• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers The Expanse Season 5

Has anyone mentioned that they gave Fred's death in the books to Alex?

I've been of this opinion for a while but even more so now: Recast. Having two Darrens didn't kill anyone. (I want to see the Rise of Skywalker with Meryl Streep as Leia, dammit.) Especially if Anvar's transgressions were bad enough to fire him? Why not take away his legacy as the character too? Then we can all argue who is the better Alex?

OTOH, give Drummer all of Alex's parts from the book. She's been lots of other book characters already. ;)
 
I've been of this opinion for a while but even more so now: Recast. Having two Darrens didn't kill anyone. (I want to see the Rise of Skywalker with Meryl Streep as Leia, dammit.) Especially if Anvar's transgressions were bad enough to fire him? Why not take away his legacy as the character too? Then we can all argue who is the better Alex?

I enjoy the harsh, damnatio memoriae-style justice of this idea, but I wonder if part of the reason they didn't go with a recast was because there was such a negative reaction to them recasting Avasarala's husband last year. Of course, I'm nearly face-blind, and the rise of podcasts mean I don't rewatch shows for background noise like I once did, so my immediate reaction was "Oh, hey, Avasarala's husband is back! Haven't seen him him in a couple years," completely missing that he'd become ten years younger and a totally different person. I was actually shocked when I watched one of his scenes in an earlier episode by how different they were, and how uncritically I accepted the new guy.
 
Recasting completely ruins my immersion. If it's simply unfeasible (i.e. the character is key to the story but the actor dies or gets injured or anything like that) then sure, but otherwise I'd rather they write off the character and work around it.
 
I'm going to miss the Alex character. He was my second favorite character on the show. I still don't know what the actor did. I know he got into Metooed but I could never find details on what he actually did when I looked. It was something not released to the public. Anyways I hope to see Bobbie have a big season next season. She is my third favorite character. The top 5 for me are.

1 Amos

2 Alex

3 Bobbie

4 Drummer

5.Avasarala

Holden, Naomi, Ashford and Miller are my kind of runner ups.


Jason
 
Recasting completely ruins my immersion. If it's simply unfeasible (i.e. the character is key to the story but the actor dies or gets injured or anything like that) then sure, but otherwise I'd rather they write off the character and work around it.

I agree most of the time but not all the time but I think I liked the Alex character to much to buy into another actor. In fact I was already kind of confused by a earlier re-casting when I was binging the show for the first time starting just last month and the was Arjun. When it was no longer Brian George. I thought maybe Avasarala had gotten a divorced and remarried because I had forgotten the characters name.


Jason
 
The ending was alright. I thought the rescuing of Naomi was nicely done but really that whole thing was stretched out. The entire season seems to be setup for the next season. Yeah, I know this is a middle season, but not all of the seasons in the middle felt that way. They really didn't have 10 episodes of material to work with this season.

As I mentioned upthread, given how closely they were following the books, this was inevitable. Nemesis Games ends with basically no resolution, with the plot only finishing up in Babylon's Ashes. The entire point of the book at least was to see all of the "core four" broken up into their own subplots, along with having different POV's to see how friggin terrible Marco Inaros really is. The show really downplays this. In the books, Inaros is the worst mass murder in history. Billions die on Earth, not millions, with most of the population ultimately evacuating off-world.

Has anyone mentioned that they gave Fred's death in the books to Alex?

I've been of this opinion for a while but even more so now: Recast. Having two Darrens didn't kill anyone. (I want to see the Rise of Skywalker with Meryl Streep as Leia, dammit.) Especially if Anvar's transgressions were bad enough to fire him? Why not take away his legacy as the character too? Then we can all argue who is the better Alex?

Someone I know suggested maybe Alex should have had some sort of horrible accident in the final episode which completely mangled his face. Then you could recast him next season, and they could actually lampshade it - with Alex remarking he didn't even know the face he saw in the mirror any longer.

The issue with this is it would have required much more extensive reworking of the final episode than what was done here. I think it would have totally screwed up the narrative much more than the sudden death did.

While I love "book Alex" even in the later books, I don't think it's controversial to say out of the four main characters he's generally speaking given the least to do, meaning the show will be workable next season in his absence.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if next season Marco will
be merged with Singhs storyline and act as governor of Medina in a sort of alliance with Laconia. Or maybe Laconia just takes the useful idiot out in episode 1
 
Recasting completely ruins my immersion. If it's simply unfeasible (i.e. the character is key to the story but the actor dies or gets injured or anything like that) then sure, but otherwise I'd rather they write off the character and work around it.
I agree, recasting is awful. Even recasting Avasarala's husband annoyed the fuck out of me because I thought it was a new character, was confused and had to google it.
 
As I mentioned upthread, given how closely they were following the books, this was inevitable. Nemesis Games ends with basically no resolution, with the plot only finishing up in Babylon's Ashes. The entire point of the book at least was to see all of the "core four" broken up into their own subplots, along with having different POV's to see how friggin terrible Marco Inaros really is. The show really downplays this. In the books, Inaros is the worst mass murder in history. Billions die on Earth, not millions, with most of the population ultimately evacuating off-world.

Yeah, I read that. But knowing that doesn't improve the season for me. It is what it is. I did enjoy it. But, it didn't hold up to the previous seasons. Perhaps the book handled it better too.
 
Yeah, I read that. But knowing that doesn't improve the season for me. It is what it is. I did enjoy it. But, it didn't hold up to the previous seasons. Perhaps the book handled it better too.

