I think this might be a truly unpopular opinion, but I could not get into the expanse at all. Just never got invested in the characters enough to stick with it. I've retried watching it 4 times due to everyone recommending it, kind of given up now!
Also the latest star wars films killed any interest I had in star wars.
If you are least made it past s1e4 CQB then you gave it a solid shot. That episode imo is where you either pick it up and like it or move on. The first 3 episodes can be a bit slow and introduce so many characters.
I heard this, and so I think I get to episode 4 or 5 drop it and then I leave it too long, try and watch it all again but I've seen the first 4 episodes too many times.
Don’t feel guilty but as an example I love the BSG remake. But when I introduce somebody to it I suggest they watch 33 if they can’t get through the mini series.
Yes it presumes a lot but it gets you into what’s going on without hours of setup in the mininseries.
With out the “miniseries” you go in without any context as to what’s happened to humanity, no? Like, doesn’t the miniseries set up Roslin as president and explain her cancer? Without details like that I would just be confused going into “33”.
Absolutely. So I suggest the mini series first. But if they came back with “it was so slow… I couldn’t get through it” then I suggest 33 as a “taste” of things to come.
No sure about outside the UK, but in the uk the full battlestar series including miniseries is on bbc I player. Worth taking a look to see if you can access!
Usually it’s included alongside the bluray editions. I’m not sure if it’s included on Peacock (the only streaming platform that has BSG). Also, it’s not really “miniseries”. It’s more like an extended episode zero that sets up all the characters going into main series. Honestly, IMO, it’s critical for maximum enjoyment of the early series.
I wrote up a watch guide for the series over on /m/bsg:
I'd heard it was a bit hard going until episode 5 so I always try and get to that point but I don't think I've got past. At this point I've rewatched the first episodes too many times
Unpopular? Yes. Wrong? I don't think so. I finished The Expanse and at the end I didn't feel like it added anything to my life but I didn't hate it either. There was definitely some standout moments but I would not rewatch it.
Interesting! I've only ever heard people sing it's praises, so I've definitely felt in the wrong for not loving it. Someone else suggested the books so I might try reading them instead of going for the 6th rewatch
Opposite experience actually. I found the books really derivative.
My spouse and I read the first one and DNFd the second. It seemed really derivative, covering the same ground as Cj Cherryh’s Company Wars but not so nearly well done. We were late getting into the show because of that, and couldn’t believe how much better it was onscreen.
You're valid. It took us a couple tries before we really got into The Expanse.
As for Star Wars, we stick with the Dave Filoni shows now. If I may suggest, try a Clone Wars rewatch with a viewing order that emphasizes the story arcs. That's what brought me back to Star Wars, and I hated the sequels and the prequels.
Thank you, I appreciate the star wars watching suggestions! I'm more of a trekkie but there are elements of star wars I love, they just became less and less with the latest films!
I have had the same experience with Star Wars. I really liked the older movies (even though they are objectively bad) but after watching ep. 7 and reading about eps. 8 and 9 my interest just vanished. It just went sour for me somehow.
I would say that while the show does a fantastic job of bringing the books to the screen, it misses the interpersonal intimacy that makes the book series so fantastic. The plots are cool, but at its core, The Expanse is really about its characters. If you like to read or listen to audio books, I HIGHLY recommend them. A big part of where the show fails, is it was impossible for them to tell the story and also deal with the internal dialogues of each character. In the books, every chapter is told from the point of view of a specific character, so you get to know their inner thoughts and feelings on an extremely personal level.
This is one of those series where I will tell someone that if they read the books and enjoyed them, they would enjoy the show - and vice-versa. That said, if you didn’t enjoy the show for the reasons you stated, and you’re willing to give it a go, I think you’ll probably enjoy the books.
The books are great. Show does a good job moving the intrigue and conflicts to a screen but man if Avasarala and Amos aren’t the absolute best portrayal of those characters.
Avasarala has a heart of gold and a fist of iron in equal measures.
This means she’ll do horrible things (even at her own expense) for what she believes is right and she doesn’t put up with any kind of nonsense.
And yet she plays the political game so well all while pretending she’s above it.
And the Shohreh Aghdashloo knocks the character out of the park. Every move and word both foul and sweet personifies the character in the book that it’s impossible to convey how absolutely masterful the performance is.
