CoaDE. No reason we couldn't get both that and the actual combat maneuver you're talking about!
[1] http://childrenofadeadearth.com/
[1] http://childrenofadeadearth.com/
Does anyone have any idea how big the fan base? Obviously not GoT-levels, but big enough to warrant 6 seasons.
The show has some polarizing aspect to it, about half of my friends are really into it (me included). Half my friends bounced off the first couple episodes.
The show has some polarizing aspect to it, about half of my friends are really into it (me included). Half my friends bounced off the first couple episodes.
The first three episodes make you think it's a neo-noir detective story with heaps of unnecessary extra stuff.
You have to get through those first few episodes before it becomes more clear what the show is about. And even then, you might be misled into thinking it's about a merry band of crew floating around space on a ship; because that's not what it's about. The clue is in the name; it's about humans expanding beyond Earth, and the conflict that arises from that.
You have to get through those first few episodes before it becomes more clear what the show is about. And even then, you might be misled into thinking it's about a merry band of crew floating around space on a ship; because that's not what it's about. The clue is in the name; it's about humans expanding beyond Earth, and the conflict that arises from that.
The popular theory you see in r/TheExpanse is that S01E04 is what hooks you on to the series. The first season is indeed a bit slow, but seasons 2 and 3 really take it up a few notches and are fantastic.
I'd concur that The Expanse S01E04 "CQB" is one of my favourite episodes of television.
Huh this is what I've been saying to friends too
A season and a half in for me and it still hasn't picked up, IMO.
Bezos is a fan of the series. Iirc, he insisted that one of the books be featured in an early kindle ad (can't find the source, so that very well could be apocryphal). I wouldn't be too surprised if the audience just barely merits the the production costs, if at all. I know a lot of geeks, and not one of them had heard of the show until I told them about it.
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/expanse-safe-jeff-bezos-says-a...
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/expanse-safe-jeff-bezos-says-a...
Also didn't hurt Jeff Bezos is a fan and bought the show
it isn't for everyone. it especially isn't for people who can't resist peeking at their phones when watching. it requires (and deserves!) attention.
> Half my friends bounced off the first couple episodes
The show starts off quite slow, which is probably its biggest "weakness".
The show starts off quite slow, which is probably its biggest "weakness".
The show is simply brilliant and yet seriously underrated. Everything from the storyline, concepts, characters (and their names) and technical details are amazing. I wonder why Amazon doesn’t promote it as much.
[POSSIBLE SPOILERS]
I was mad at this season for going back to earth. It felt like a huge step back from the last season.
Then I read some wiki pages about the books and I think I see what they're doimg. This season seems to be the set up for some really big stuff.
I'm really excited for the next season. Hopefully there's only a one year wait.
Then I read some wiki pages about the books and I think I see what they're doimg. This season seems to be the set up for some really big stuff.
I'm really excited for the next season. Hopefully there's only a one year wait.
I don't really see this season as going back to Earth.
The entire narrative arc of the series is the social dynamics of humans as they take their first steps beyond Earth; how the initial scarcity of land suitable for human life gives rise to animosity, how eventually the potential bounty causes a rush to exploit, and how space natives struggle for their independence.
The current season is an interesting exploration of the terrorist / freedom fighter duality. It demonstrates clearly, through narrative, how effective committing atrocities can be to forcibly unite a people, and forge a more solid sense of identity through shared suffering and a common enemy.
While I understand why many people didn't like season 4 as much, I found it interesting because it explored how people would try and export Earth-bound laws to new worlds and new contexts, and how that would conflict with the lawless nature of a frontier.
In some ways, it reminds me of The Wire. The Wire is an exploration of drug crime, how it is structured, and how politics and the media are ultimately complicit in perpetuating it - or failing to stop it. The Expanse is a study of how humanity is likely to react to opportunities beyond Earth, at various stages: when there's a single viable alternative; when there's lots of scattered people collectively forming a new nationalistic identity; and when there are new settlers to new lands in a scenario of unbounded potential, and how that remote potential may reduce the will of people to fight over scraps on overcrowded (Earth) or environmentally hostile (Mars) planets.
