# The Expanse Season 5 SPOILERS



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

The Expanse season 5 will be streaming on Amazon Prime Video starting December 16, 2020. Here is a trailer:


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

After feeling a little let down by Season 4 (it seemed to be various human drama interspersed with magical alien technobabble), the trailer for Season 5 looks really good.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Man, I really need to go back and finish Season 3. I lost all momentum at the "midpoint" (don't want to spoiler it).


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

doom1701 said:


> After feeling a little let down by Season 4 (it seemed to be various human drama interspersed with magical alien technobabble), the trailer for Season 5 looks really good.


The book season 4 is based on "Cibola Burn" is considered by many fans to be the weakest of the eight published so far. The next book "Nemesis Games" is consistently rated by fans as one of the best.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I thought it was a typo when I saw the reference to season 5. It's been around that long? Wow.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Damn... Lis looks great.

I haven't read the books yet, so while I know they're jumping around and combining books into seasons (much like Bosch does), how much is missing from the story by them doing that? If I start to read the series will I be pissed off by how much they cut from the books?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Craigbob said:


> Damn... Lis looks great.
> 
> I haven't read the books yet, so while I know they're jumping around and combining books into seasons (much like Bosch does), how much is missing from the story by them doing that? If I start to read the series will I be pissed off by how much they cut from the books?


To me, it's kind of like Game of Thrones (at least, for as long as they had books to follow, before they were left on their own and began to struggle). They cut an enormous amount out because, well, they really had to, but they did a pretty brilliant job of it. So the books are like the show, only a lot more of it. And the show condenses the books down, but again, they did a pretty brilliant job of it.

In the case of Game of Thrones, I prefer the books to the early seasons, just because it's the same only so much more of it, but as the books kinda lose their way the show becomes better. In the case of The Exapnse, again, I prefer the books, but only because there's so much more there. The show is still amazing in its own right. (But the books have not yet lost their way, and as they approach the finalé it doesn't seem likely that they will!)


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I've been reading the books when I find the time. I'm about 90% of the way through Cibola Burn. I forgot most of what had happened during the first few seasons so I've been trying to re-watch them as well. Just finished the first season and it was like watching it for the first time. One thing about the books is that there are also some short novellas that fit in between the main books that provide back stories on some of the characters and how space travel evolved to where they could extend their reach to the outer planets. I'm looking forward to getting to the other books in the series. Good stuff.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Here is how the books lines up with the show's episodes.











Book 1: Leviathan Wakes
Book 2: Caliban's War
Book 3: Abaddon's Gate
Book 4: Cibola Burn
Book 5: Nemesis Games
Book 6: Babylon's Ashes
Book 7: Persepolis Rising
Book 8: Tiamat's Wrath
Book 9: Leviathan Falls
Source


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Is the last book--leviathan falls--out yet? I'm not sure if I've read it or not.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

stellie93 said:


> Is the last book--leviathan falls--out yet? I'm not sure if I've read it or not.


Nope. They're only saying "2021" at this point, AFAIK.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Allanon said:


> Book 1: Leviathan Wakes
> Book 2: Caliban's War
> Book 3: Abaddon's Gate
> Book 4: Cibola Burn
> ...


Here are the missing novellas:

Book 0.1 - The Drive
Book 0.25 - The Churn
Book 0.5 - The Butcher of Anderson Station
Book 2.5 - Gods of Risk
Book 5.5 - The Vital Abyss
Book 6.5 - Strange Dogs

These provide back stories for the entire series as well as some of the main characters


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> Here are the missing novellas:
> 
> Book 0.1 - The Drive
> Book 0.25 - The Churn
> ...


That's their chronological order, but if you're reading with the books I would read them in publication order; otherwise, you'll get novel spoilers.

Book 1.5 - The Butcher of Anderson Station
Book 2.5a - Gods of Risk
Book 2.5b - The Drive
Book 3.5 - The Churn
Book 5.5 - The Vital Abyss
Book 6.5 - Strange Dogs


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That's their chronological order, but if you're reading with the books I would read them in publication order; otherwise, you'll get novel spoilers.
> 
> Book 1.5 - The Butcher of Anderson Station
> Book 2.5a - Gods of Risk
> ...


I read the first four books in the list in the chronological order I posted and don't recall anything that would be considered a spoiler, at least nothing that spoiled the other books I've read so far. This is how they're numbered in the book library on my phone app so that's the order I've been reading them in.

The Butcher of Anderson Station is the backstory of Fred Johnson and how he got the name.
The Drive is about the scientist/engineer that developed the drive engine that allowed people from earth to travel to the further reaches of their solar system.
The Churn is about Amos when he was younger.
I actually don't recall reading Gods of Risk yet. I must have skipped over that one.

You could actually read them in whatever order you feel like as they would be more of a flashback than a spoiler.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> I read the first four books in the list in the chronological order I posted and don't recall anything that would be considered a spoiler, at least nothing that spoiled the other books I've read so far. This is how they're numbered in the book library on my phone app so that's the order I've been reading them in.
> 
> The Butcher of Anderson Station is the backstory of Fred Johnson and how he got the name.
> The Drive is about the scientist/engineer that developed the drive engine that allowed people from earth to travel to the further reaches of their solar system.
> ...


Right, and since the ones that are flashbacks are written as flashbacks, I think it's best to read them that way.

Why get Amos's backstory before you've ever met Amos? Why not meet Amos when he's introduced instead of before? Etc...

I know some people are adamant about reading series in chronological order no matter what, but I've always been a firm believer in authorial intent. They wrote them in that order for a reason.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Anyone who watched _Star Wars_ in chronological order probably never made it to Episode III.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Right, and since the ones that are flashbacks are written as flashbacks, I think it's best to read them that way.
> 
> Why get Amos's backstory before you've ever met Amos? Why not meet Amos when he's introduced instead of before? Etc...
> 
> I know some people are adamant about reading series in chronological order no matter what, but I've always been a firm believer in authorial intent. They wrote them in that order for a reason.


I agree about The Churn being too soon in the sequence. Same with The Butcher of Anderson Station. I had already seen the TV series before I started reading any of the books so it was like a flashback to me since I was already familiar with the characters. I think I had read Leviathan Wakes before going back and reading the first couple of novellas so that flashed me back. For someone unfamiliar with the TV series or the books your sequence makes much more sense.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

Already sorta alluded to earlier but The Expanse Season 5 Gets Weekly Release Schedule and

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1316393333170737152 have the S5 release schedule.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

cwerdna said:


> Already sorta alluded to earlier but The Expanse Season 5 Gets Weekly Release Schedule and
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1316393333170737152 have the S5 release schedule.


Get ready for a bunch of 1-star reviews from viewers upset they aren't releasing the whole season at once.


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

I prefer a weekly release schedule for shows like this. It's nice to have a week between episodes to discuss stuff.

The Boys release schedule (3 at first, then weekly after that) seemed to provide the best of both worlds. I would be down for that as well.


----------



## KungFuCow (May 6, 2004)

I havent read the books but didnt they cover The Drive in an earlier season?


----------



## SoupMan (Mar 1, 2001)

You might be thinking of the kid who flew really fast through a ring gate to impress his ex. He was turned to mush when he hit the slow zone.

The “Drive” novella was a similar “one guy in a ship” story but was about the guy, Epstein, who invented the engine used on the ships in the Expanse universe.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

KungFuCow said:


> I havent read the books but didnt they cover The Drive in an earlier season?


Yep, season two


----------



## SoupMan (Mar 1, 2001)

Sounds like I need a re-watch!


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

It was a quick bit, but they did show it for backstory.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

PaulS said:


> I prefer a weekly release schedule for shows like this. It's nice to have a week between episodes to discuss stuff.
> 
> The Boys release schedule (3 at first, then weekly after that) seemed to provide the best of both worlds. I would be down for that as well.


Oh, I do too....I'm just amazed at how many people will savage a show's star rating just because of how the platform chooses to release it. To me, the rating should be based on the quality of the show.


----------



## KungFuCow (May 6, 2004)

madscientist said:


> It was a quick bit, but they did show it for backstory.


Yea, I kept expecting a callback to it and it never came.


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

Well, it was a good run. Amazon just renewed The Expanse for a sixth and final season. Also : no Cas Anvar for that final season, apparently. Will be interesting to see how they write Alex out of the show...

The Expanse to End With Season 6


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Totally okay with ending news. I didn't see any hope of adapting books 7-9. And book six is a perfect place to stop. 

I'm betting they'll recast the Alex Kamar character. He's not a huge character in the book that Season 6 adapts, Babylon's Ashes. But he does have an arc in Nemesis Games, which Season 5 adapts.


----------



## oscarfish (Mar 2, 2009)

Saturn_V said:


> Totally okay with ending news. I didn't see any hope of adapting books 7-9. And book six is a perfect place to stop.


The first thought/question that popped into my mind when I read the PaulS post was whether season 6 will try to finish up as the novels do (or will when Laviathan Falls comes out). Are you making an educated guess or do you have more info that season 6 will end with book 6?


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

oscarfish said:


> The first thought/question that popped into my mind when I read the PaulS post was whether season 6 will try to finish up as the novels do (or will when Laviathan Falls comes out). Are you making an educated guess or do you have more info that season 6 will end with book 6?


My guess is that the end with Book 6. No way they can/should try to squeeze in the


Spoiler



large time jump to start Book 7.



Book 9 isn't even published yet, so trying to cover Books 7-9 really doesn't make much sense, either.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

PaulS said:


> Book 9 isn't even published yet, so trying to cover Books 7-9 really doesn't make much sense, either.


The conspiracist in me wonders if ending with book 6 was planned all along. It's just that books 7-8 are vast departures from 1-6. (more space-opera than investigating)

I was hoping to see a spin-off series set between books 6 & 7.


----------



## oscarfish (Mar 2, 2009)

I'd be surprised if season 5 and season 6 were simply book 6, nothing from 7-9. It's not like the tv show people don't know what's in book 9. I thought they were the same people.

OTOH, if there is hope of either another season or a spinoff, maybe they are saving something.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

oscarfish said:


> I'd be surprised if season 5 and season 6 were simply book 6, nothing from 7-9. It's not like the tv show people don't know what's in book 9.


In season three, the writing was on the wall their show was doomed to cancellation on SyFy. So instead of the typical season-ending cliffhanger, they completed the story in book 3, Abaddon's Gate- even though the adaptation abbreviated a lot of story & characters. They ended the show on their terms with a season finale that could've served as a series finale. Nothing was left hanging, and everyone could walk away proud of what they did.

The showrunners are ending on their terms, I don't think they're going to cram three novels of story into 10 episodes.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Here is a good recap of seasons 1 - 4:


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

FYI, this video was created by YouTube channel Alt-Shift-X.

It's a really good channel that recaps/analyzes a lot of high concept TV (Westworld, Raised by Wolves, Watchmen, etc.)


----------



## oscarfish (Mar 2, 2009)

The first three episodes are available now.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

oscarfish said:


> The first three episodes are available now.


I was unable to find it in any UI. "Seasons 1-5 included with Prime", but it only let me select Seasons 1-4.

However, starting the last episode of season 4, and hitting next episode worked.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

My AVR's Atmos indicator is on. (Seasons 1-4 detected as 5.1 DD+)

Anyone else seeing/hearing this?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

It just popped up on my "Watch Next" list.

(Not going to get to it for a few days though.)


----------



## Bill Reeves (Jul 18, 2002)

Watched all three episodes. As with "The Boys", the episodes appear to be available at midnight UTC on the release date. Season 2 of "The Boys" was during daylight saving time, so those episodes were available at 8 PM Eastern / 5 PM Pacific the day before the official release date; since we're not in daylight saving time any more, the episodes of The Expanse season 5 should be available at 7 PM Eastern / 4 PM Pacific the day before. So Tuesday nights are The Expanse nights for me, for the next month and a half.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

JYoung said:


> It just popped up on my "Watch Next" list.
> 
> (Not going to get to it for a few days though.)


And Amazon sent a helpful email telling me that Season 5 is available.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Additional stuff to tie you over while we're waiting for next week:

Amazon's got Bonus Expanse content in the X-Ray section. (X-Ray is the IMDB metadata section that's within Amazon's player user interface) Brief "after show" talks with the cast, stills from the production, and concept art. Episode 3, "Mother" was directed by Thomas Jane, and every picture of him on the set has him wearing Miller's hat.

Amazon's Prime Video YouTube channel now has 30min aftershows of each episode, hosted by cast member Wes Chatham and creator Ty Franck. If you want a good definition of what a showrunner actually does, watch Ep1's aftershow.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Saturn_V said:


> Episode 3, "Mother" was directed by Thomas Jane, and every picture of him on the set has him wearing Miller's hat.


...or did Miller wear Jane's hat?