And Wes Chatham as Amos is a close second. A man whose moral code is simple because he’s broken, knows it, and so he defaults to “who is the most likely good person I can use as a guide.” Chatham portrays the violence is necessary like doing the laundry.
Turns it on, does the job, goes back as if nothing happened. Oh, I should do this instead? You got it boss.
Or how he conveys in the simple things how Amos feels there is a moral right but having grown up as he did it’s hard to know what that is and who has the authority to enforce it it just chefs kiss
What? Stop beating this guy? Ok. Sorry fella, buy you a drink?
And the Shohreh Aghdashloo knocks the character out of the park. Every move and word both foul and sweet personifies the character in the book that it’s impossible to convey how absolutely masterful the performance is.
I loved every moment she was on screen, totally captivating. Great costume design, script writing and acting all together.
All I can do is apologise, I really tried, so I'm going to chalk it up to a me problem. Desperate for a good Sci fi series as well, that's the most annoying part!
Loved Battlestar, Dark was great, too. Another Life Season 1 is just so, so bad, so if that is an unpopular opinion (I don't think it was) then it's one I share. Season 2 was a little better.
If you want to know the reasons I hated Another Life S1, this very long breakdown of everything that was wrong about it gets it right: https://youtube.com/v/UauWDakHQo0
Honestly bsg's ending wasn't amazing, it didn't end anywhere near as strongly as it started. But I didn't hate it and I was invested enough in the characters that I wanted to see what happened to them all. I also found the overall series, world building, characters etc. far out weighed the ending itself for me.
I often find endings to series, like got, are lacklustre. Finding a beautifully crafted series from beginning to end is so rare.
I guess that depends a lot on your perspective on narrative and the world in general
[SPOILERS], I guess, I don't see a content warning tool in this editor, but someone let me know if I'm missing something and I'll edit this.
I happen to be an atheist. Non-beligerent, definitely not an "internet atheist" type, but I just don't believe in a supreme power, so it's always jarring when a narrative thing ends on a note where they assume that of course in this years-long debate between mysticism and reason the figure matching the Christian deity is the right answer.
It's not even annoyance at there being religious people or anything like that. It's just in my world when somebody raises "well, it could be God intervening in our lives", that is obviously the wrong answer unless you're in a show where Christian mythos is explicitly established as a fantasy trope (say, Supernatural or Buffy or whatever). If you just spring that stuff on me in the finale you're already losing me, even before you use it as a plot device to deus ex machina all the garbage and loose ends you couldn't figure out during the show's run.
So yeah, I'll take "we'll make the omniscient hemiplegic kid kid and the cool dragon lady a nazi because the outline says so and we have better stuff to do than wrap this up" over "God hates robots and that's why all this happened, I dunno".
I am an atheist as well and I liked the ending. It isn’t supernatural, it just matches old cylon legends.
I’m currently rewatching and what actually bothers me is how the tomb of Athena works and all the plot holes and poor episodes. For example there is an episode where is a lack of metal just after they disable hundreds of cylon raiders. Also, the heavy raider taken back from Caprica is never used again.
Wait, how is it not supernatural? The show literally ends on a debate between two supernatural beings about whether the do-over current-Earth version will avoid repeating the cycle when their technology gets advanced enough. There is zero question that they're supernatural. The text says it outright. And it's not a hallucination or a fakeout or a technological artifact, we get an omniscient POV showing us this, it's not filtered by the views of a character.
Hey, I also wanted it not to suck, but the text is what it is.
I’ll have to keep an eye open for that when I get to that point. I mostly remembered the explosion before that which was entertaining, though unlikely.
I’m actually surprised how well it holds up on the rewatch. It is very good moment-to-moment but the plot is weak and badly paced and Baltar is not nearly as entertaining as the first time around.
@MudMan The thing that really pissed me off about the ending was that by throwing away their tech, history, and basically all knowledge they ensured that all the hard-earned lessons of their history and the course of the series were lost.
"All this has happened before and all of it will happen again"? Well, congrats, dumbasses, you just guaranteed that it will and the cycle will continue by ensuring that humanity won't have any opportunity at all to learn anything from all the shit it's just been through.
(The only way I can rewatch it is to pretend it ended just before Lee "Fuck Your Descendants" Adama breaks the future.)