Yeah. The conclusion of the book is, more or less "we totally got our asses kicked, but we survived to fight another day." Which is to be fair very different from all of the books prior to this, where the team defeats the big bad in the final act.
 
As a season, the pacing this year really reminded me of season one, which was very deliberative, and ended just as things started really getting in gear in the book's arc.
 
Yeah, I read that. But knowing that doesn't improve the season for me. It is what it is. I did enjoy it. But, it didn't hold up to the previous seasons. Perhaps the book handled it better too.
The book gave a lot more of Marcos politics and tactics bit so far the show and books have been consistent in regards my enjoyment and this wasn't my favorite book either
 
The book gave a lot more of Marcos politics and tactics bit so far the show and books have been consistent in regards my enjoyment and this wasn't my favorite book either

In general the show has really toned down how the main thrust of belter politics is explicitly left-wing.
 
In general the show has really toned down how the main thrust of belter politics is explicitly left-wing.

but inaros is a terrorist plain and simple (doesn't matter what you goals are noble - death and destrucion on the scale he cause don't justify it) and I don't think he's a true representative of the belt either.

He's seeking the glory of being a liberator for the belt and can't stand that things are gradually changing but he's not a part of it.

If Avasarala hadn't ousted the head of the U.N the belt could have paid a very high price for inaros's actions.
 
but inaros is a terrorist plain and simple (doesn't matter what you goals are noble - death and destrucion on the scale he cause don't justify it) and I don't think he's a true representative of the belt either.

He's seeking the glory of being a liberator for the belt and can't stand that things are gradually changing but he's not a part of it.

If Avasarala hadn't ousted the head of the U.N the belt could have paid a very high price for inaros's actions.

I'm not talking about Inaros in particular. I'm talking about the strong trade union aspect of Belter politics being much, much more pushed to the forefront in the novels.
 
The Belter/Inner dynamic is not a matter of left or right, it's a matter of colonialism. Yes there's some overlap in those concepts when it comes to workers' rights, but before the rights of workers can be recognised, they must first be recognised as citizens instead of subjects.

What the Belters want above all else is to be the authors of their own destiny. To not be dependent on the fickle good will of the Inner powers, nor subject to their capricious whims. The OPA is still a fragile alliance of factions with competing and even conflicting priorities. They've carved out a semblance of respect and unity, but with Earth and Mars at peace the Inners easily have the upper hand and any concessions could just as easily be taken away if the UNSG so wished.

All that said, the thing to understand above all else is that Marco doesn't actually care about the belt, he only cares about Marco. For at his core, he is a narcissist of the highest order. A sociopath. A gaslighter. A manipulator. Totally devoid of empathy, compassion, or a true vision of the future. The Belt under Marco's rule would not be the free and bountiful paradise he makes it out to be. It would be an authoritarian nightmare, with the Belters worked even harder because they'd think they're sacrificing for this great cause, but really, it's just another oppressor in a liberator's clothing. He'd do this not because he wants to cause suffering (again, he doesn't actually care one way or the other) but he has a driving need to control those around him, and by extension, *everyone* to satisfy his ego (which of course, it can never be so.)

There are a few very vital clues to his priorities and though process. The first is the conversation with Phillip after Naomi almost stabbed him. He's visibly emotionally shaken at the *thought* of personal injury. Inners can die by the millions and that's all well and good. His own people can die by the hundred and that's also all well and good so long as it serves his purpose. But the idea that he might be personally at risk *terrifies* him. Indeed he let the mask slip with Naomi by admitting she had a hold on him, which is the real reason he took Phillip. She frightens him, and he needs to control her to feel safe. Speaking of his personal safety, unless I missed something, I'm pretty sure his ship wasn't part of the ambush on the Rocinante, which to me means that after two failed assassination attempts (one sabotaged reactor and one IED'd ship) he's afraid to face Holden in combat. Despite possessing a superior vessel, firepower and numbers, he keeps out of the fray and sends lackeys to die in his stead.

The other major clue is his reaction to being informed that several of his ships were destroyed at the cost of only one UN ship. It's clearly not what he wanted, nor what he expected. Which also speaks to how far out of his depth he is given that he's sending advanced frigates manned by essentially pirate crews to engage seasoned professionals in conventional fleet action. Despite that he immediately pivots by making out that this is a worth exchange (it's not, nor is it sustainable given the disparity of numbers.)
He did pretty much the same thing when Earth got the Sentinel satellites pointed in the right direction and started shooting down his rocks. It's a pattern of behaviour. He never admits error. Nothing is unexpected. If something goes wrong, then then it's either someone else's failure, or it was really the plan for it to go down like that all the time. It's kinda like a reverse Xanatos Gambit where he perpetuates his image as a tactical genius by taking credit for the work of others (even able to convince those very people it was really his idea all along) and making out that no matter the eventuality, he always saw it coming (even when he didn't.)

Marco's biggest secret is that he really doesn't have a coherent strategy because he's a tactician. He can say that once Earth is bottled up and they take power that they'll create a better civilization...but he doesn't really know *how* to do that. He's way out of his depth and if he realises it at all, he's mostly banking on it just happening by itself. And if it doesn't...well of course this was always going to be way forward, for the good of The Belt...
 
I agree, recasting is awful. Even recasting Avasarala's husband annoyed the fuck out of me because I thought it was a new character, was confused and had to google it.

I didn't know who he was at first either. It also didn't help that he was written and acted like a different character.

Brian George had gotten another gig, which made the recast necessary.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top