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

Seems like ep 4 became available early (before what

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1316393333170737152 said). I noticed it over an hour ago and confirmed again while at home on a computer.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

cwerdna said:


> Seems like ep 4 became available early (before what
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1316393333170737152 said). I noticed it over an hour ago and confirmed again while at home on a computer.


Certainly seems like 12:00AM (morning) GMT of 'release day'. It was not there a 6pm (eastern), but was just after 7pm (eastern). Making it effectively prime time viewing the day before 'release day'. Which is strange, but no more arbitrarily strange than CBS's '12:00 AM Morning PST', making their shows watchable the 'day before', but only if you stay up late.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Yeah, I noticed that when I sat down to watch Episode 2 tonight.
(7 PM Pacific)


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I just finished episode 4. Wow!!! Easily one of the best episodes the show has ever aired.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Think I've re-watched three times now. Definitely one of the best "epic moments" in the life of the show.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Are the Belters self-sufficient, or do they require supplies from planets for essentials like food and air and medicine? How many Belters are there? Are they all flying around in spaceships, or do they have colonies on asteroids or space stations?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

"Belters" are read to be everyone in the outer planets, not just the asteroid belt. 50-100 Million according to the books. (compared to 30 Billion on Earth and 5 Billion on Mars)

Yes, they're self-sufficient. But they lead collective lives- sharing is a huge thing for their community, it's how they endure whether in space, on rocks, or on stations.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Saturn_V said:


> "Belters" are read to be everyone in the outer planets, not just the asteroid belt. 50-100 Million according to the books. (compared to 30 Billion on Earth and 5 Billion on Mars)
> 
> Yes, they're self-sufficient. But they lead collective lives- sharing is a huge thing for their community, it's how they endure whether in space, on rocks, or on stations.


It seems like they are committing collective suicide. If they have colonies and produce their own food, then they are much more vulnerable to attacks than Earth and Mars. I would expect Earth to wipe out a large fraction of their population in retaliation.

But I guess the story will not be so realistic.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

john4200 said:


> It seems like they are committing collective suicide. If they have colonies and produce their own food, then they are much more vulnerable to attacks than Earth and Mars. I would expect Earth to wipe out a large fraction of their population in retaliation.
> 
> But I guess the story will not be so realistic.


I'm not saying there wont be a major counter attack, and Earth might also hold Mars accountable as well thinking they might be in on it or at least for letting their weapons fall in the terrorists hands. But the bad guys have the proto molecule, and any counterstrike they said means they will use it as a weapon against Earth and/or Mars. It would kill everything on those planets. The stakes are very high.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

robojerk said:


> I'm not saying there wont be a major counter attack, and Earth might also hold Mars accountable as well thinking they might be in on it or at least for letting their weapons fall in the terrorists hands. But the bad guys have the proto molecule, and any counterstrike they said means they will use it as a weapon against Earth and/or Mars. It would kill everything on those planets. The stakes are very high.


But since Mars was also attacked (which was mentioned but not highlighted in the episode), it would be pretty difficult for Earth to make any reasonable case that Mars should be held responsible.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

robojerk said:


> I'm not saying there wont be a major counter attack, and Earth might also hold Mars accountable as well thinking they might be in on it or at least for letting their weapons fall in the terrorists hands. But the bad guys have the proto molecule, and any counterstrike they said means they will use it as a weapon against Earth and/or Mars. It would kill everything on those planets. The stakes are very high.


They set up the asteroid strikes long before they had the proto molecule. And their mission to acquire the proto molecule was a huge longshot. They got amazingly lucky. Even with the PM, it is far from a good deterrent. Their chances of successfully using it to wipe out the Earth are small, even before they have most of their population destroyed.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But since Mars was also attacked (which was mentioned but not highlighted in the episode), it would be pretty difficult for Earth to make any reasonable case that Mars should be held responsible.


I was wrapping preseants for my wife and kids while watching. What was the Mars attack?


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

robojerk said:


> I was wrapping presents for my wife and kids while watching. What was the Mars attack?





Spoiler



The Mars attack was in the final episode of last season when they blew up one of the domes.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

I'm definitely enjoying this season more than Season 4. It's interesting to me, though, how the entire cast is dispersed. I'm assuming that's the way the books are as well, and not just related to filming/scheduling issues or something.

Fred Johnson bugs me--he's always had such an attitude, and


Spoiler



storing the last bit of protomolecule in his own cabin is so arrogant it almost seems unbelievable.


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

In the books the Belters are not completely self sufficient. There are still biological supplied or food they cannot grow even on Ganymede, which had a goal of eventually suppling all of that stuff. That is why the loss of Ganymede is so devastating to the belters. Of course on the flip side Earth due to its massive population and Mars are dependent on the resource's of the belt.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

doom1701 said:


> I'm definitely enjoying this season more than Season 4. It's interesting to me, though, how the entire cast is dispersed. I'm assuming that's the way the books are as well, and not just related to filming/scheduling issues or something.


Yes, that is the way this book is written as well.

Just wanted to mention that this is technically not a spoiler thread... maybe someone should ask the mods to change the title if we want to discuss spoilers here? I've read the books so it doesn't bother me much but that might not be true of everyone. I'm still on Ep3 but I have a pretty good idea of what everyone is talking about


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Technically, but season threads have long been considered the same as episode threads...

(The rules really need to be updated to take into account changes in how television is consumed since 2005!)


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

I update my post with a spoiler tag just to play it safe.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Technically, but season threads have long been considered the same as episode threads...
> 
> (The rules really need to be updated to take into account changes in how television is consumed since 2005!)


Sounds good to me, as long as it is clear how to differentiate a season thread that can contain spoilers from a thread about an upcoming season that shouldn't contain spoilers (which is how this thread started). I suspect adding "SPOILERS" to the title could be the simplest/best way to do that in the end, anyway.

But until then we should continue to follow the current rules, particularly for shows like this where there are big reveals and shocking turns and spoilers can be a big deal.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

doom1701 said:


> I update my post with a spoiler tag just to play it safe.


Ditto.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

I’m finding that this season dissatisfied me in a similar way to the book — I really didn’t like seeing the roci crew dispersed. Yeah, it’s realistic, and yeah the story is fresh with a lot happening, but I just liked the team operating together so much!

I too “missed” the attack on Mars. It’s clear that it happened, but I’m going to have to rewatch that episode for the visuals. Maybe I was just too hung up on waiting for the earth events to occur.

i am curious about the Alex/Bobbie subplot. I recall a certain key individual in the following novel, and I’m not sure if that’s related (name change?) to the guy at the Martian academy Bobbie seems to be so interested in.

my memory being as bad as it is is sometimes a bonus — some of these events feel new to me!


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

So, it's been a while since I read this book, but...



Spoiler



"Aren't the rocks supposed to damage Earth quite a bit more than we've seen in the show? My recollection is that after the attacks, the fate of Earth is essentially sealed. It's not dead yet, but the writing is on the wall. "



Am I wrong in that regard, or is this a TV/book change ?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I would love to see a Rosinante (did I spell that right?) spin-off with the main cast plus Bobby on there going on adventures through gates...


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I would love to see a Rosinante (did I spell that right?) spin-off with the main cast plus Bobby on there going on adventures through gates...


stargate: protomolecule?

I think it would be an interesting spinoff concept, though the series is very much dominated by its long season arcs, rather than story-of-the-week. It would feel fundamentally different.


----------



## oscarfish (Mar 2, 2009)

What would happen if the protomolecule did get loose again like it did on Eros/Venus? Would that result in a second gate, and if so to the same ring station or to a different ring station. Maybe the protomulecule would just do nothing since there is already a ring gate in that system. One ring for you.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

One ring rules them all.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

Saturn_V said:


> My AVR's Atmos indicator is on. (Seasons 1-4 detected as 5.1 DD+)
> 
> Anyone else seeing/hearing this?


Yes. I was happy to see Atmos on my tv as well as my ts4k. Now these guys will wrap all this stuff up nicely unlike certain other sci fi shows. (I'm looking at you Discovery)


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

PaulS said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


in the books,


Spoiler: Books



it's not the impacts that did the bulk of the damage, it's the nuclear winter that followed afterwards that did the most harm and caused the most deaths.

I think the TV shows going on the same direction, we simply haven't gotten there yet


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> in the books,
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Books
> ...


Technically it would be


Spoiler



an impact winter, not a nuclear winter


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Anubys said:


> I would love to see a Rosinante (did I spell that right?) spin-off with the main cast plus Bobby on there going on adventures through gates...


No.

I meant that in answer to your question. "Rocinante" is Don Quixote's horse.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

The thread title should be changed to indicate spoilers in this thread.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Is there any interest in trying to fork out to weekly show specific threads? Sometimes it works, sometimes it.. doesn't...


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

kdmorse said:


> Is there any interest in trying to fork out to weekly show specific threads? Sometimes it works, sometimes it.. doesn't...


Im not saying no, but this season has only generated about 4 pages so far in this thread.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

Looks like S5:E5 is out already. Will not have time to watch it for a bit...


kdmorse said:


> Is there any interest in trying to fork out to weekly show specific threads? Sometimes it works, sometimes it.. doesn't...


Maybe we should. I may just have to keep away from this thread until I watch S5:E5.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

kdmorse said:


> Is there any interest in trying to fork out to weekly show specific threads? Sometimes it works, sometimes it.. doesn't...





robojerk said:


> Im not saying no, but this season has only generated about 4 pages so far in this thread.


We haven't had single ep threads since S3 when it was still on SyFy. There aren't enough fans to sustain them. And there's users waiting for all 10 so they can binge.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

cwerdna said:


> Looks like S5:E5 is out already. Will not have time to watch it for a bit...
> 
> Maybe we should. I may just have to keep away from this thread until I watch S5:E5.


I find I'm often a week behind the thread, and keep away because of it. Such is the problem with season threads.

The TV series is reminding me how much I disliked Marco Inaros from the books. I was looking forward to seeing how they brought the character to life, and I think they did a good job in casting and acting, but man that guy pisses me off on a weekly basis.



oscarfish said:


> Maybe the protomulecule would just do nothing since there is already a ring gate in that system. One ring for you.


Other systems (such as the planet in the previous season) seem to have different artifacts, so one could hypothetically envision the protomolecule converting Earth or Mars into something other than a ring gate. There's also scientists working on the protomolecule, and the potential that at some point they could direct it's behavior. Or it could just be old and broken -- entropy affects everything in time. It's certainly a huge unknown what could happen, and it makes sense for the inner system governments to react in fear.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Holden, Holden, Holden,



Spoiler: About S05E05 "Down and Out"



Saki has been all over your ship for weeks, in and out of all her systems.
You didn't even consider the possibility that she sabotaged the _Rocinate_?
Especially after she assassinated Fred Johnson by shooting him from behind?


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Holden, Holden, Holden,


Holden is a doer, not a thinker.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

smbaker said:


> I find I'm often a week behind the thread, and keep away because of it. Such is the problem with season threads.


It's even worse if you're starting a show cold after an entire season has aired already and many people have watched that entire season.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I just finished binge watching all of seasons 1 thru 4 again last night and the story flowed so much better than when I sat through it the first time. I have read the first four books in the series as well as the short novellas that were shoehorned in between. I had totally missed the segments where they inserted those brief stories into the main storyline the first time around. I found it hard to keep up with what was going on between episodes, let alone between each season, but that tends to happen with most shows I watch these days. I've watched all five current episodes of season 5 so I'm all up to date. This is probably one of the best Sci-Fi shows to come along in a long time. The cast is outstanding and they did a great job adapting the books to TV. I'll be disappointed when it ends.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

or when they just shrugged off her assurances that her plans were not yet all complete as they left the prison cell.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I think I have a crush on Bobbie.

Why didn't the bad guys spare themselves a lot of trouble and just kill the reporter?


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

cheesesteak said:


> Why didn't the bad guys spare themselves a lot of trouble and just kill the reporter?


Did they know who her source was? Maybe they wanted her alive to find out.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I think I have a crush on Bobbie.


I've always loved the kiwi accent!


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

I am SO HAPPY to have this show back. It's just fantastic.

On the Holden issue from Ep5:


Spoiler



I agree that it's completely unfathomable that Holden would not contemplate the obvious risk that Sakai sabotaged the Roci. And it's frustrating, because they could have cleaned it up super easily with a couple lines of dialogue -- like, as they are running preflight checks, having them talk about how they already swept the ship for explosives and didn't find any so they think it's safe. They could still have had all the drama, using the idea that the special code Sakai used was not detectable in the standard ways you would sweep a ship.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ruth said:


> I am SO HAPPY to have this show back. It's just fantastic.
> 
> On the Holden issue from Ep5:
> 
> ...


I think from a dramatic perspective that would be less effective, because then the audience would be cued in advance that something might be up instead of it being a surprise...