But also, no, there is no guarantee that it will all happen again. Why would it happen again? Beyond the entire thing being the whim of a heartless omnipotent deity there is no reason why a whole sentient technoorganic species going full paleo would then rebuild themselves into two factions of mostly organic and mostly artificial lifeforms and trigger a galactic war.
That's extremely specific. They could also all die fromt he plague because they never stumble upon antibiotics instead. Unless more angels come to tell them to lick the heal fungus, of course, which is now a thing that could absolutely happen.
You really think I'd be over it at this point, and yet...
I dunno that I'd rank it worse than GoT myself but I did really hate that ending.
Honestly between Lost, BSG, and GoT I'm kinda burned on endings generally. I can't really think of a show that isn't a super short limited series that I'm like, that ending was great!
I honestly never watched the last season of the show, because I liked the book ending so much, and I knew the show was going in a different direction. But I haven't heard bad things about it like for these other shows, so I assume they did a good job?
It's so tricky isn't it, so I watched bsg and lost way past their initial airing and the hype and I found I didn't love either of the endings but I didn't mind them either. And overall I still loved the series and the characters.
I think in terms of long series endings maybe breaking bad?
Yeah, part of the problem for fans was that part of the slogan for BSG was "...and they have a plan". So when it became clear that no one had a "plan" for the plot arc, including the showrunners ...it was quite a disappointment.
That means you've missed out on Andor, which I think is better than any live action Star Wars (including, perhaps controversially, Empire Strikes Back)!
It's mature, deep, detailed, grounded, and very political. The characters and world are built up phenomenally, and it's much more contemplative in its pacing, and it definitely treats its audience as intelligent rather than beating them around the head with obvious exposition. It feels more like an HBO show than your standard Star Wars affair, frankly. And it works as a standalone, too - it's not just yet more Skywalker family drama.
Yes, this!! 100% The writing is SO tight, the characters are well developed, acting and music are on point. Perhaps most surprisingly, Stormtroopers actually feel like the they're supposed to be.
Oh my sibling in Xenu, Andor is mandatory viewing if you have any love for Star Wars at all, but ESPECIALLY if you love Rogue One. It is absolutely incredible.
You know how OP said 2001 was pretentious nonsense? That's how I felt about Andor. It was actively bad, and I struggle to see all the praise it gets as anything other than Morbius level trolling! It was badly written, badly plotted, was trying to be about three things at once and didn't do any of them well, and was about six episodes too long. It's what really turned me off Starwars!
I'm not trolling. I honestly thought it was utterly awful on pretty much every level people seem to praise it for and cannot understand why anyone liked it! The first three episodes should have been one, the next three should have been two (and I would have started with them and had the first arc as a flashback), iirc literally nothing happened in the 7th episode except for the last two minuites when he was arrested for arbitrary and stupid reasons, then next two episodes were just messy, and then I gave up because I had been told "oh it all comes together at this point" too many times and it was just making me angry.
I mean okay accusing it of being Morbius levels of bad might have been a troll, it wasn't as bad as Morbius (but few things are) but it was nowhere near good, let alone deserving of the praise lauded upon it!
I've always loved anything Star Wars that didn't really involve Jedi. The universe is incredibly diverse and interesting, and cutting out the light side vs dark side trope most star wars content is centered on lets writers make really interesting characters and situations. Like in Mandandolrian the scene with Bill Burr confronting the Imperial officer that spearheaded the Burning Khan massacre was just fantastic, regardless of it being star wars.
Like in Mandandolrian the scene with Bill Burr confronting the Imperial officer that spearheaded the Burning Khan massacre was just fantastic, regardless of it being star wars.
Bill Burr crushed that entire episode. He showed acting chops he's rarely had the chance to flex before, honestly. The guy is so self-deprecating in his humor, almost aggressively so, that it's easy to miss his talent. Heck, I did, and for a damned long time.
Arrival presents some good philosophical questions, and does so in an interesting setting. The top questions are:
How does language affect our perception?
If you knew your fate, would you still do things the same way?
As such it's qualitatively a good Sci-Fi film. Should it be ranked as one of the best? I don't know, and honestly I don't care, because such rankings are always subjective.
So, I think if there's an issue with Arrival, it's the whiplash of using a hard[ish] sci-fi structure to address the first question, then zoom straight into the second. We're given a pretty solid, small story about how we might plausibly handle first contact, and specifically the linguistic aspect of it, but the truth that comes out of it is that it was language itself which is the key to transcending space and time, and all so we can ruminate on the philosophical equivalent of "Should we love our pets when we know they live shorter, smaller lives than us?"