The entire narrative arc of the series is the social dynamics of humans as they take their first steps beyond Earth; how the initial scarcity of land suitable for human life gives rise to animosity, how eventually the potential bounty causes a rush to exploit, and how space natives struggle for their independence.
The current season is an interesting exploration of the terrorist / freedom fighter duality. It demonstrates clearly, through narrative, how effective committing atrocities can be to forcibly unite a people, and forge a more solid sense of identity through shared suffering and a common enemy.
While I understand why many people didn't like season 4 as much, I found it interesting because it explored how people would try and export Earth-bound laws to new worlds and new contexts, and how that would conflict with the lawless nature of a frontier.
In some ways, it reminds me of The Wire. The Wire is an exploration of drug crime, how it is structured, and how politics and the media are ultimately complicit in perpetuating it - or failing to stop it. The Expanse is a study of how humanity is likely to react to opportunities beyond Earth, at various stages: when there's a single viable alternative; when there's lots of scattered people collectively forming a new nationalistic identity; and when there are new settlers to new lands in a scenario of unbounded potential, and how that remote potential may reduce the will of people to fight over scraps on overcrowded (Earth) or environmentally hostile (Mars) planets.
I wish Firefly would have been able to experience some of this
>I wish Firefly would have been able to experience some of this
It's a shame it came out when it did, on the network that it did. The timeslot shenanigans and network politics were the death of that show. It would have run for years as a Netflix original.
It's a shame it came out when it did, on the network that it did. The timeslot shenanigans and network politics were the death of that show. It would have run for years as a Netflix original.
Or Stargate Universe. So many squandered opportunities for a great TV.
Yes. I still hold hope that we'll get an animated series that picks up immediately after the series and, ignoring Serenity, goes through the arcs initially imagined by Joss Whedon
Tell you what - If _I_ become a multi billionaire I'll pay for it out of pocket and only worry about selling it after it is all done
Tell you what - If _I_ become a multi billionaire I'll pay for it out of pocket and only worry about selling it after it is all done
Same. I'd bring back Firefly, The Unit, SGU, and don't hate me, Marco Polo
I don't think the amazon show description for season 1 does it any favors either. It sounds like a detective in space show, which pigeonholes it too much.
Question: I don't have much interest in plot line of season 4. If I skipped it (and just read Wikipedia summaries) how lost would I be if I went straight to season 5?
season 4 is largely character building, so if that's important to you, you'll miss a lot. we learn an Important Fact in the last episode, but other than that it doesn't advance the protomolecule part of the story much. you can probably just read the wiki for that. I will say the political shifts in season 5 are going to seem out of left field without the context of season 4.
I think you could do that / similar to many other shows/movies summaries online can be pretty descriptive. I've enjoyed watching all the seasons though.
it sets up the scene for a major series of events happening in the background of the main story, but you have to be attentive to catch those glimpses, as it doesn't appear in dialogues much, in passing at best. the background slowly becomes the foreground during the 5th season.
It went from a book to ... TV, right?? I read all the books and novellas; couldn't get into the tv show bc I objected to some of the casting decisions.
Well, it went from game concept to homebrewed game, to books, to tv series.
I'd definitely recommend giving the show another chance — the actors really grow into their roles.
I'd definitely recommend giving the show another chance — the actors really grow into their roles.
thanks; I think I will.
holden being irritating is on purpose so he can get less idealistic as the story progresses (as in the books, except it's difficult to realize that holden is actually irritating when reading).
Interesting that the idea started as a game, and now the TV series has become a game. The kickstarter campaign was successful last year and you can now buy (if you can find it) and play the game.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1780208966/the-expanse-...
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1780208966/the-expanse-...
My favourite show, first season is a bit slow but it gets better and better every time.
I just hope they manage to cover all books
I just hope they manage to cover all books
The show's going to end with the next season, before they hit the final three books. That's probably a good thing, considering that they jump three decades for the last segment of the book series. They haven't ruled out that they won't return to it at some point, though.
