How The Expanse went from game concept to blockbuster TV series

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).

I'll watch them eventually, but it's just not exciting enough for me to make it a priority.

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.

Also, read the books they are incredible!

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.

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: "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

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.

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 far as relating goes for most story lines you should be able to relate as much as one possibly could to a space opera.

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.

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 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.

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.)

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.

Extremely unlikable is right.

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 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.

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'?

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.

Television / Radio personality not really the same as one of the most important film directors of all time, is it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXC6U0NfJg8

I doubt that. Citation needed.

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 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.

[1] http://childrenofadeadearth.com/

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'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...