It's quite the flex for the movie we were watching, and feels a little unearned. There was definitely a little bit of "I'm stoned and this is deep". As a dog owner, I at least appreciate that the answer was "yes," LOL.
I do still think it's good and it was very well done. Many movies wouldn't even be worth this discussion.
Philip K. Dick is famous for saying 'reality is that in which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away.' Languages, perceptions, are still materially beliefs and changing beliefs doesn't change reality. I wanted to see HOW the language allowed you to perceive time and it never got there.
I wanted to see HOW the language allowed you to perceive time and it never got there.
Interestingly enough the short story on which Arrival is based on, Story of Your Life, goes a bit into this. I'm not going to spoil it because it's super cool.
It's not about perception changing reality it's the other way around. The movie is a meditation on the Sapir Worf hypothesis, that the structure of language literary changes how you perceive the world.
I don't think some pseudo science jargon about tachyons in her delta waves would have enhanced the story. The how isn't important, what matters is the way it changes her life and how she deals with it. It's an exploration of the Sapir-Worf hypothesis but given more of an emotional tinge. I also loved the design of the aliens and the way they living outside linear time affected their culture and personalities.
I don't think some pseudo science jargon about tachyons in her delta waves would have enhanced the story.
Its not. It doesnt try to give a hard science explanation, it gives an explanation of perspective that offers actual insight. Ted Chiang doesn't write hard science fiction, but it's very well thought out science fiction, imo.
My sci-fi unpopular opinion is probably that I don't consider Star Wars to be sci-fi. It shares more with fantasy in that it's more character and story driven and less about philosophy and the way technology changes the human experience which imo is what defines sci-fi.
Star Wars was a reboot of a semi-forgotten genre called sword and planet, which is basically fantasy with technological trappings. It is its own thing, but sci-fi has become so diluted nowadays that it can pass itself as legitimite part of it.
Unpopular opinion: Star Wars is in space and has spaceships and aliens. Good enough, it's sci-fi.
People attribute these silly, gatekeepy characteristics to sci-fi, but sci-fi doesn't need to be about anything. Sci-fi is allowed to be shitty or irrelevant.
Sci-fi is allowed to be shitty or irrelevant, but that is absolutely unrelated to Star Wars not being sci-fi. Star Wars isn’t shitty, and it is relevant.
The reason it isn’t sci-fi is because it a) makes no attempt whatsoever to explore the implications of the differences between its world and ours, and b) it makes no attempt to scientifically explain those differences.
There has been exactly one time when SW has attempted to explain its universe, and midichlorians have been a meme for decades because it was trying to introduce scientific explanations into the wrong genre.
To be clear: this is fine. Saying Star Wars isn’t sci-fi is not an insult. It’s just a genre, and genres aren’t better or worse than each other. If Star Wars did try to be sci-fi, it wouldn’t be able to tell the grand good and evil story it’s trying to tell - that’s the advantage of fantasy.
Agreed. With Star Wars the longer you think about the sci-fi elements, the less sense they make. The force was great as just space magic, it didn't need midichlorians. Droids are another, are they sentient? Are they slaves? Why do they feel pain? Spaceships, hyperspace, distance... how did the Death Star get to Aldoran and Yavin? GAAAAAAH!
Space Opera is a good genre name. Let's stick with that.
Sci-fi and fantasy are genres that naturally bleed into one another, and everyone will draw the lines differently. I'd personally agree that Star Wars is more fantasy than sci-fi, but I wouldn't want to gatekeep anyone who called it their favorite sci-fi franchise.
A thought I've been having that might be more controversial: Star Trek isn't sci-fi.
It's basically a series of morality fables with magical premises. There's always a paper-thin sci-fi explanation, but for all that these matter to the story, they might as well just say "fairies did it."
(And many of Gene Roddenberry's "godlike being" characters, like Q, are almost literally fairies).
There's also its treatment of space. Just as Star Wars' combat was an excuse to do WWII fighter combat in space, Star Trek is an excuse to do WWII submarine combat in space. They're equally unrealistic in that regard.