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think from a dramatic perspective that would be less effective, because then the audience would be cued in advance that something might be up instead of it being a surprise...


But it was so obvious there was no possibility of surprise. To me it seemed like an absolute given, actually, and all the scene did was pull me out of my suspension of disbelief that nobody else even considered the possibility, despite it being obvious. Obviously YMMV!


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think from a dramatic perspective that would be less effective, because then the audience would be cued in advance that something might be up instead of it being a surprise...


Potential book vs TV spoiler...



Spoiler



I don't know if this was covered in the TV series, but IIRC Naomi was the one who wrote the original Gamarra virus. Inaros modified it and used it to kill a bunch of people. This may make it even harder to detect, since it would look like all sorts of other code that Naomi might have implemented on the Roci, which in turn helps the suspension of disbelief that it wasn't easily detected. The book might have set this up more naturally than it came across on TV.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah, one advantage of big, fat books is that you have the room to set stuff like that up...and to let it play out. Whereas screen time is precious, often to the detriment of, well, stuff like that.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

smbaker said:


> Potential book vs TV spoiler...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was disclosed in Season 4 Episode 5 "Oppressor"

A lot of deep plants in Expanse lore. Naomi's kid was mentioned all the way back in Season 1, and we've heard tidbits of Amos' Baltimore history and Lydia since season 2.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> That was disclosed in Season 4 Episode 5 "Oppressor"
> 
> A lot of deep plants in Expanse lore. Naomi's kid was mentioned all the way back in Season 1, and we've heard tidbits of Amos' Baltimore history and Lydia since season 2.


Thanks, it's hard to keep it all straight, and to remember what I read in the book versus what I saw on the TV show.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

smbaker said:


> Holden is a doer, not a thinker.


And yet he figured out that the freighter _Zemya_ was preparing to attack Tycho Station before anyone else did, including battle hardened space marines.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

smbaker said:


> Thanks, it's hard to keep it all straight, and to remember what I read in the book versus what I saw on the TV show.


It is a lot to keep straight. Sometimes I hate that I've read the books- especially since the show slightly diverges with a lot of characters and plot points.

But every now and then the show quotes the books almost verbatim, and it makes it all worth it.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

JYoung said:


> And yet he figured out that the freighter _Zemya_ was preparing to attack Tycho Station before anyone else did, including battle hardened space marines.


He acted on instinct, and got it right. Holden's impulsiveness is a recurring them.

_"There was a button," Holden said. "I pushed it."_
- Holden

_"Jesus Christ. That really is how you go through life, isn't it?"_
- Fred Johnson

And of course, my favorite:

<something happens>
_"James [email protected]#$ing Holden!"_
- Avasarala


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Sure, he's impulsive.

Doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been a big consideration for Holden that Sakai sabotaged the _Rocinante_.

In fact, it should have been instinctive for him.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Was it ever explained why that little ship has such bizarre suspended and rotating chairs?

It almost seems like it is meant to counter-rotate if the ship goes into a very fast barrel roll so the passengers are spared the centrifugal force pulling on their head and feet. Except why would a spaceship need to go into a barrel roll other than to create artificial gravity on the inside walls, which is obviously not the case here.

I might have guessed that it had some sort of esoteric engine that needs centrifugal force to operate efficiently, except the ship was shown accelerating at maximum and it was not rolling. Even when they were trying to maneuver to lose the missile lock, the ship did not roll, though the chairs did. For some reason the chairs leaned back when they accelerated just before ejecting the core.

(By the way, I am talking about episode 5. I was just now watching it, since I saved it to watch back to back with episode 6)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Isn't that a racing ship?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Isn't that a racing ship?


It is a ship that can reach high accelerations. But that does not explain why the chairs need to roll and lean back. The engine is in the back of the ship, so obviously you would want the chairs to face forward so the acceleration pushes the passengers into their chairs. I see no reason for the chairs to roll or lean back.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

If you add left/right/up/down translation (relative to the main thrust vector) the chairs have to rotate to match the apparent/resultant acceleration vector. Especially if the thrusters are strong.

--Carlos V.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

john4200 said:


> It is a ship that can reach high accelerations. But that does not explain why the chairs need to roll and lean back. The engine is in the back of the ship, so obviously you would want the chairs to face forward so the acceleration pushes the passengers into their chairs. I see no reason for the chairs to roll or lean back.


Maybe the engine is gimbaled or something.

On another note about this ship, They are always strapped in and it doesn't appear there is any way for them to walk around, use the bathroom, or get food etc in this ship. I have more problems with that!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

vertigo235 said:


> Maybe the engine is gimbaled or something.
> 
> On another note about this ship, They are always strapped in and it doesn't appear there is any way for them to walk around, use the bathroom, or get food etc in this ship. I have more problems with that!


But again, it's a racing ship. It's not designed for transportation. Bathrooms and kitchens would just slow it down.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

vertigo235 said:


> Maybe the engine is gimbaled or something.


There was a scene in episode 5 where small attitude-adjusting thrusters were shown. Besides, mounting a high-thrust engine on a gimbal would be crazy.

I suspect the people that built that set just do not understand the physics of spaceships, or else they do and assume the audience does not and just wanted to make something that they thought looked cool.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But again, it's a racing ship. It's not designed for transportation. Bathrooms and kitchens would just slow it down.


How long do you think they are traveling for?


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)




----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

*Tribes:*

Thank God Bobbie has a thinking head and brought weapons to the _Razorback_.
I cheered when she came out of the airlock in powered armor.
(Did you?)

I hope Drummer's playing the long con.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW, since I was unsure of what was powering the _Razorback_ after Alex dumped her core, I did a quick Google and came across this.

(Potential spoilers at the link.)



> In order to best deal with pilot stresses, the operations deck has two flight seats that are fixed into large multi-axis gimbals, and equipped with numerous medical systems to monitor and mitigate the effects of acceleration stress. Ship's monitor screens wrap around the crash couches and the bulkheads, filling the pilot's whole visual field. The compartments behind the flight seats contain a head, food dispenser and a small bunk. The engineering deck is a sealed compartment, inaccessible from within the ship. It is accessible only to technicians while in dock. The ship has systems to recycle air and water, but not a food recycler.[3]
> 
> The pinnace can be operated by a single pilot when necessary, but generally carries an additional co-pilot to serve as the ship's navigator and emergency technician.[2]


Didn't answer my question though.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

JYoung said:


> Didn't answer my question though.


That's a shame, because I had the same question...


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

kdmorse said:


> That's a shame, because I had the same question...


Ahh, apprently mentioned in an aftershow, discussion, or some other out of context (but not from the books) commentary.

_--When you "dump the core" you don't dump your drive, you just dump whatever fuel you are burning in your reactor chamber at the time.
--You can start the reactor up again with more fuel you have but it's gonna take time, leaving you powerless in the meanwhile.
_
Which I'd say doesn't quite match what was verbally implied, or what we saw, at the end of the last episode. Might go back and re-watch later.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

( Finding the funny is left as an exercise for the reader )


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

john4200 said:


> It is a ship that can reach high accelerations. But that does not explain why the chairs need to roll and lean back. The engine is in the back of the ship, so obviously you would want the chairs to face forward so the acceleration pushes the passengers into their chairs. I see no reason for the chairs to roll or lean back.


Its not as if they're only flying only in straight lines. They have to turn, corner and change course- at speed. Constantly changing the thrust vector, and the change in g is not instantaneous.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Saturn_V said:


> Its not as if they're only flying only in straight lines. They have to turn, corner and change course- at speed. Constantly changing the thrust vector, and the change in g is not instantaneous.


The way you "turn" a spaceship is to fire maneuvering thrusters to change the attitude so the engine is oriented for the new heading. The g-forces from the maneuvering thrusters are negligible compared to the main engine which is presumably accelerating them at more than 10-Gees. You seem to be forgetting that the spaceship's orientation (attitude) changes whenever there is a change in the thrust vector, and it changes right along with the thrust vector. And the chairs are (or should be) attached to the hull of the ship.

Lunar Lander


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

kdmorse said:


> View attachment 56338
> 
> 
> ( Finding the funny is left as an exercise for the reader )


I see two but that makes me wonder if there are more that I'm just not familiar enough with...


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

madscientist said:


> I see two but that makes me wonder if there are more that I'm just not familiar enough with...





Spoiler: Easter Egg



The common denominator:
TV characters that have been re-cast by other actors.
Reddit rumbles that this may clue a possible recast of Alex Kamar.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Saturn_V said:


> Spoiler: Easter Egg
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Heh. Only one of them meant anything to me until you pointed that out, and now I recognize them all.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Interesting.


Spoiler



Cas Anvar is definitely leaving the show, but I read they were going to write out the character rather than recasting: The Expanse: Why Cas Anvar's Alex Kamal Won't Return For Season 6


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Ruth said:


> Interesting.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



That seems reasonable. Thinking over the books, I don't actually recall too many places Alex shows up after this event anyways


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

kaszeta said:


> That seems reasonable. Thinking over the books, I don't actually recall too many places Alex shows up after this event anyways





Spoiler: Spoiler Books 6-on



Alex is a minor presence in Book 6, Babylon's Ashes. I still wish they recast the character. (we've seen hints of the Alex/Bobbie best friends bond this season, and that's a big thing in the later books.)



The fanthink predicts the Tycho Station security chief Bull de Baka will take the Rocinante's wheel in S6.

They can pull a Discovery and recast Alex Kamar with Bull's actor: Jose Zuniga. Get the Texas drawl and you're in!


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Episode 7 is out


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

Yawn. I want sci fi not soap opera. I don't care enough about mom, her kid and the bad guy. Nothing happened on Earth? 47 minutes I'll never get back.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

mattyro7878 said:


> Yawn. I want sci fi not soap opera. I don't care enough about mom, her kid and the bad guy. Nothing happened on Earth? 47 minutes I'll never get back.


I kinda feel the same way. I actually don't mind the Naomi storyline in principal, except it's taking valuable time where we could be seeing something else. If the season were 23 episodes, it would be fine. But I think we only have three episodes left(?), so her family drama, we just don't have time for that.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Still, ballsy move on Naomi's part at the end there.
I don't have a problem with the family dynamics here although I do echo the concern about not enough episodes to address everything in a ten episode season.

Is it just me or did that one effects shot of the _Razorback_ make it look like a bomb pop?

Alex: You were shot?
Bobbie: Yeah, a lot.


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

Agree with the above. The Naomi plotline in general isn't really working for me, so this episode was just a lot of dead air.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

JYoung said:


> I don't have a problem with the family dynamics here although I do echo the concern about not enough episodes to address everything in a ten episode season.


I think three episodes is plenty to cover the remainder of Nemesis Games' plot.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

I thought this episode was a little slow, too. I wanted Amos & Peaches, Avasarala, and more Bobbi! Less dysfunctional family. I did have kind of a heart-stopping moment at the end when Naomi was floating in space and I thought the show might have actually killed her off. (This show is just bold enough that it seemed possible.) 

But, I have complete faith in these writers. A slow episode usually sets things up for an intense and exciting next chapter, so I can't wait to see what's next.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW, how involved are Franck and Abraham in the actual writing for the show?
I know that they are listed as Executive Producers and have some input but how much?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

JYoung said:


> BTW, how involved are Franck and Abraham in the actual writing for the show?
> I know that they are listed as Executive Producers and have some input but how much?


They're in the writers room. And as principal IP owners, they certainly have a lot of pull- just not final word.

Watch the "Ty and That Guy" after shows.Franck strikes me as someone completely and actively involved in production, but only the nuts.and bolts of story, writing and cast.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Why did Cyn seem to die instantaneously but Naomi floated in space for a while. I saw that she gave herself some sort of an injection while in space but shouldn't she have been dead by then? Wouldn't her eyeballs freeze, at least?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

YT's coverage of the show is a lot stronger this season. If you're looking for good (and thankfully brief) episode recaps, Pete Peppers is that guy.
https://www.youtube.com/c/PetePeppers1





He starts out recaps quoting from the novels, but doesn't spoil upcoming events.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> Why did Cyn seem to die instantaneously but Naomi floated in space for a while. I saw that she gave herself some sort of an injection while in space but shouldn't she have been dead by then? Wouldn't her eyeballs freeze, at least?


That's the same super-blood-oxygen injection that saved the reporter when she had a little vacuum incident a few episodes ago.

Or, as they call it in the biz, foreshadowing. 

(As for Cyn, he didn't seem to be prepared for vacuum. You can survive for a short time if you know what you're doing, although it's not pleasant.)


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That's the same super-blood-oxygen injection that saved the reporter when she had a little vacuum incident a few episodes ago.
> 
> Or, as they call it in the biz, foreshadowing.
> 
> (As for Cyn, he didn't seem to be prepared for vacuum. You can survive for a short time if you know what you're doing, although it's not pleasant.)