Worked out well enough for Twin Peaks; just have to hope not too many of the cast member die an untimely death heh.
Season 6 is the end, although there are rumblings of a movie. It would be difficult to handle the time-skip between the 6th and 7 book, IMO.
Next season (S6) is the final season for the show, unfortunately.
I think it's probably a good place for it to leave off. The books take a 30 year jump after Book 6.
Yeah, like everyone else says, 6 is the end. And they already retroactively removed one of the primary actors of the show from season 5 (clumsily, with edits and reshoots) because of unproven accusations, as is the style of the times.
okay, but in this case there are at least forty separate accusations spanning many years, including a couple minors. [0]
I'm all for a healthy dose of skepticism with these things, but how much more would it take to convince you?
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/TheExpanse/comments/hi7c7q/designat...
I'm all for a healthy dose of skepticism with these things, but how much more would it take to convince you?
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/TheExpanse/comments/hi7c7q/designat...
A court case where he is judged guilty of a crime. Anything else is literally just an unproven accusation.
do you really live your whole life as if no one does anything wrong unless a) there is a specific law against it and b) they are found guilty in court? most businesses do not operate this way, nor did they before #metoo.
I ask this specific question because some of what is alleged in that thread is not actually illegal, it's just a shitty way to treat women. do you think I should get to keep my job if actual customers repeatedly complain that I treated them as disposable pieces of meat?
I ask this specific question because some of what is alleged in that thread is not actually illegal, it's just a shitty way to treat women. do you think I should get to keep my job if actual customers repeatedly complain that I treated them as disposable pieces of meat?
A skeezy guy without the visibility that Cas has but the same behavior would only lose their job if they were skeezin' at work.
Most of the accounts are of fans that agreed to get drinks with Cas or go to his hotel room. He treated them like shit but there weren't any accounts of rape or abuse.
Most of the accounts are of fans that agreed to get drinks with Cas or go to his hotel room. He treated them like shit but there weren't any accounts of rape or abuse.
this is part of my point though. they're not just random people; they are fans (ie, customers) that adore the characters he's played. I dunno if that makes it worse morally (probably at least a little), but it definitely makes a bad thing much worse from a business perspective.
I read the list linked. Did you? He is accused of crimes. Instead of just accusing and witch hunting with an assumed guilt he should be able to face those charges in a court of law.
Since he hasn't, no, I don't believe any of the claims of illegal behavior. As for the claims of non-illegal behavior that was rude, well, it reads to me like he often failed at his attempts to pick up woman and was quite bad at it. I don't see any problems.
Since he hasn't, no, I don't believe any of the claims of illegal behavior. As for the claims of non-illegal behavior that was rude, well, it reads to me like he often failed at his attempts to pick up woman and was quite bad at it. I don't see any problems.
Not sure how this is unproven when there are verified screenshots of his behavior available to us. I like the actor's performance and the character but when someone behaves as poorly as that, it needs to have consequences.
[deleted]
I need to watch the new series of this show, it's on my list of things to watch next, I have seen first season only. How are the new episodes? Good quality?
This show started off slow but slowly became an all-time favorite of mine.
Really fell downhill after season 3 and the switch to Amazon. Went from an incredible high concept sci-fi story to just run of the mill Hollywood action drivel.
of course everyone is entitled to their opinion but I don't see any reasonable view of that being the truth. Season 4 is a little like that but 5 is firmly the best of all the rest of the seasons and it has a ton of Hard SciFi in it.
Same feeling, in a way I regret to have continued after season 3, I were warned that season 4 was not on the same level as the previous seasons but to continue to watch.
Season 3 ended so beautifully.
5 is much better IMO, I didn't love 4 but 5 really feels like it took season 3 and stepped it up a notch.
4 was a slog. 5 picked back up.
We didn't get the sense that it was slow and hard to follow, at all. In fact, one of my favorite things about it is the amount of world-building that you're presented with, especially in the beginning.
We marathoned the first four seasons in a few weeks, and luckily Season 5 started less than a week after we ended. It's easily one of the best shows I've seen in a long time, and one that I've been recommending to people left and right.