The Expanse (Seasons 1 and 2)

[selenak]

This last week, I marathoned the first two seasons of The Expanse, and it is indeed as good as advertised. It's been a while since I've come across a sci fi story which is set within the solar system. Now I've seen other sic fi shows tackling colonialism, but not often as well. Meaning: as layered. This isn't a SW like "Evil Empire vs Brave Rebels" scenario where everything is expected to be fine once the rebellion succeeds, and which doesn't bother actually showing how the rebels do at governing. The Earth vs Mars vs "Belters" (i.e. the humans born on or living on the settlements further out in the system, like the moons of Jupiter) situation is complicated, and what's more, the show doesn't appear to be of the grimdark type where morals are for naives. Keeping an ethical compass in a hostile universe isn't presented as easy, but it's definitely presented as worth trying.

As for the characters, I think about the only thing that didn't initially work for me was Miller getting obsessed with Julie Mao in absentia while investigating her disappearance. I mean, I recognize the trope. And hey, I've become obsessed with a great meany absent (dead, historical) people. But I still didn't buy it, which is unfortunate since Miller's entire subsequent storyline builds on it. This aside, though, everything else I found compelling to watch, and appreciate how storylines which initially seem far apart (in s1: Miller's investigation on the one hand, the adventures of Holden & Co. as they become the crew of the Rocinante on the other, in s2: Bobbie Draper on the one hand, Chrisjen Avasarala on the other) turn out to be cosely entwined as the season progresses. And the characters play off each other very well. Naomi Nagata and just about everyone else guarantees great scenes, as does Chrisjen Avasarala & everyone else. Somewhat predictably for me, Avasarala, played by Shohreh Aghdashloo, is the character I'm most interested in. Given she tortures someone in her introduction scene, I was sure she'd be the designated villain, but no, it's more complicated than that (and NOT because torture is prettified in this universe), and so we have a wily older Indian politician contantly toeing the line between antiheroine and antivillain as she tries to prevent a war from happening. But seriously, there isn't a dull character in the lot (so far), and I'm looking forward to the remaining seasons.

Comments

[lizbee]

I think about the only thing that didn't initially work for me was Miller getting obsessed with Julie Mao in absentia while investigating her disappearance.

This is the biggest weakness in the books, too -- well, that and the general absence of women's points of view at all in the first book. (The authors levelled up to a point that, by season 5, I felt like the TV series was the inferior version.)

Given she tortures someone in her introduction scene, I was sure she'd be the designated villain, but no, it's more complicated than that

That scene wasn't in the books, and indeed, everything about her character in the books is in opposition to that scene -- and since Chrisjen's characterisation otherwise follows the books very closely, it was an odd and gratuitous choice.

[selenak]

Once I figured she wasn't meant to be the villain, I could see two reasons, especially after having watched s2: a) it makes it clear from the get go that she's not just ruthless, she has done some terrible things of her own. Otherwise, later characters bring this up in dialogue, but as what we see her doing is trying to prevent a war and keep people alive, it would remain abstract. Stuff like that one admiral telling her she's the worst person he's ever met or Errinwright going all "I only did what you taught me!" would feel quite differently, emotionally, if we hadn't watched her do something genuinely bad first.

b)When Holden in late s2 doesn't hold Amos back from beeing up Roma the creep for information but later says he's okay with Amos doing that to some jerk as long as it gets them preventing more proto molecule spreading, I thought that was the show holding up a mirror to the audience. Because Roma has been shown as a terrible people exploiter in the preceding scene, I bet the audience is with Holden there. But the show is not, since Holden is on an Ahab trajectory clearly signalled as wrong and only catching himself at the proverbial last minute an episode later. Now, letting Amos beating up someone for information is exactly the same kind of thing Chrisjen does in her introduction scene, only she uses gravity to do it. But she does it for the same reason, wanting information to stop what she at this point perceives as a threat. But because we know neither her nor the guy in question in that scene and just go by the act itself, we clearly see it's wrong, whereas in the later case the emotional build up is to be with the characters doing the torturing until they're faced with what they're becoming.

Note: I haven't read the books, I'm going by the show characterisation only based on what I've watched so far.