But isn't it like -474 degrees in space? How would the injection counter that?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> But isn't it like -474 degrees in space? How would the injection counter that?


As I said, you can survive for a brief time. Adding oxygen to your blood should extend that time a little more. (IIRC, the biggest problem is that if you have air in your lungs that will kill you when the air expands, and if you don't the lack of oxygen will kill you.)

She was only in the vacuum for a matter of seconds...and even with the shot, it looks like it almost killed her.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> But isn't it like -474 degrees in space? How would the injection counter that?


Yeah, it's barely above absolute zero in space.... but the heat transfer is primarily radiative, with modest amount of cooling from skin evaporation, and that latter goes away pretty quickly. You normal lose about 100 W to the environment just standing around on earth. Floating in vacuum, you'll get 8-10x that loss... vacuum is actually a pretty good insulator in general.. From a freezing effect? It would be cold, and possibly a bit of frost nip, but that's nothing compared to, say, a brisk wind in a Minnesota winter.

You won't be terribly happy after a minute or so of cruising through space, and actually being able to see may be a problem, but you aren't going to turn into a popsicle or anything.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

I’ve always found it interesting how the primary temperature control task in space (even in LEO) isn’t keeping things warm enough—it’s trying to cool things down. 

As for the episode, I’m glad I watched. They had to spend time with the Marcos/Filip/Naomi angle. Until today, I always figured that Naomi abandoned her son to Marco. It left me feeling little desire to feel sympathy for her-she bolted, left her son with a terrorist, and mad a new life. I felt a little desire to space her myself. The backstory of her search and failure, along with near suicide, made her a more sympathetic character.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

doom1701 said:


> I've always found it interesting how the primary temperature control task in space (even in LEO) isn't keeping things warm enough-it's trying to cool things down.


I just read a novel where they have basically a warp drive for FTL, and when you're in warp, your ship is perfectly insulted from the outside...which means you have to drop out of warp from time to time to cool down.


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

As a book reader, I'm thinking that a lot of the whole Naomi/Marco/Philip emotional backstory came across better in print that it's currently faring in video. I don't recall them doing a lot of flashback scenes between the characters on the show, so they're having to insert LOTS of dialog to cover that ground which tends to slow the show down. I agree that it's ground that needs to be covered to propel the show forward, I just wish the execution was better.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I thought the episode was fine. I didn't mind that it was a little slower. I did miss checking in on Amos though. In the book, IIRC Filip doesn't realize Naomi actually tried to get to the other ship; he thinks she simply spaced herself and is dead. Here it looks like he's watching and sees her try to make it to the other ship.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

My brain jumped to contrast the Naomi vacuum scene with the Leia vacuum scene from The Last Jedi. I felt one worked very well, while the other didn't work at all.

I'm enjoying the Naomi family drama more in the TV series than I did in the books, mostly due to the strong performance by the actor playing Inaros.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

I can definitely envision the guy they have playing Inaros as a cult leader, so I think they did a pretty decent job there.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

PaulS said:


> As a book reader, I'm thinking that a lot of the whole Naomi/Marco/Philip emotional backstory came across better in print that it's currently faring in video. I don't recall them doing a lot of flashback scenes between the characters on the show, so they're having to insert LOTS of dialog to cover that ground which tends to slow the show down.


During the after show for this ep, they (maybe it was Ty) did say they don't do or don't like doing a lot of flashbacks during the show.

Yeah, they don't seem to do all that many on the show, in general. My wild guess is that less than 1/3 of the eps have any flashbacks.

It is so weird to see folks like the actors playing Drummer and Marco Inaros (e.g. from a recent after show) talking normally.





 was posted Dec 2019 so there are no spoilers if you've gotten thru at least season 4 and has Cara Gee in it.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> (IIRC, the biggest problem is that if you have air in your lungs that will kill you when the air expands, and if you don't the lack of oxygen will kill you.)


There was a shot of her exhaling in her jump from ship to ship, I gave them props for that detail.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

dianebrat said:


> There was a shot of her exhaling in her jump from ship to ship, I gave them props for that detail.


I give them props for pretty much every detail involving space. They're very knowledgeable and careful in that regard.

(It still bugs the heck out of me that they have the belters wearing magnetic boots on spaceships, but I know they have to do that to save on the FX of them floating in freefall all the time. And at least they have the clanking of the magnetic boots to explain why they're not floating.)


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I give them props for pretty much every detail involving space. They're very knowledgeable and careful in that regard.
> 
> (It still bugs the heck out of me that they have the belters wearing magnetic boots on spaceships, but I know they have to do that to save on the FX of them floating in freefall all the time. And at least they have the clanking of the magnetic boots to explain why they're not floating.)


They should've gotten a a large jet like the one Universal borrowed from NASA to film the micro gravity scenes for the movie Apollo 13.
Reduced-gravity aircraft - Wikipedia


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

robojerk said:


> They should've gotten a a large jet like the one Universal borrowed from NASA to film the micro gravity scenes for the movie Apollo 13.
> Reduced-gravity aircraft - Wikipedia


I doubt that would have done much to reduce costs!


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I give them props for pretty much every detail involving space. They're very knowledgeable and careful in that regard.
> 
> (It still bugs the heck out of me that they have the belters wearing magnetic boots on spaceships, but I know they have to do that to save on the FX of them floating in freefall all the time. And at least they have the clanking of the magnetic boots to explain why they're not floating.)


Why does it bother you? Most of the time the ships have gravity as they are traveling through space, the time that they are weightless is the exception.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

They always have to be ready and oriented for gravity as the drive is initiated.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Now the part that bothers me is whenever Holden is drinking his coffee somehow the coffee pours out into his mouth as if there is gravity. This annoys me.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

vertigo235 said:


> They always have to be ready and oriented for gravity as the drive is initiated.


Belters are going to stay out of gravity as much as they possibly can.

Because gravity can kill them.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Belters are going to stay out of gravity as much as they possibly can.
> 
> Because gravity can kill them.


The way the Epstein Drive works, there is no way around it. If they are traveling through space, they will have to deal with gravity.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

On that point though, the show has many inconsistencies surrounding how gravity affects the different sects. 

If we were to believe how everything works, then the belters and the Martians could never keep up with the Earthers in a pursuit. And the Earthers could get everywhere faster, that episode where Bobbie went to earth you would think she never experienced 1G gravity before.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

vertigo235 said:


> The way the Epstein Drive works, there is no way around it. If they are traveling through space, they will have to deal with gravity.


Right, but they're not going to use magnetic boots in zero G. They're used to floating...except on TV zero G is too expensive to imitate, so they have the clanking of the magnetic boots to show that it's zero G. Which makes some sense on Earth or Mars ships, but not so much on Belter ships.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Yeah in the early season 1 episodes they made it a point to show how much more fragile Belters were, with elongated bodies and bones etc, unless they had some sort of surgery or something, but they have certainly abandoned that as time went on.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

I wouldn't say that they completely abandoned it.
Naomi tried to adapt to 1G via drug therapy and couldn't do it.
Plus it was stated last season that a number of the _Barbapiccola's_ passengers died on Ilus because they couldn't adapt to the planet's gravity.

It's also an issue though because any Terran with a modicum of skill should be able to pulverize a Belter in a hand to hand encounter.
(Although arguably, Amos does this already.)

Bobbie has talked about how she's been conditioned to handle higher gravity though. I assume that the drug therapy was part of that training regiment.

I also appreciated that they pointed out that people were wearing mag boots at Luna Station because I did have that "It's 1/6th the gravity" moment.
(I also appreciated the slow motion pour of Avasarala's liquor.)

Certainly production constraints have kind of pushed this from the forefront but I give them points for trying.

I also like that Cyn's tool bag had a mag plate as well.
(I'll miss him. He was interesting.)


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I noticed the liquor pour as well.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

john4200 said:


> The way you "turn" a spaceship is to fire maneuvering thrusters to change the attitude so the engine is oriented for the new heading. The g-forces from the maneuvering thrusters are negligible compared to the main engine which is presumably accelerating them at more than 10-Gees. You seem to be forgetting that the spaceship's orientation (attitude) changes whenever there is a change in the thrust vector, and it changes right along with the thrust vector. And the chairs are (or should be) attached to the hull of the ship.


The issue isn't the magnitude of the net g-force of the combined main and maneuvering thrusters, but the direction. While the ship is turning, the direction of the force applied to the passengers changes. The chairs and the fluid injected into the passengers are only designed to protect them from high g-forces coming from a limited range of directions. So when the ship fires its maneuvering thrusters, the chairs rotate independently of the ship in order to keep the net force applied to the passengers within the acceptable range.

Beyond that, having rotating chairs would be convenient for more casual trips. If you are accelerating at 1 G in open space, you might rotate them so that "down" is the bottom of the chair instead of the back. That way you are effectively sitting up rather than lying down.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

vertigo235 said:


> Now the part that bothers me is whenever Holden is drinking his coffee somehow the coffee pours out into his mouth as if there is gravity. This annoys me.


The surface tension of liquids can be used to direct them in a manner such that they act similar to drinking with gravity.

A group of scientists developed a cup that can be used to drink liquids in zero-g:






It was part of the ISSpresso machine.

And this video shows what it looks like to drink out of in zero-g:








vertigo235 said:


> If we were to believe how everything works, then the belters and the Martians could never keep up with the Earthers in a pursuit. And the Earthers could get everywhere faster, that episode where Bobbie went to earth you would think she never experienced 1G gravity before.


Between the belters and the inners, I would agree. But those in the Martian military regularly train in 1G.

Bobbie's issue on Earth was being outside for the first time. Up until then, she had only ever been in enclosed environments. Being in such an open space and exposed to direct sunlight was new to her.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

BitbyBlit said:


> The issue isn't the magnitude of the net g-force of the combined main and maneuvering thrusters, but the direction. While the ship is turning, the direction of the force applied to the passengers changes.


No, it does not. I already explained that. The force on the passengers is always coming from the main engine, which is presumably attached to the hull so the chairs do not need to turn relative to the hull. The maneuvering thrusters only need to rotate the ship and make a negligible contribution to the thrust vector relative to the hull.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

dianebrat said:


> There was a shot of her exhaling in her jump from ship to ship, I gave them props for that detail.


They wouldn't want to be sued if someone died trying to recreate that stunt.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

What's with Holden's suit? It even has a cod-piece.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

wprager said:


> What's with Holden's suit? It even has a cod-piece.


I was wondering that too. They seem to have jumped from jumpsuit to strange low budget armor between episodes.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

john4200 said:


> No, it does not. I already explained that. The force on the passengers is always coming from the main engine, which is presumably attached to the hull so the chairs do not need to turn relative to the hull. The maneuvering thrusters only need to rotate the ship and make a negligible contribution to the thrust vector relative to the hull.


For the purpose of this post, let's consider "up" to be toward the passengers' heads and "down" to be toward their feet.

Suppose the pilot wanted to do a sharp dive. To do this, the ship would fire maneuvering thrusters such that it pitched downward. The maneuvering thrusters would create rotational velocity, which would cause centripetal force to be applied to the ship, and ultimately the passengers. The centripetal force would only indirectly be caused by the maneuvering thrusters, however. Even after the initial set of maneuvering thrusters stopped firing, the ship would still have rotational velocity, and thus there would still be centripetal force. It is only when a second set of opposing maneuvering thrusters were fired to bring the rotational velocity back to zero that the centripetal force would go away.

While the ship was pitching downward, centripetal force would pull the chairs down with it. The passengers would only get pulled down with the chairs to the extent that they were strapped in and that friction was holding their backs to them. But the straps only cover parts of their bodies, and thus the centripetal force from the chairs would only directly pull on those parts. The uncovered parts would get pulled along only to the extent that the human body could hold itself together.

On the other hand, the chairs fully support people's bodies from behind and below. So instead of doing a sharp dive, you could roll the chairs 180 degrees and do a sharp ascent. The ship would still follow the same path, but from the passengers' perspectives, the centripetal force would be pushing up from the chair. And because their bodies would be fully supported from below, the force would be more evenly distributed, leading to less strain.

Beyond the distribution of force applied to the passengers, there is also the issue of blood flow. Human bodies have evolved to compensate for Earth's 1G environment. They are used to blood being naturally pulled toward the feet, and are able to force it to circulate to the brain in spite of that. Pitching downward reverses this, causing blood to naturally flow toward the brain in a system that is used to having to work to get blood up there. And while having too little blood is not good either, the body is able to withstand too little blood in the brain better than too much. Also, it is easier to restrict blood flow to the legs and body by applying pressure to them than to the brain which is covered by a hard skull. Pitching upward causes blood to naturally flow toward the feet, which is what the body is used to.

