Is Fringe any good? - Page 3

Hyperspace05 · November 28 2009, 09:32 PM

Gaith wrote:

I don't want to hijack the thread, and have said my peace. I don't like procedurals, and my distaste increases in direct proportion to their lack of realism. Well, okay, now I've said my peace.

Are you sure you don't want to repeat the same thing for a 3rd time in this thread... There's always a chance we missed it the first two times!

Gaith · November 28 2009, 11:09 PM

^^ That's fair, but I must note in my defense that more people were replying to my remarks than calling for a return to the OP before I made that post.

stj · November 29 2009, 02:40 AM

To agree with others, the character of Walter Bishop is extremely entertaining. He's not believable. The show can't seem to make up its mind about how mentally ill Walter is. Even worse, the producers seem to think that a mentally ill scientist is a particularly well qualified one, instead of one who can't do science because he's sick.

One character doesn't make a show, however. Peter Bishop is slowly being modified to a character hanging around because he wants a relationship with his father. But his original motive (horny for Olivia Dunham) still lingers, and the show's plots are all skewed because there's no real reason for him to even be there, much less be Olivia's partner/boy friend. The producers seem to think that Peter's militant ignorance makes him cool, instead of realizing it just makes his presence even more inexplicable.

The so-called mytharc is only interesting in respect to the Walter/Peter dynamic.

The less said about Olivia the better. Anna Torv is very attractive so maybe you won't want to throw things at the tv when her character's on.

My recommendation is do not, do not, buy this until it's marked down to $6 for a season set at Big Lots.

Harvey · November 29 2009, 03:08 AM

stj wrote:

One character doesn't make a show, however.

Every once and a while there's a rare example in which this does work out, such as Patrick McGoohan as Number Six on The Prisoner.

But from what I've seen of Walter (which is to say, a few youtube clips), he's not enough to hang the show on. An amusing supporting character can't keep a ship of leading characters who aren't the least bit interesting afloat.

I wish Lance Reddick was on a better show, but he's probably earning more money on Fringe than he did on The Wire, and it's a good stepping stone to a role in the next Abrams Trek movie, too.

stj · November 29 2009, 03:20 AM

^^^Lance Reddick is a supporting character. Walter is a main character, and the de facto star of the show. At least, in the sense that he is the only thing worth watching on it.

Harvey · November 29 2009, 04:04 AM

^^
He may be the only thing worth watching on it, but aren't the young FBI agents (The Mulder/Scully clones) the supposed leads?

DWF · November 29 2009, 04:12 AM

Harvey wrote:

^^
He may be the only thing worth watching on it, but aren't the young FBI agents (The Mulder/Scully clones) the supposed leads?

Only Olivia Dunning is an FBI agent, Peter is Walter's son and Walter is in his custody since Walter was in a mental hospital. But I think all three are the leads of the show. And I do think the relationship between Peter and Olivia is closer to a brother and sister relationship than a romantic one.

Personally I really like the show, it started out a bit of an X-Files clone but it goes off in it's own direction late in the season. But they have X-Files style eps. even into the second season.

Ben Sisko3 · November 29 2009, 04:15 AM

Harvey wrote:

^^
He may be the only thing worth watching on it, but aren't the young FBI agents (The Mulder/Scully clones) the supposed leads?

Walter, Peter and Olivia are the three leads. Walter is the heart of the show (his silent breakdown in the diner in 1x19 alone was award-worthy), and is one of the two or three very best characters on TV right now (up there with Gemma Morrow on Sons of Anarchy and Bobby Singer on Supernatural). Frankly, he is enough to hang the show on.

To say that Olivia and Peter are clones of the original leads of The X-Files is to do the show a disservice, though. Their vastly different backstories and worldviews are more than enough to differentiate them. Granted, it owes its origins to Carter's series, but has more in common with stories like Planetary.

startrekwatcher · November 29 2009, 04:15 AM

Harvey wrote:

^^
He may be the only thing worth watching on it, but aren't the young FBI agents (The Mulder/Scully clones) the supposed leads?

The sense I get is the writers view Olivia, Peter and Walter as the primary characters and who the focus of the stories are directed while Astrid, Nina and Broyles are the supporting cast.

Astrid is not much more than a glorified but amiable extra. Nina is hardly seen anymore but I always found her intriguing. Broyles is okay but nothing to exciting. I actually preferred him on LOST as Abaddon who himself was not much more than a plot device. Strangely enough season one's enigmatic Mr Jones was a far more interesting character than all of the others in my opinion. Olivia/Peter lack the chemistry--platonic or otherwise--that Scully and Mulder had and what made TXF such a wonderful viewing experience.

DWF wrote:

Personally I really like the show, it started out a bit of an X-Files clone but it goes off in it's own direction late in the season. But they have X-Files style eps. even into the second season.