I agree on the fable argument but not on having to have a scientific explanation. Scifi is about sense of wonder, societal impact etc. Realism is optional as long as things don’t work in arbitrary ways.
True sci-fi is rare most of it is sci-fantasy. Great recent sci-fi is Expanse - author was pissed about these warp nonsense so he grounded it in physics and only added few technologies which could be made in future.
Yeah, usually sci-fi has a point to make about the human condition or some underlying philosophy that guides all of it, or at least a philosophical idea that guides each episode. I find if you ask yourself to finish the phrase "What would society/humanity look like if we had to access to _______?" if the answer to the blank is clear then it's sci-fi. Some sci-fi goes the opposite route though "What if we did NOT have access to ______?"
I think sci-fi writers constantly make their stakes far too high, stack the odds far to heavily against the protagonists, and go for a scope far to broad. I don't need 3 people to save the entire intergalactic population from a super mega back hole bomb with .002 seconds to spare. I've seen it and read it a thousand times.
Give me the guy who thinks maybe his spaceship could take on exploring one planet, tell me what he finds and why it was wise for him to run home and call for extra resources to be redirected to that planet. Tell me how the technology of your imaginary world brought 2 characters together and allowed them to build a beautiful life together.
That's why I adore The Martian and can't get excited about Star Wars.
I started listening to it long enough ago that I forgot why I didn't get very far with it. Maybe should pick it up again, it's one of those that is always in my recommendations.
Was going to recommend them, and also point out that they go pretty far in the other direction. Once I digested Long Way to a Small Angry Planet and kind of actively decided I was cool with her approach, I really enjoyed her stuff. That first one felt like a bait & switch in the moment, though.
My other unpopular scifi opinion is I hate Becky Chambers books with the fire of a thousand suns. Like I don't just not like them, they actually make me angry with how twee they are.
In general I feel that way about any "cozy" books, I also ragequit The House in the Cerulean Sea.
The House in the Cerulean Sea was written as a way to okay the taking of Native American children from their parents, so you didn't miss out on liking it.
I hate-read it for some reason and couldn't get over how Hallmark sanguine everything was and how much of a bumbling idiot the mc was. Plus, he was gay and I resented his inclusion into queer lit.
ME TOO!!!!!!!!! I HATE BECKY CHAMBERS SO MUCH!!!!!!!!!!
I've ranted on /r/fantasy a few times but her books are NOT HAPPY. I don't know how to post spoilers here yet so I will not say everything I have to say about Becky Chambers, but in particular when you really examine A Long Way To a Small Angry Planet, she advocates for some pretty horrific things, and the ending either is pretty damn tragic or you are a huge giant hypocrite.
This is exactly the problem I also have with Marvel movies. Once you've raised the stakes so far it's impossible to go back without seeming less than your predecessors. It's why Iron Man worked so damned well as it was a pretty small, personal story... same for most of the early Avengers movies. Ever since Endgame it seems like everyone wants to either make it even bigger still (?!??) or challenge these people who have saved literally the entire universe with.. emotional trauma? I don't know... I've seriously lost interest.
Yes! This helped me put it together why I like origin stories better than team-ups and other sequels. The quickly switch from one person finding their place to suddenly saving the entire world (of new York City)
This would be mine too - it's the one series that I've actually been back and re-watched multiple times, and I've gone back to the books too.
In contrast to others comments I'm not sure I want any more seasons of it. I loved the current set but it feels like it ran its course and I'm not sure I need anything more.
I would do unspeakable things for more stories set in the Expanse universe. The TV series should at least get another season or two in order to catch up to the last two books and I think it would be great if the authors/showrunners could explore some of the side plots more fully.
Agreed! I would absolutely love them to finish off the story. The show does such an incredible job of developing deep characters and a generally realistic world, I always try to recruit new fans when someone asks for a recommendation.
Also, if you haven't checked into it yet, The Expanse video game from Telltale is a prequel with Cara Gee returning to once again be the voice of Camina Drummer!
They did, but they're back. Probably not many of the same people, if any, so it remains to be seen if they've still got it, but the Expanse game looks awesome, and who can resist playing as Drummer? :)
My unpopular opinion is that I don't like space operas. I'd rather read pages of explanation of technology and world building. I don't care that the star princess in exile has to assemble a rag tag bunch of fringe worlders to take back the throne from the cruel council of the galactic core. How dat engine work tho?