So, the body can better tolerate pitching upward at a particular magnitude of centripetal force than downward both because of its nature and also the design of the chair. Hence, it makes sense to rotate the chairs when making hard turns such that from the passengers' perspectives, they are pulling up.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

BitbyBlit said:


> For the purpose of this post....


Irrelevant information deleted. As I said, the forces from rotating the ship are negligible. The maneuvering thrusters have negligible thrust compared to the main engine. The centripetal forces are negligible. There is no need to move the chairs to compensate for forces less than a tenth of a gee.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Irrelevant information deleted. As I said, the forces from rotating the ship are negligible. The maneuvering thrusters have negligible thrust compared to the main engine. The centripetal forces are negligible. There is no need to move the chairs to compensate for forces less than a tenth of a gee.


what about the forces from a slingshot maneuver around a large gravitational object? There would be acceleration from the drive as well as from the gravitational object, correct?


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I think it would still just be the acceleration (at least what could be felt). When you're slingshotting around an object, you'd be past that object's escape velocity. Even if you're in it's SOI and "falling" towards the object, you're in free fall so there's no noticeable gravity.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

How does Bobbi and Alex's ship have an engine? didn't they jettison their core to escape the missile?

I was really hoping Naomi wouldn't reach the ship and die. I do hope the old guy didn't die and was just stunned by her action...


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

Anubys said:


> How does Bobbi and Alex's ship have an engine? didn't they jettison their core to escape the missile?
> 
> I was really hoping Naomi wouldn't reach the ship and die. I do hope the old guy didn't die and was just stunned by her action...


I can't remember if it was here, or somewhere else online, but whatever I read described the "core" as the fusionable material already in the reactor (and reacting). The engine could be restarted, but not immediately since they have to restart the reaction.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Spoiler for next season ...



Spoiler



That's a real bummer about Alex not being in next season. He's my favorite character.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

gweempose said:


> Spoiler for next season ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Has there been any confirmation if the character is getting written off or recast?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smbaker said:


> what about the forces from a slingshot maneuver around a large gravitational object? There would be acceleration from the drive as well as from the gravitational object, correct?


You are confusing reference frames. The massive object exerts gravitational force on the ship and people, but that is irrelevant to the forces that the people feel RELATIVE TO THE REFERENCE FRAME OF THE SHIP. Both the people and the ship are accelerated equally by the massive object, so the massive object does not cause any force to be felt by the people relative to the ship (not strictly true, but we can safely assume that tidal, coriolis, and centrifugal forces are negigible compared to the thrust of the main engine).

The gravitational force is different than the thrust from the engine of the ship, since the gravitational force is transmitted without contact ("action at a distance"), whereas the thrust is only transmitted to the people through the ship (and chairs).

If you want an analogy, consider a ship in orbit around a planet. The passengers float around inside the ship. We say they are "weightless". Of course they are not really weightless in the sense of having no mass. Orbit around a planet is actually just an object falling towards the planet combined with tangential velocity great enough that the object never reaches the surface of the planet. But the key is that both the passengers and the ship are falling together so that the passengers do not feel the planet's gravity relative to the ship.

An even simpler analogy is Einstein's famous person in an elevator. If the elevator is at the top of the building and the cable snaps, the person inside the elevator will feel weightless as long as the elevator is in free fall.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

john4200 said:


> You are confusing reference frames. The massive object exerts gravitational force on the ship and people, but that is irrelevant to the forces that the people feel RELATIVE TO THE REFERENCE FRAME OF THE SHIP.


If I'm sitting in a car (i.e. within the car's reference frame) on the surface of the earth, am I subject to 1G of gravity?

If I am in an aircraft (i.e. within the aircraft's reference frame) performing a 10G maneuver, will I black out?


----------



## jakerock (Dec 9, 2002)

smbaker said:


> If I'm sitting in a car (i.e. within the car's reference frame) on the surface of the earth, am I subject to 1G of gravity?
> 
> If I am in an aircraft (i.e. within the aircraft's reference frame) performing a 10G maneuver, will I black out?


The "slingshot" maneuver you were asking about it like sitting in a car while you and the car are falling toward the earth. The slingshot is using the planets gravity to increase the velocity of the ship and everyone in it. They don't feel the acceleration as a force because the ship isn't the force that is accelerating them. The planets gravity is and nothing is stopping them from accelerating in the gravity. You feel 1G sitting in your car because the car seat is stopping the gravity from accelerating you down.

In the case of an airplane if you are performing a 10G maneuver you will feel it. On the other hand if you are in an airplane in a vacuum that is falling into a planet with 10x the mass of earth you won't feel 10G you will feel weightless but you will be under a 10G acceleration.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

jakerock said:


> The "slingshot" maneuver you were asking about it like sitting in a car while you and the car are falling toward the earth.


Okay, I think I see. So if I want to "drive" the car forward, even if forward is on a tangent to the car's acceleration toward the earth, I'm still only experiencing acceleration along the axis of the car.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smbaker said:


> If I'm sitting in a car (i.e. within the car's reference frame) on the surface of the earth, am I subject to 1G of gravity?
> 
> If I am in an aircraft (i.e. within the aircraft's reference frame) performing a 10G maneuver, will I black out?


Yes, and yes (assuming you black out at 10G or less)

The key point is that in the previous examples the ship was in space (and the elevator was in free fall) and the person in the ship and the ship itself were being accelerated together. Gravity acts at a distance on both the ship and the person.

With the person in the car, you have introduced a contact force: the ground pushes up on the car with an equal and opposite force to the weight of the car and person. The person and the car are not falling together under the influence of gravity alone.

With the aircraft, you have also introduced an additional force on the plane: lift. So again the person and the plane are not falling together under the influence of gravity alone (unless the plane is flying on a parabolic arc, aka ballistic trajectory, then the passengers will feel weightless).


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smbaker said:


> Okay, I think I see. So if I want to "drive" the car forward, even if forward is on a tangent to the car's acceleration toward the earth, I'm still only experiencing acceleration along the axis of the car.


Now there is some confusion about acceleration versus force. While it is true that a person in a car on flat ground accelerating straight forward only experiences acceleration in the direction of the car's travel, I don't think that example means what you seem to be suggesting.

Because the person in the car does feel a force due to gravity since the car is not in free fall. The seat of the car is pushing the person's body both up and forward. In free fall, you can essentially ignore the distinction between the force of gravity and the acceleration due to that force. But when not in free fall, the distinction becomes important. A person sitting in a stopped car has the force of gravity acting on them but they have zero acceleration since the car seat exerts an equal and opposite force to gravity on the person. Zero net force means zero acceleration.

I think the car and plane examples are probably causing more confusion than illumination. The key phenomena with the spaceship are (1) that the only forces acting on the ship are gravity and thrust, and (2) the passengers and the ship are experiencing identical acceleration due to gravity


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

What if it's there to prevent damage to humans not from acceleration, but from from rotation? Sure, the ship can go end over end almost instantly, but it'll snap the pilots neck if it does. So we let the ship go end over end as fast as is possible, but buffer the impact on the humans by letting them rotate at a non-neckbreaking pace.

Yes, this means that the acceleration won't always be aimed directly into the humans backs, but that's what the harnesses are for.

Edit: Also, Ep 8 is out, but there's no point in watching it because it doesn't address the current topic.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

kdmorse said:


> What if it's there to prevent damage to humans not from acceleration, but from from rotation? Sure, the ship can go end over end almost instantly, but it'll snap the pilots neck if it does.


First, we know that is not the case because we have seen the seats changing orientation by a non-negligible amount when the ship is not undergoing extreme angular acceleration.

Second, I do not think the ship is capable of going "end over end almost instantly". The maneuvering thrusters look small and weak. And it is hard to imagine that the designers of the ship would want to slow the ship down by designing the ship with maneuvering thrusters strong enough to flip the ship in say 1 millisecond. A few seconds should be good enough. Keep in mind that even if the ship could flip in a millisecond that the velocity vector would take a lot longer to change significantly since the ship would have significant momentum already in almost any conceivable maneuver where you would want to rapidly change the direction of travel. A spaceship like that simply cannot bob and weave through space like a hummingbird on a sugar high. And contrary to Star Wars, it is not really practical to make manned ships that could. Realistically, space battles would be mostly fought with numerous drones, offensive and defensive, with low mass and high acceleration capability. Essentially bombs with the minimum possible mass and the strongest possible thrusters.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

The force that we feel is basically how much work our body needs to do to maintain its structure.

When we are standing on the ground, the ground is preventing the bottoms of our feet from being pulled toward the center of the Earth due to its gravity. But the rest of our body is being pulled down as well. If it couldn't support itself at all, the rest of our atoms would be pulled toward the ground as if we were an amorphous blob. Fortunately, the body can support itself. But the effort to maintain its structure puts strain on the body, which is what we feel as weight.

When we are in free fall, all of our atoms have the same external forces equally applied to them. We feel weightless because there is no strain on our body due to an external force hitting only part of it, requiring the rest of our body to compensate in order to maintain its structure.

This is also why we can feel weightless in a sensory deprivation tank. It's not true weightlessness since the liquid is only supporting part of the outside of our body. But because far more of our body is supported than just our feet, we feel a lot less weight than we would standing up in the open air.

If a spaceship had some magical way of redistributing the momentum generated by the thrusters such that all atoms in the ship were accelerated evenly, humans could survive any amount of acceleration. In fact, the ship would feel no different than if it were traveling at a constant velocity. We would probably prefer a 1G environment, however, so if we had such a magical device, ideally we would be able to tune it so that 1G of the acceleration would bypass it, and affect the ship normally.

This is also why we could cross the event horizon of a large black hole without being instantly crushed. For a large enough black hole, the forces at the event horizon are even enough that the body would be able to maintain its structure just fine. So if "seeing the inside of a black hole" was on someone's bucket list, it is something they could theoretically do. They would just need to make sure to do all the "outside of the black hole" stuff first.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Man, that jump really cost Naomi.
I get that she altered the message but my question is, how will Alex (or Holden) interpret it?

Oksana really should have let Drummer cut loose.

Avasarala is going to have a problem with Delgado, isn't she?

Also, is Marcos' grand plan on the flawed side?
His aim seems to be to have the Belt control the Ring Gates and the planets on the other side of those gates.
But as we mentioned, Belters will have problems with the planetary gravity wells.
How many of his "own people" is Marcos willing to sacrifice not only to that but the inevitable conflicts with Earth and Mars?

(Answer: As many as it takes.)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JYoung said:


> Also, is Marcos' grand plan on the flawed side?
> His aim seems to be to have the Belt control the Ring Gates and the planets on the other side of those gates.
> But as we mentioned, Belters will have problems with the planetary gravity wells.


Or control ACCESS to the planets on the other side...

To me, the flaw is what we saw this week...he now has Earth thinking "Kill all Belters!"


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Or control ACCESS to the planets on the other side...
> 
> To me, the flaw is what we saw this week...he now has Earth thinking "Kill all Belters!"


Access sure, but that might backfire as well.
(As you point out.)

I'm guessing Marcos thought that Earth would be too busy with it's own problems after the impacts.
(Death, destruction, asteroid winters)
But it always seemed to me that Earth was straining to maintain resources for it's current population and may have no choice but to push out more to the ring worlds, not only for resources but colonization as well.
The more desperate they are, the harder they'll fight against the Free Navy.
(And that's on top of a lot of them wanting revenge.)

Then there's Mars.....
I'm guessing the higher ups that sold Marcos their gunships and weapons are doing this to stem the bleeding of Martians leaving and this is their way to refocus the population on terraforming Mars.

It also begs the question of who attacked the Martian Parliament.
If it's thought that Marcos did that as well, he's got the MCRN after him as well.

And from what Admiral Delgado said, it sounds like UNN and MCRN have him badly outgunned.

_Edited to add:_ Sure, he thought he'd have the protomolecule but he doesn't, does he?


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

One thing that's more clear to me from reading the books than from watching the show is the predicament Mars is in, with the appearance of the ring gates and the worlds beyond it. Essentially, they're screwed. Why bust your butt trying to terraform Mars (which would take decades, and untold lives and dollars) when there are hundreds of other worlds that are already habitable?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

PaulS said:


> One thing that's more clear to me from reading the books than from watching the show is the predicament Mars is in, with the appearance of the ring gates and the worlds beyond it. Essentially, they're screwed.


Avasarala in the books is good at that summarizing the "30,000 ft view." I wish the TV version had that insight. But the Belt's screwed too. Almost worse than Mars. Mars is simply why wait 100+ years for terraforming when there are perfectly habitable worlds beyond the Ring Gates. 


Spoiler: Book 6 Spoilers and beyond



But this diaspora will break a lot of Belter and outer planet communities. Without the inner planets' commerce- all these outposts and stations lose their reason to exist. Free worlds with atmosphere are more hospitable environments- why stay? And while some Belters can live on those worlds and will likely emigrate too- that leaves a population only suitable for living *in space* and environments with less than 1/3 G. One the solar system empties out, and the economy dries up, the belters become an endangered and nomadic people.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

everyone knows you can't use the slingshot around a sun/whatever because it sends you back in time...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> everyone knows you can't use the slingshot around a sun/whatever because it sends you back in time...


