There’s also a spoiler tag in the thread titleShit. Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. My apologies. While there's a six-month spoiler policy for new episodes of DSC everywhere else, it's only two weeks in this forum.
There’s also a spoiler tag in the thread titleShit. Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. My apologies. While there's a six-month spoiler policy for new episodes of DSC everywhere else, it's only two weeks in this forum.
Imagine how mad Homer must have felt that that hack Michael Chabon stole his sequence from the Odyssey for that episode, and then waggled it in the blind bard's face so obviously even he could see his story was being ripped off.
Shit. Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. My apologies. While there's a six-month spoiler policy for new episodes of DSC everywhere else, it's only two weeks in this forum.
Hmm. I haven’t seen calypso...what did they borrow from Ulysses 31? I mean, the Oddysey?
Spoilers
Well, Craft (who is crafty, btw) introduces himself as Quarrel, when he is found drifting in an escape pod by Zora. He is healed by her, and discouraged to leave. During the episode we learn that war has kept him away from home for ten years, where he left behind wife and child, to which he desperately wants to return to. Finally, after it becomes clear that Zora has fallen in love with him, but he is faithful to his wife, she gives him the only shuttle she has left and points him home.
So it's a loose retelling of Odysseus' time with the nymph Calypso.
Huh, it's funny. I only ever hear good things about "The Expanse", and really every single thing people praise about the show (around here, as well as people I met in real life) is stuff I absolutely agree on. And yet.... I never could get through the very first episode. It just seemed so.... cheap(ly made)? Like, I absolutely loved the concept, but I couldn't get over how much it, well, felt like a television show (kinda' like Babylon 5, whereas stuff like "nuBattlestar Galactica" had problematic characters to get into, but right from the very first scene felt "real"). Also, how long and dragged out the dialogue scenes felt. Especially the main detective character was IMO very low-brow generic crime show material.
Is that really only the first episode? I guess this is the type of show that's really opening up and getting more excited once you're familiar with it and into it?
(Kinda' how I would describe ENT - takes a LOT of good-will to get into, but once you watch it, it offers a lot of great stuff, especially the 3rd and 4th season)
Because everything I hear verbally about it makes me really want to check it out further, but I found it really hard to get invested in during the first episode.
The Joe Miller character could be grating I guess. I think Thomas Jane does a good job with him however, and it was perfect casting. The thing to remember is that the source book series explicitly makes each installment a hybrid of science fiction with a different genre. For the first book, it's SF and noir/detective novels. This stuff drops out of the mix pretty quickly after the first book though. Also, Miller's persona is sort of a conscious affectation - he's really kind of a self-loathing loser underneath it all - something much more clear in the books than in the show. A bigger casting problem is Steven Strait as James Holden, since Holden is the actual main character of the series, and he's simply miscast. No matter how unshaven they make him, and how much bass he puts into his voice, he just seems like he walked off of a CW teen drama to me.
Anyway, the show does get markedly better after a semi-rocky start. I think The Expanse shines in several distinct areas:
- It's by far the "hardest" science fiction show which I have ever seen on TV. The central plot of the show involves some seeming magic-tech, and there are cases they use artistic license to make things more filmable (like "mag boots" for zero-g environments). But Naren Shankar (who used to be TNG's science consultant) being showrunner really shows here. They get almost everything right. Space is dark and soundless. Space battles happen while ships are so far from one another they don't even have clear visuals. Humans die in vacuum in the manner they really would. They even get the Coriolis effect of a rotating habitat correct when pouring a drink!
- The show - because it's based upon an established series of novels - has some serious worldbuilding, though it elaborates even further than the novels. There is a whole Belter culture, with everything from food to fashion to language (including an invented language - Belter Creole - and a Belter accent that most - other than Joe Miller - causally speak in. All of the different major political factions - Earth, Mars, and the Belt - have their own internal political conflicts which are examined. This results in a world which seems more real - more lived-in - as time passes.
- The show does "shades of gray" in terms of morality in an interesting fashion. They don't make everyone an awful person - most of the main characters are genuinely nice-ish people, and want to do good, at least how they define it. However, their different values - and different loyalties - often bring them into conflict despite coming into things with generally good intentions. Even the few genuine villains, like Jules-Pierre Mao, are shown to not be inhuman monsters, and frankly given a greater level of complexity than the more shallow characterization given in the books.
- The stories are very strongly rooted in the characters, which again contrasts pretty strongly with what Discovery did, particularly in the first season. In every episode they tend to intersperse one-on-one dialogue between different characters where the discussion really isn't about solving the crisis of the week, or even plot-relevant at all. Instead, the purpose of these breaks is to both give us insight into who the characters are and the status of the relationship between the two characters.
So, say something we can all agree on, because you're personal opinion is subjectively stupid..got it. Nice chatting with you.
You come into a thread on the Discovery board regarding news about S3 and:
1) Cite nonsense YouTubist conspiracy theories (that it's a secret Bad Robot project, that it has to be 25% different, etc).
2) State that you despise Kurtzman and want the current era to be over.
3) Talk about how you had to force yourself to watch the show and that you hate the characters.
4) Claim that the majority of Trek fans share your view that the new series don't feel like Trek.
5) Play the victim when you get the inevitable negative response.
The first point is nonsense, the second and third are subjective opinions which you're entitled to and can't be debated, the fourth is an appeal to popularity without foundation and the last is rather silly given the response was inevitable.
If you want intelligent and friendly debates, try contributing something of that nature. Nothing you have said invites such a response.
That's not what they're saying at all.So, say something we can all agree on, because you're personal opinion is subjectively stupid..got it. Nice chatting with you.
And your post is objectively warnable. Infraction for flaming, comments to PM.So, say something we can all agree on, because you're personal opinion is subjectively stupid..got it. Nice chatting with you.
DSC Season 3 will technically be a prequel to Calypso.I can't wait for Picard to start and we can moan to it's fans that it's just another prequel and Trek needs to get over it's obsession with prequels and move to the present of Disco season 3![]()
^^^DSC Season 3 will technically be a prequel to Calypso.
Could we get an appearance by Bela Oxmyx (now extra murderous) or the all-nude Ilia Gene would have wanted?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.