Yeah, I initially thought it was a kinda silly premise of a guy being hit by a bus and turned into an ai to explore the universe, but Dennis Taylor really hit it out of the park.
Seriously most of these stories might as well be written by AI for how original they are. I am trying to read scifi and fantasy for the originality that just doesn't exist. Authors will even accidentally add great ideas to the books on background characters or in random world details and do absolutely nothing with them. They instead will repeat the most generic trope driven story every. They might aswell be plagiarizing for how little their stories add to the genre at least then I could just throw their book away without trying to read it.
Seconding Three Body Problem for interesting setting/plot/actual fictional science.
It will subvert your expectations more often than not if you've gotten tired of modern scifi tropes. It takes a lot of time to chew on what the ramifications of certain events would be to society, and it manages to include one of my favorite mystery plots in all of literature.
Some people dislike the really hypothetical scifi elements but imho they serve an important and interesting narrative role. They're responsible for creating the unique technological climate in the books.
It's not for everyone, but if that sounds good then by all means I recommend it. It's a totally unique setting and style compared to western scifi that asks and tries to answer some very compelling questions.
Children of Time is a must read. I also like Children of Ruin even though it was dangerously close to a rehash. Children of Memory was good too but really stretched the premise. I liked it in spite of getting very close to space opera with the built up cast.
I'd also recommend Diaspora. It's about post humanism where humans have split into a few factions: fleshers genetically manipulate the human form, gleisners are human consciousness uploaded into robots, and citizens who are uploaded (or generated) consciousness without a physical form.
Popular-unpopular opinion - Space opera hits a lot of tropes that have been constanly re-told since ancient Babylonia and Greece, and people like when a story hits familiar beats.
Unpopular-unpopular opinion - Worldbuilding is important for the story to be grounded and coherent, but if there is no story to be told atop of it you end up with a catalogue of author's personal anthropological and technological obsessions.
I definitely agree. I just end up dropping off of series after the second book because I'm off to other worlds. I don't begrudge people who want more of what they like. To each their own.
Also, I'm a hypocrite because I find a lot of Kim Stanley Robinson's stuff too dry because there's not enough character building for me.
If you like Ronald D Moore's other work (a lot of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the Battlestar Galactica reboot) there's a good chance you'll like For All Mankind. In my mind it's the Star Trek prequel show we should have had.
@somniumx Totally agree. I have been going through every Star Trek series watching and fully expected not to like this one. Maybe it's my old age, but it wasn't terrible. If we look at TOS for what it is, Enterprise was absolutely good sci-fi.
I just can't. I want to, I really do. But I just can't. There's nothing wrong with the song itself, as a song, but it's just so out of place as a Star Trek Theme.
They cocked it up by introducing the whole "temporal cold war" nonsense. Time travel cheapens the premise of any show that isn't built around it, and I would have been perfectly content to watch a show where the Enterprise is a small and underpowered craft trying to explore space without getting its ass handed to it.
I don't think the 'audience' ratings can be fully trusted though. Any new film or TV show these days with prominent women, minority or LGBTQ characters (Discovery has all) gets routinely review-bombed by alt-right participants who likely haven't even watched it - that's just a fact of these ratings. My anecdotal discussions with irl Trek fans didn't find the same antagonism to Discovery that you find online.
Discovery wasn't the best of Star Trek, and I ended up switching off early Season 4, but much of the early hostility towards it was either that sort of bad faith, or focused on trivia (which leads me to wonder if it was just cover for the same - I cannot get my head around people who refused to watch because they didn't like the Klingon prosthetics).
Season 1 was solid, Season 2 was arguably even better (although owed a lot off that to Captain Pike). Season 3 had great promise in its premise but failed to realise it's potential, and then Season 4 just felt lost.
The shame is that the ending of Season 4 might be one of the most ’ Star Trek’ moments in the franchise. But the lead up to was so generic that many didn’t make it that far.
Exactly. There were a ton of casualties like this during the last strike.
There will be more on the chopping block, all because the platforms don't want to share the profits with the writers from the golden goose they found with the new streaming era.
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is highly overrated!
The main characters were obnoxious, I didn't end up caring about any of them, and quite frankly, I wished the towel guy had died at the beginning along with everyone else on Earth (except the dolphins). I wasted hours of my life over those 3 books!
Science Fiction
Top