Doesn't it depend on which direction you go..?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Dear God...one episode about Naomi's family drama...then another episode about Naomi stuck on a ship...and the next one will probably be about saving Naomi from the ship/trap she is in? really? is that what this season going to be about? the absolute worst character on the entire show?


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Anubys said:


> Dear God...one episode about Naomi's family drama...then another episode about Naomi stuck on a ship...and the next one will probably be about saving Naomi from the ship/trap she is in? really? is that what this season going to be about? the absolute worst character on the entire show?


With any luck they'll get to the ship soon, they seem to be converging on it with haste.

And while I still like the character - her solo plot line is indeed dragging this season down.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Also - I thought I was paying attention. Where did the belter's stolen proto-molecule go?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

kdmorse said:


> Also - I thought I was paying attention. Where did the belter's stolen proto-molecule go?


As far as we know, it was blown to bits when the ship that was supposedly carrying it self-destructed rather than be captured.

As far as we know.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I hope they're saving up their excitement budget for this seaspn's remaining episodes because most of this season so far is a snooze fest.


----------



## ehusen (Jan 7, 2002)

I have to agree with a lot of the comments about this year being kind slow and not that engaging. This last episode did almost have me hitting the fast forward button.

We get it, Naomi's son and baby daddy are united in their bastardom. It sucks but lets move on okay? 

I assume at some point Naomi is going to have to make the decision to kill them both by blowing up the ship they are on. Or the son will have a last minute "Darth Vader" conversion and sacrifice himself to save her. Or the final option is the father winds up killing the son for his 'lack of faith' and Naomi kills the father in a righteous rage.

And yeah, Naomi is really suffering, again we get it. So let's see her stumble around in her suit without oxygen, tap a wire, then stumble back and rip off the helmet to gasp for air. Then let's repeat that a bunch more times. I was kind of starting to wish she wouldn't make it back after a few runs. There are ways to build tension but I don't think this is the way.

Plus she's like a super engineer? She can't figure out how to disable the bomb? 

At this point, I would think she would hear the Rocianthe approaching and decide to blow the ship to save the rest of the crew and the love of her life.

I'm not wishing an end to her character, I've enjoyed other episodes with her in them. But the last few have been tiring to watch.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Sure, he thought he'd have the protomolecule but he doesn't, does he?





kdmorse said:


> Also - I thought I was paying attention. Where did the belter's stolen proto-molecule go?





Rob Helmerichs said:


> As far as we know, it was blown to bits when the ship that was supposedly carrying it self-destructed rather than be captured ... As far as we know.


I'm guessing Marco somehow has the protomolecule. If he doesn't, I don't see how he has any chance of being victorious against Earth and/or Mars.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Of course, Marco has the protomolecule. The question I have is if it's any threat any longer. The other piece of it already fulfilled its objective. I would think that releasing this one would just let it communicate with its other part, find out the mission is done, and therefore do nothing.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

gweempose said:


> I'm guessing Marco somehow has the protomolecule. If he doesn't, I don't see how he has any chance of being victorious against Earth and/or Mars.


Well, the dialog between Holden, Bull, and Monica indicates that they believe that no other ship rendezvoused with the _Zemya_.

And Marcos seemed to be pretty upset with Filip that he didn't have the protomolecule sample.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily preclude the _Zemya_ from shooting off the sample in a missile or just dumping it behind them.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

The theory I've seen on if it's possible Marcos still has the protomolecule.


Spoiler:  Possible Spoiler



The very last rocket fired from the ship that had protomolecule has a different plume/exhaust compared the rest and looks like a Epstein drive. They snuck it off during the attack and then self destructed before Holden could board and search the ship.


















Although I wonder if stuff is just extrapolated from book readers, so theories aren't really theories but people pointing out the miniscule details out.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Not sure why you think that's a spoiler. It's just a theory based only on what was shown (albeit very briefly and nearly invisible unless you had a good monitor).


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

gweempose said:


> I'm guessing Marco somehow has the protomolecule. If he doesn't, I don't see how he has any chance of being victorious against Earth and/or Mars.


Didn't they speculate in the prior episode that perhaps he stole the protomolecule as payment for his shiny new fleet of Martian stealth warships?

Marco brags about how he's the one with the "big vision", but if he really did/does plan to trade that protomolecule for a few ships, then his vision is really rather small.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Then we go back to Marcos banking on Earth being too busy with the aftereffects of the asteroid strikes and Mars being too busy trying to get back to terraforming the planet.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

With the opening of the ring, Mars has basically abandoned the terraforming project. Why try to transform a world that could take a hundred years or more to accomplish when there are thousands of habitable new worlds on the other side of the ring? People currently living on Mars will never see the project completed in their lifetime so why wait for something that will never happen for them when they can just colonize new worlds? I just finished reading Nemesis Games so I don't want to spoil the last couple of episodes. I don't recall if it was something I read in the book or if it was revealed in one of the episodes that already aired, but I believe there is speculation that there is someone higher up that is controlling Marco and the belters. Unless Earth can recover from the asteroid strikes and vegetation can start thriving again, the Earth is a dying planet. Without vegetation, there is no more oxygen production and the atmosphere will slowly become poisoned with too much carbon dioxide unless they can build CO2 scrubbers on a massive scale like the ones they use onboard the spaceships.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

I haven't read the novels but I well understand that Mars is bleeding people to the colonization of the other star systems from what I saw in the show.
Why wait a century or two when you can be on an already usable planet in less than a year?

Also, there was the talk about giving the protomolecule to Mars.

What if the higher ups selling gun ships to Marcos have gotten it into their heads to use the protomolecule to speed up the terraforming process on Mars?

(Also, could the protomolecule be used to help repair the damage to Earth's ecosystem?)


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Ep 10 is up. Make sure you keep an eye on the end credits scene.

...

Ok, so, now how long do we have to wait for season 6?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Unbelievable. Subs in 29 languages...but not English.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

At least we’re done with the tedious Chetzsmoka scenes.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

kdmorse said:


> Ep 10 is up. Make sure you keep an eye on the end credits scene.


What end credits scene?


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> What end credits scene?


They show more of what's in orbit around Laconia


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

kaszeta said:


> They show more of what's in orbit around Laconia


Ah, so there's no actual end credits scene...glad I didn't miss it! I was a bit startled when it auto-jumped from the end of the credits to the Expanse menu.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Ah, so there's no actual end credits scene...glad I didn't miss it! I was a bit startled when it auto-jumped from the end of the credits to the Expanse menu.


Well, it is an end-credits scene, but not a post-credits scene.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

kaszeta said:


> Well, it is an end-credits scene, but not a post-credits scene.


OK, then I missed it. All I saw were some graphics that the credits ran over...so what happened?


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

Spoiler: SPOILER



The orbital shipyard appeared to activate, with a blue glow


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Loved the last scene. Reminded me of the Arboghast disassembly from the Season 2 finale. 5 was great, but season 3 is still my favorite.

Season Six is going to be interesting if they're


Spoiler: Book 6-7 stuff



advancing the Laconian Empire this early in the story.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

If there are already people on Laconia, why did the Mars ship get destroyed going through the Laconia ring?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cherry ghost said:


> If there are already people on Laconia, why did the Mars ship get destroyed going through the Laconia ring?


What an excellent question!


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Recap!


----------



## oscarfish (Mar 2, 2009)

I was surprised to see the Alex died part. I thought the issues with the actor came to light after they were done filming/editing S5. Obliviously not.

I thought I saw a tweet last week from @JamesSACorey saying that filming of S6 has started. I didn't think that could be true since no one from the show had contacted me for my notes from S5.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

oscarfish said:


> I thought the issues with the actor came to light after they were done filming/editing S5. Obliviously not.


If you look at the X-Ray "Bonus Materials" in the Amazon Video UI, there are lots of production stills where Cas Anvar was in the final scenes on Luna- both in the airlock when they reunite with Amos and in the bar/restaurant. Anvar was doctored out.


----------



## oscarfish (Mar 2, 2009)

Saturn_V said:


> If you look at the X-Ray "Bonus Materials" in the Amazon Video UI, there are lots of production stills where Cas Anvar was in the final scenes on Luna- both in the airlock when they reunite with Amos and in the bar/restaurant. Anvar was doctored out.


Sounds like they went to the Below Deck Med school of editing a character out.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Some of those scenes in the Luna bar did seem oddly framed: why were they bothering to show so much empty couch rather than tightening up on the principles? But maybe I'm just imagining it after the fact. I was surprised as well although I guess it's better to do it this way than have a S06E01 "while you were gone, Alex kicked it..." type thing.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

cherry ghost said:


> If there are already people on Laconia, why did the Mars ship get destroyed going through the Laconia ring?


oh, it was destroyed? I thought they were showing the "stargate" effect, just not the materializing on the other side...


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Anubys said:


> oh, it was destroyed? I thought they were showing the "stargate" effect, just not the materializing on the other side...


I'm going to have to rewatch having seen that scene several times. I did not get the impression the ship was destroyed. I felt the scene was just emphasizing the evil threat that inhabits the dimension that crosses the ring portals taking an interest in the ship. But others (here and elsewhere) got the feeling that it was destroyed.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

kdmorse said:


> I'm going to have to rewatch having seen that scene several times. I did not get the impression the ship was destroyed. I felt the scene was just emphasizing the evil threat that inhabits the dimension that crosses the ring portals taking an interest in the ship. But others (here and elsewhere) got the feeling that it was destroyed.


I think if it were not destroyed, then instead of showing it being disintegrated they would have shown it being disintegrated but still arriving at the other end...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

The reason I didn't think it was destroyed is because they spent precious show minutes giving us a preview of what kind of society they were planning on creating on the other side; one that was going to be "evil" in its execution; if not in plan. So if they all die, what was the purpose of the monologue?


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Anubys said:


> The reason I didn't think it was destroyed is because they spent precious show minutes giving us a preview of what kind of society they were planning on creating on the other side; one that was going to be "evil" in its execution; if not in plan. So if they all die, what was the purpose of the monologue?


I think it's the fact that they have activated the technology with the protomolicule, and that is why it destroyed the ship when it tried to enter.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I just finished watching the excellent recap. Now that I understand that the ship was destroyed by the "anti-aliens" (or the tech that killed the protomolecule people), I see now that the destruction wouldn't be in vain since those people would continue on in some form (like the detective, maybe?).

Until Amos brought Peaches on board, I had thought she was someone from his past that we're seeing for the first time this season. Therefore, the way he convinced Holden to get her on the ship - while funny - made zero sense to me. I now understand who she is from the recap! but that story arc was totally forgotten by me...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> The reason I didn't think it was destroyed is because they spent precious show minutes giving us a preview of what kind of society they were planning on creating on the other side; one that was going to be "evil" in its execution; if not in plan. So if they all die, what was the purpose of the monologue?


That was one ship. They have a whole society growing on the other world.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That was one ship. They have a whole society growing on the other world.


well, yeah, but that was the ship that had the leader with the vision of what the new world would be!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> well, yeah, but that was the ship that had the leader with the vision of what the new world would be!


You really think he's the only guy on Mars who understands what it means to Mars to have a planet that doesn't need to be terraformed?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Anubys said:


> well, yeah, but that was the ship that had the leader with the vision of what the new world would be!


Sauveterre wasn't the leader. He's a subordinate of Admiral Duarte who is the leader of the renegade MCRN faction. And Duarte is mentioned in Sauveterre's congratulation to Marco Inaros.

We haven't seen Duarte yet. But Bobbie was investigating missing tech for over a year. Duarte's been moving assets to Laconia in all that time.

if you rewind back to S4E01, Laconia was one the targets of ships that ran the Ring Blockade.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I just finished watching the excellent recap. Now that I understand that the ship was destroyed by the "anti-aliens" (or the tech that killed the protomolecule people), I see now that the destruction wouldn't be in vain since those people would continue on in some form (like the detective, maybe?).


Miller "lived" on because he was infected by the protomolecule itself and it subsumed his memory etc. If the ship was destroyed by the technology that destroyed the protomolecule civilization it doesn't follow (to me) that the people on the ship would continue on like Miller did... I mean, maybe, but it's a completely different situation.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Saturn_V said:


> Sauveterre wasn't the leader. He's a subordinate of Admiral Duarte who is the leader of the renegade MCRN faction. And Duarte is mentioned in Sauveterre's congratulation to Marco Inaros.
> 
> We haven't seen Duarte yet. But Bobbie was investigating missing tech for over a year. Duarte's been moving assets to Laconia in all that time.
> 
> if you rewind back to S4E01, Laconia was one the targets of ships that ran the Ring Blockade.


Oh, I thought the captain of that ship who made his subordinate take off her mother's bracelet was Duarte. I also thought he was the leader. Thanks for the clarification.



madscientist said:


> Miller "lived" on because he was infected by the protomolecule itself and it subsumed his memory etc. If the ship was destroyed by the technology that destroyed the protomolecule civilization it doesn't follow (to me) that the people on the ship would continue on like Miller did... I mean, maybe, but it's a completely different situation.


so, what you're saying is: "It's an entirely different kind of disintegration, altogether"?


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

I thought the Martian ship was destroyed but haven't finished the after show yet. I didn't see it coming w/so much collusion between a faction of the MCRN and the Belters. Interesting...

That was pretty cool to see the Earth ships in battle. Did I miss the destruction of the 3rd ship except from the conference room?

Will be interesting if Macro will be able to maintain his grip upon the Belters or if they will abandon him and/or fight amongst themselves.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

cwerdna said:


> I thought the Martian ship was destroyed but haven't finished the after show yet. I didn't see it coming w/so much collusion between a faction of the MCRN and the Belters. Interesting...
> 
> That was pretty cool to see the Earth ships in battle. Did I miss the destruction of the 3rd ship except from the conference room?
> 
> Will be interesting if *Macro* will be able to maintain his grip upon the Belters or if they will abandon him and/or fight amongst themselves.


How to spot a programmer 

This is the part I don't get: Marco doesn't seem to have anywhere near enough ships to hold the solar system. At best, he can be a very successful pirate or something. What am I missing?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> How to spot a programmer
> 
> This is the part I don't get: Marco doesn't seem to have anywhere near enough ships to hold the solar system. At best, he can be a very successful pirate or something. What am I missing?


He doesn't need to hold the solar system. He just needs to hold the Ring. Then he controls access to a thousand other worlds.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

And remember ring space has both a restricted opening (very large, but limited) and also very different physics than normal space...


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

madscientist said:


> And also very different physics than normal space...


investigator Miller disabled the security of the station at the end of season 3. The ring space isn't a "slow zone" anymore, and ships can transit at unrestricted speeds.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> He doesn't need to hold the solar system. He just needs to hold the Ring. Then he controls access to a thousand other worlds.


And why is that any easier? Someone that has 10 tanks guarding a mountain pass isn't an insurmountable obstacle because the pass is narrow. It's not like the people guarding the ring before Marco were not easily overwhelmed.

I'm not being a smart alec...please explain why it is how you say it is. Clearly, (see next comment) I'm missing a lot of important details!



Saturn_V said:


> investigator Miller disabled the security of the station at the end of season 3. The ring space isn't a "slow zone" anymore, and ships can transit at unrestricted speeds.


I did not know that; which makes Rob's suggestion even more implausible...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> And why is that any easier? Someone that has 10 tanks guarding a mountain pass isn't an insurmountable obstacle because the pass is narrow. It's not like the people guarding the ring before Marco were not easily overwhelmed.
> 
> I'm not being a smart alec...please explain why it is how you say it is. Clearly, (see next comment) I'm missing a lot of important details!


They were easily overwhelmed because it never occurred to them that they might face an enemy that could give them more than a mild headache. It never occurred to them that they would be facing a fleet of state-of-the-art Martian warships, because Mars is part of their alliance.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> They were easily overwhelmed because it never occurred to them that they might face an enemy that could give them more than a mild headache. It never occurred to them that they would be facing a fleet of state-of-the-art Martian warships, because Mars is part of their alliance.


That's fine...the element of surprise and the stealth meteors did the trick for Marco...still, I don't see how a few ships can hold the ring gate against the overwhelming power of Earth's fleet.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> That's fine...the element of surprise and the stealth meteors did the trick for Marco...still, I don't see how a few ships can hold the ring gate against the overwhelming power of Earth's fleet.


I'm not sure how overwhelming Earth's fleet would be in that situation. I mean sure, against a ragtag Belter fleet. But now the Belters have a state-of-the-art Martian fleet of their own...and Martian ships are better than Earther ships.

And let's face it...Earth has problems of its own right now. Like whether or not they're going to even survive.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

TIL there have been different “after shows” than what’s up on YouTube on the Amazon Prime channel (Ty and that guy).

On the X-Ray content for eps in at least S4 and S5, at least on iOS clients, under bonus content is another after show that’s 3-5 minutes long. 

It doesn’t seem to exist on their Roku 3, Apple TV 4K and Android TV/Google TV clients. At least on iOS you can’t cast those short after shows and they also block AirPlay from an iPad of that content.

I've been going thru them backwards starting from end of S5. I'm now at the end of S4.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

Saturn_V said:


> If you look at the X-Ray "Bonus Materials" in the Amazon Video UI, there are lots of production stills where Cas Anvar was in the final scenes on Luna- both in the airlock when they reunite with Amos and in the bar/restaurant. Anvar was doctored out.


Hmm... will have to take a look.

The Expanse - formerly on SyFy, now an Amazon Original - Page 6 - My Nissan Leaf Forum and The Expanse - formerly on SyFy, now an Amazon Original - Page 6 - My Nissan Leaf Forum supposedly show the before and after in the bar.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

I binged the last few episodes this week (I think I was three behind). I felt like the spent about 2 episodes too much on Naomi this season. I liked the dynamic between her, Marco, and their son, but after she left his ship, everything was repetition. If I heard that SOS call one more time I was going to have to mute the TV...

It's very interesting how they wrote off Anvar. It was sudden, but well done. If we didn't know the backstory with the actor, I could totally see this being just how the story was supposed to unfold.

Like last season, this season was good...but left me feeling like they should have done just a little more. Last season was too focused on the whiny bickering of everyone on the planet. This season was Naomi putting on and taking off her space suit for (what felt like) two full episodes. I wish we would have gotten more with Amos and Peaches, more about Marco's overall plan (were the "stealth rocks" that destroyed the battle ship near the gate ever even hinted at?), and I really wish we would have seen more of everyone as a team, rather than everybody seeming to have an individual story arc for the season.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

doom1701 said:


> (were the "stealth rocks" that destroyed the battle ship near the gate ever even hinted at?),


Yes.
In episode six or seven eight, Hard Vacuum, Marcos is looking at a display readout of the Rings and the ships guarding it.
Lines are drawn towards the ships.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

Over at The Expanse - formerly on SyFy, now an Amazon Original - Page 6 - My Nissan Leaf Forum, someone pointed to 



 (starting at the 42 second mark) going over the battle sequences in the final ep.

Wow. I hadn't realized that some of the ships taken out were due to rail guns. I thought torpedoes had gotten through. I also had no idea which ship was which. I wouldn't have been able to tell you the name of a Free Navy ship if shown a pic of it.

In the above video, I noticed some shots seemed to have the angles reversed/mirrored. Perhaps it was intentional to prevent YouTube's automated anti-piracy scanning from blocking/taking down the video?


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

cwerdna said:


> Over at The Expanse - formerly on SyFy, now an Amazon Original - Page 6 - My Nissan Leaf Forum, someone pointed to
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll be honest. The battle was done awesomely, but I did miss a lot of those details.


----------



## jeremy3721 (Feb 16, 2002)

First half of season five was great and then it devolved to crap. I can’t watch another minute of Naomi. She’s a breathing disaster of a person. With Alex gone Amos is the only character I care anything about so I think I’m done with the show. The last four episodes were painfully hard to get through.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

jeremy3721 said:


> First half of season five was great and then it devolved to crap. I can't watch another minute of Naomi. She's a breathing disaster of a person. With Alex gone Amos is the only character I care anything about so I think I'm done with the show. The last four episodes were painfully hard to get through.


ha! shows how much our respective mileage may vary, Amos is the one story I feel they could lose and I wouldn't miss him


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

dianebrat said:


> ha! shows how much our respective mileage may vary, Amos is the one story I feel they could lose and I wouldn't miss him


Amos is really hard for me to root for. I appreciate the ass-kicking skill, but without a "Jiminy Cricket" character providing a moral compass, he'd be kicking puppies and kittens 24/7. He's Chaotic Evil with brief interludes.


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

I find that much of the personality, charm and deepness of character has been lost in the translation to the TV show. It's unfortunate, but I can sympathize with the show's writers. There's only so much you can squeeze into 50 minute episodes, and having characters' internal monologues doesn't really translate well to the screen. For as much as the characters talk about being a "family" on the show, it just doesn't feel like that to me. The show loses out on the more mundane, day-to-day stuff on the Roci that builds the depth of these relationships (which is also what I'd cut 1st in writing for the show).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Saturn_V said:


> Amos is really hard for me to root for. I appreciate the ass-kicking skill, but without a "Jiminy Cricket" character providing a moral compass, he'd be kicking puppies and kittens 24/7. He's Chaotic Evil with brief interludes.


That's what makes him interesting to me. As he himself recently said, he wants to be a relatively decent person, but needs somebody to tell him what to do. On his own, he doesn't have a clue.

I think he's more Chaotic Neutral, living in a world that keeps pulling him towards Evil. So he needs a Good character to pull him in the other direction. And being off the Roci has deprived him of that kind of influence.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Never read the books, but my take on Amos is he wants to be a good person and be someone others can look up to, however he always gravitates to some form of drama. If he were left alone to live some boring life he'd implode it by creating drama and then he'd be thrown away in some jail, at best.

He's fortunate to have found this crew as he recognizes they have good intentions and good morals, but they always seem to be in the thick of some drama and his skill-set and personality of ass-whooping really comes in handy and allows him to let loose his 'evil side' or whatever you want to call it on those who oppose his good nature'd friends.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think he's more Chaotic Neutral, living in a world that keeps pulling him towards Evil. So he needs a Good character to pull him in the other direction. And being off the Roci has deprived him of that kind of influence.


Amos has moments that he acts totally on his own, even among the crew of the Roci. Even when other characters are telling not to. When Amos' mind is set- no one can stop him. It's mildly cathartic when he goes off-script like that- beating a kid with canned chicken on Ganymede, or taking down an in-custody Murtry at the end of S4.

But he's more like the barely leashed mad dog that Josephus Miller calls him out in S2. Yes, the character is compelling to watch. Just hard to get behind.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

robojerk said:


> Never read the books, but my take on Amos is he wants to be a good person and be someone others can look up to, however he always gravitates to some form of drama. If he were left alone to live some boring life he'd implode it by creating drama and then he'd be thrown away in some jail, at best.


I'm not sure I agree with this. From what I can tell, if he were left alone he'd probably be perfectly happy with a boring life. It seems to me that he doesn't go looking for trouble. However when trouble comes along (and it often does) he has only one reaction and that's often an _over_reaction. He needs Naomi (and now Holden) to help him find a different reaction, or to tone it down.

It's possible my views of Amos are colored by his characterization in the books.


----------



## jeremy3721 (Feb 16, 2002)

I’m still pissed about Alex. Best character on the show lost to “accusations” of inappropriate behavior I guess.

by the time Naomi jumped out of the ship I was wishing I could remotely detonate one of those explosive charges myself. It’s a good sign that a show isn’t for me when I’m rooting fir one of the main heroes of the show to just die already.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

jeremy3721 said:


> I'm still pissed about Alex. Best character on the show lost to "accusations" of inappropriate behavior I guess.


From what I've seen like at Why Alex Won't Be In Expanse Season 6: Cas Anvar Controversy Explained, they are pretty serious allegations and supposedly, Alcon Entertainment investigated and decided it was legit and/or serious enough to can him.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

jeremy3721 said:


> I'm still pissed about Alex. Best character on the show lost to "accusations" of inappropriate behavior I guess.


No need to add scare-quotes on _accusations_. This one wasn't that close.

It's definitely bad that the actor behaved so horribly, but not a great loss for the show; Alex was the least interesting character with the least interesting arc, and definitely the least important to the plot of the main group.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Alex wasn’t accused of anything — the actor playing his is.

The writers should have done a “Darrin” with Alex.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

If it had been an other character than Alex, they maybe _would_ have done a "Darrin". But as I say, the character isn't really that important to the main plotline... they can bring anyone in to fly the Roci. Having him killed off adds some realism (although I'm sure they wish they had a bit more opportunity to handle it differently) that flying in space is dangerous, and solves the real-world problem without requiring the wink-and-nod in the show.

That said, I'm not a fan of the character they seem to have chosen to replace him. But I can see how he could add new elements to the crew.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Sounds like Cas Anvar went to the Harvey Weinstein School of Etiquette. It seems like anyone mildly successful in Hollywood (or professional sports for that matter) thinks they're entitled to sex from every fan they meet. Whatever happened to good behavior?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> Sounds like Cas Anvar went to the Harvey Weinstein School of Etiquette. It seems like anyone mildly successful in Hollywood (or professional sports for that matter) thinks they're entitled to sex from every fan they meet. Whatever happened to good behavior?


Of course it rarely makes the news when an actor (or athlete) behaves decently with fans...


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

“Dog bites man”


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

madscientist said:


> If it had been an other character than Alex, they maybe _would_ have done a "Darrin". But as I say, the character isn't really that important to the main plotline... they can bring anyone in to fly the Roci. Having him killed off adds some realism (although I'm sure they wish they had a bit more opportunity to handle it differently) that flying in space is dangerous, and solves the real-world problem without requiring the wink-and-nod in the show.
> 
> That said, I'm not a fan of the character they seem to have chosen to replace him. But I can see how he could add new elements to the crew.


Yeah, as much as I like the character, he doesn't really _do _much besides pilot. In a way the show runners kind of lucked out there.

Another thing that seems lucky is that earlier in the season, they had already deviated from the books in one particular plot point, in a way that opened up the opportunity to get rid of Alex easily:


Spoiler



In the books, Fred Johnson isn't murdered by the Inaros faction when they steal the sample; instead, _he _dies by G-force induced stroke during the climactic battle.



...At least, given that they reportedly had to post-edit Alex out of some final scenes, it seems likely that this other change was already in place before the need arose?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Of course it rarely makes the news when an actor (or athlete) behaves decently with fans...


While it may seem rare, it does actually happen. I once read when Keanu Reeves has his picture taken with female fans he puts his arm around them but never makes contact with their person and acts like a perfect gentleman. Lots of actors are courteous and respectful to fans and that's how it should be. It's the bad apples that tend to get the press. It's a case where no news is good news.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Yeah a LOT of famous people are doing the "hover maneuver" these days. Seems safest for everyone involved. It's too bad there are so many dooshy guys out there who ruin even simple things like fan/celebrity meetings.

On the other hand maybe they were "helping" us get ready for a new reality of fist- and elbow-bumps and waves from 6ft apart.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

dcheesi said:


> ...At least, given that they reportedly had to post-edit Alex out of some final scenes, it seems likely that this other change was already in place before the need arose?


The Expanse - formerly on SyFy, now an Amazon Original - Page 6 - My Nissan Leaf Forum supposedly shows a before and bit afterwards, the after.


----------



## jtonra (Oct 19, 2001)

What was the point of Naomi keeping track of her treks into the void? The only explanation I could come up with was maybe to keep track of which junction boxes she had tried so far. But she kept doing it even after she figured out which one she needed to mess with.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

My assumption was that every time she goes out she loses air from the ship. It was weird that nothing really ever came of that. But of course the main reason she did it is so that WE know how many times without them having to show every one .

My big question is, what kind of spacesuit doesn't have emergency lights embedded in it?!?!


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

madscientist said:


> My big question is, what kind of spacesuit doesn't have emergency lights embedded in it?!?!


I think the ship was stripped of anything that was valuable including batteries, but then again the suit should've been taken too.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Right, I mean, you'd think a spacesuit would have lights actually as part of the suit, so that it wouldn't be possible for them to float away or be knocked off. Or at least, that it would have lots of reflective material on it.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

madscientist said:


> Right, I mean, you'd think a spacesuit would have lights actually as part of the suit, so that it wouldn't be possible for them to float away or be knocked off. Or at least, that it would have lots of reflective material on it.


Different spacesuits for different environments. Even the ones NASA uses during launch aren't the same as the ones used for EVAs/spacewalks.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

madscientist said:


> Right, I mean, you'd think a spacesuit would have lights actually as part of the suit, so that it wouldn't be possible for them to float away or be knocked off. Or at least, that it would have lots of reflective material on it.


I think the suit she's in is just a pressure suit, meant to be worn in a space craft in case of loss of pressure like during a gun fight, and yes I'd agree there should be headlamps or something, how about you just imagine there's really tiny LEDs around the visor. There obviously was some way for them to find her floating out in the vastness of infinite space. The suit may not reflect light, but reflect other wave lengths that maybe would show up better on their radar, or some new futuristic equivalent to make lost crew stand out in case they get ejected.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I can't think of any reason for any kind of spacesuit to not have basic safety equipment such as lights and reflective material. Except maybe combat/stealth suits .

Whatever, I don't care that much, it just struck me when Naomi was floating around outside waving her arms that it was unrealistic that she wouldn't be more visible, even for a simple emergency pressure suit (really, you'd think an emergency suit would be even MORE visible).


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

madscientist said:


> I can't think of any reason for any kind of spacesuit to not have basic safety equipment such as lights and reflective material. Except maybe combat/stealth suits


SpaceX suit
Boeing Blue Suit
Exporation EV Mobility Unit

You better call NASA and tell em they're doing it wrong.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

jtonra said:


> What was the point of Naomi keeping track of her treks into the void? The only explanation I could come up with was maybe to keep track of which junction boxes she had tried so far. But she kept doing it even after she figured out which one she needed to mess with.


This was addressed in the Ty and that guy aftershow. Skip to about 1:10 of 



.

Every time she went there, she would lose a bit of air from the portion of the ship with air. IIRC or I presume the rest of life support wasn't working in order to replenish the air and scrub the CO2.

Also, at the aftershow noted, she eventually got worse and worse off due to less oxygen in the pressurized portion.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> SpaceX suit
> Boeing Blue Suit
> Exporation EV Mobility Unit
> 
> You better call NASA and tell em they're doing it wrong.


Fine, I guess to be pedantic we can add a new category where lights/reflectors wouldn't be missed: if your level of space-going technology and resources are so limited that there is no possibility of rescue regardless of how many lights/reflectors you have: if you're too far away to be seen without them you're gone so it doesn't matter.

Personally I still think they should have them.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That's what makes him interesting to me. As he himself recently said, he wants to be a relatively decent person, but needs somebody to tell him what to do. On his own, he doesn't have a clue.
> 
> I think he's more Chaotic Neutral, living in a world that keeps pulling him towards Evil. So he needs a Good character to pull him in the other direction. And being off the Roci has deprived him of that kind of influence.


I agree on Amos--deep down he's a good person who will do anything (no matter how bad) for the people he cares about. He gets to be a more difficult character for me to enjoy when he's separated from his "family". To a certain extent, every character on the show seems to struggle there. This season (even more than last season) has everyone separated from each other, and none of them really "clicked" for me this season because of it. We saw some extended/surrogate families like Alex and Bobbie, Amos and Peaches (I know that's not her name, but I can never remember which Mao she is  ), even Naomi and all of the belters under Marco. But none of those groupings really felt very strong.

But I actually was catching up on this thread to ask a different question--does anyone else feel that Steven Strait is the weak link for actors on the series? In the show, his character is presented as this incredible kick ass leader, but Strait just never felt right for the role.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I don't think Holden is supposed to be a kick-ass leader. He kind of fell into to backwards; in fact he never really wants to be in charge of anything (except maybe on the Roci, for the other three main characters). He's really not a Type A person. Holden is a person who believes in always doing the right thing, even at expense of himself, and has a very strong idea of what the right thing is, from his upbringing. That causes people to want to follow him, or at least a certain type of person. He's usually not very comfortable with this.

It's possible that this is made more clear in the books, than on the show.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

doom1701 said:


> But I actually was catching up on this thread to ask a different question--does anyone else feel that Steven Strait is the weak link for actors on the series? In the show, his character is presented as this incredible kick ass leader, but Strait just never felt right for the role.


I don't think Strait's a bad actor. I thought the chaos he portrayed with Investigator Miller was top-notch. But he certainly doesn't lead the cast like a traditional sci-fi lead would. Maybe you're expecting a Shatner, Stewart or Olmos type lead. But the show's cast wasn't constructed with that archetype.


----------



## PaulS (Sep 16, 2002)

doom1701 said:


> But I actually was catching up on this thread to ask a different question--does anyone else feel that Steven Strait is the weak link for actors on the series? In the show, his character is presented as this incredible kick ass leader, but Strait just never felt right for the role.


Initially, I didn't like his casting, but I've gotten used to him over the seasons. His portrayal is certainly different than it is on the page.

The character as written isn't necessarily a great "leader" in the classic sense. He certainly has a knack for falling into pivotal situations. He also has a strong sense of trying to the right thing (at least from his perspective), and is willing to run headlong into certain danger to achieve what he thinks he needs to do (whch could be construed as stupidity, or a death-wish).


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Just finished episode 10, omg was that painful. *Naomi *had way, way, way too much screen time, I was about ready to stick needles in my eyeballs. Other than that, it was a pretty good ep.


----------



## oscarfish (Mar 2, 2009)

I got excited yesterday when I noticed that the ninth and final novel (Leviathan Falls) appeared on Amazon. Then I noticed the delivery date of Nov 16. D'Oh!


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

wish I had BIG posters of the Expanse's bookcoverart.
Nemesis Games









So retro-SF, and yet not. 
The Expanse


----------



## oscarfish (Mar 2, 2009)

What, no NFTs for The Expanse yet?


----------



## Haps (Nov 30, 2001)

doom1701 said:


> In the show, his character is presented as this incredible kick ass leader, but Strait just never felt right for the role.


I read the books prior to watching the show. The first time I watched an episode I was like what? That can't be holden. This Jay Baruchel lookalike can not be Holden. I still hate the casting choice.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

December 10th!


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Can't wait for The Expanse!!! A shame they won't be trying to do the last 3 books but if they can't get them all then this is a good stopping-point.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Six Episodes for the last season.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Sad! However in all honesty, if they do decide to end things after the events of book 6 there's not THAT much left that they haven't covered in previous seasons. A tight six episodes might be better than adding meandering middle episodes.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Considering that Abbadon's Gate was condensed to a mere seven episodes in Season 3... I'm not really worried. It's just less. (or is it fewer)


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

madscientist said:


> Can't wait for The Expanse!!! A shame they won't be trying to do the last 3 books but if they can't get them all then this is a good stopping-point.


The current series will end at book six, but there is still a lot of talk about how they will handle books 7-9. The last three books have a lot of challenges to develop for the screen.


----------



## oscarfish (Mar 2, 2009)

Maybe I'm being too optimistic and pessimistic at the same time. It seems like they have a lot to wrap up in six episodes. They've got the Free Navy/Inaros stuff, Laconia stuff, and that strange unexplained entity or being that has appeared a few times. The later hasn't even been explained in the books yet. Saying that the last six episodes will be "tight" seems like an understatement. I figure that something has got to be left out.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

The Expanse's Steven Strait, Wes Chatham call final season a 'love letter' to fans with 'every beat justified' at NYCC


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

oscarfish said:


> Maybe I'm being too optimistic and pessimistic at the same time. It seems like they have a lot to wrap up in six episodes. They've got the Free Navy/Inaros stuff, Laconia stuff, and that strange unexplained entity or being that has appeared a few times. The later hasn't even been explained in the books yet. Saying that the last six episodes will be "tight" seems like an understatement. I figure that something has got to be left out.


I'm not sure you saw my entire post: I said _if_ they stop after book 6 (Babylon's Ashes) it would be a tight season.



Spoiler: media quotes on the scope of season 6



Daniel Abraham has been quoted as saying that the final season of the TV show won't include content from the final 3 books (7, 8, 9). If that's right, it means that the only one of the things you mention above that needs to be covered in the final TV season is the Free Navy/Inaros stuff. They wouldn't get into Laconia and everything that happens after


Spoiler: from book 7



the time jump.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Final Trailer for Season 6


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Ending the series after book six seems appropriate. I haven't finished the last three books yet, but I'm working on it. The end of book six was a bit anti-climactic and not at all what I expected. Still, I think they have done a marvelous job of bringing the books to the screen and I have enjoyed it immensely. I'll have to admit that I wasn't following the story that well when I watched the series initially, but I binge watched the first four seasons after reading the first five books and it was much easier to follow when you could see the series unfolding on a continuous basis. I liked that they injected the short novellas from the series of books into the storyline as they provided a lot of backstory to fill in the gaps. I'll be sorry to see the series end. Maybe they'll pick it up again and finish the rest of the books down the road.


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

The scene at the end of that trailer guarantees that there will be something to cover books 7-9. We don't know if it will be a spin off series, movies, limited series or what, but something will be coming.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

wedgecon said:


> The scene at the end of that trailer guarantees that there will be something to cover books 7-9. We don't know if it will be a spin off series, movies, limited series or what, but something will be coming.


Can you explain? Spoilerize if necessary. Did the scene at the end triggered something book-related, perhaps? Not having read the books I can't make heads or tails of that last scene.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

That scene references one of the Expanse novellas: Strange Dogs. The novella is set roughly 5-6 years after the end of the sixth book: Babylon's Ashes- which Season 6 covers.

Think of it like one of those MCU-end credit scenes. Seeding info and plot for future productions.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Started a Season Six Spoiler Thread.


----------