The problem isn't that they do freaks of the week type stories--the problem is that they aren't the least bit fresh or clever with any sort of interesting spin or twist. It pretty much is straightforward as we sit through the motions as they go from point A to point B by the end of the hour. It also has a bad habit of being formulaic in that some mumbo jumbo gadget saves the day. Those were big problems in season one and the only time we got a break from that was with the mythology episodes which injected some genuine mystery and suspense as to what is going on and what would happen next. That is why the show desperately needs to be the kind of heavily serialized show that LOST or season one Heroes is/was. It forces the writers to carve out a unique identity for the show.

DWF · November 29 2009, 04:36 AM

startrekwatcher wrote:

DWF wrote:

Personally I really like the show, it started out a bit of an X-Files clone but it goes off in it's own direction late in the season. But they have X-Files style eps. even into the second season.

The problem isn't that they do freaks of the week type stories--the problem is that they aren't the least bit fresh or clever with any sort of interesting spin or twist. It pretty much is straightforward as we sit through the motions as they go from point A to point B by the end of the hour. It also has a bad habit of being formulaic in that some mumbo jumbo gadget saves the day. Those were big problems in season one and the only time we got a break from that was with the mythology episodes which injected some genuine mystery and suspense as to what is going on and what would happen next. That is why the show desperately needs to be the kind of heavily serialized show that LOST or season one Heroes is/was. It forces the writers to carve out a unique identity for the show.

The "freak of the week" formula on The X-Files was taken from the original Night Stalker show, so it's not new either way you look at it. But they can still provide some good shocks which really is the point of the storylines to being with.

stj · November 29 2009, 05:02 AM

Yes, Olivia, Peter and Walter are the leads. But Olivia is developing superpowers, which makes her nothing like Mulder or Scully, although it does make her a boring comic book heroine. Peter's obtuse disinterest in science, or the Pattern, or a relationship with his father (whom he calls Walter as a signal to the audience) parallels Scully's invincible skepticism in the face of repeated personal experience.

Astrid does not suffer from the adolescent interests of the producers. For that reason she has an engaging, sexy persona that is vastly more interesting than the long suffering, multiply endangered, dream figure of Dunham. Her, you want to see more of. Olivia, you only want to see less clothing of. Despite this, she is a minor character. They ostentatiously introduced a religious FBI girl but she got unceremoniously dumped, unless the followup is ludicrously delayed.

Mr. Laser Beam · November 29 2009, 05:12 AM

Harvey wrote:

I wish Lance Reddick was on a better show

He's been on the various L&O shows a lot. Was pretty good in all of them.

sidious618 · November 29 2009, 06:25 AM

Harvey wrote:

^^
He may be the only thing worth watching on it, but aren't the young FBI agents (The Mulder/Scully clones) the supposed leads?

Huh? They're nothing like Mulder and Scully. I'm a massive X-Files fan (in real life I'm pretty much Fox Mulder) so I'd be furious if a show just copied them (like Bones did). They're their own characters.

TheMasterOfOrion · November 29 2009, 08:09 PM

No, IMO the show is too long. TOS Trek works because it was canceled in its Prime. I don't think JJ's style suits tv, he's more suited to movies not tv. I got through a season of a half of Lost and then cursed the show, his Alias was even worse. If Fringe interests you download a few of its best eps, the Arrival, Human Action, Fraction, the season pilot, the S1 finale...what ever gets 5 stars reviews or whatever ep is the top rated on the net. If it does not keep your attention then ditch it quick, life is too short to waste on bad tv. Personally I hate shows that drag on, most of them bored me to death and you can see how the writers trash shows, stretching them out trying to fit into that exclusive syndication club. The only long show I would recommend is Babylon 5 and that works because it has a really long complex series of story arcs and one of the best writers in the industry, DS9 works, its got the better actors, better fx but I think B5 was the shorter and sweeter package.

Harvey · November 29 2009, 08:54 PM

sidious618 wrote:

Harvey wrote:

^^
He may be the only thing worth watching on it, but aren't the young FBI agents (The Mulder/Scully clones) the supposed leads?

Huh? They're nothing like Mulder and Scully. I'm a massive X-Files fan (in real life I'm pretty much Fox Mulder) so I'd be furious if a show just copied them (like Bones did). They're their own characters.

Like I said up the thread, I haven't seen the show besides a few youtube clips (and some advertising on FOX). So my word isn't meant to be gospel, merely the impression I have based on that.

November 28 2009, 11:09 PM	#32
Gaith Rear Admiral Location: Starfleet Command, The City that Knows How	Re: Is Fringe any good? ^^ That's fair, but I must note in my defense that more people were replying to my remarks than calling for a return to the OP before I made that post.

November 29 2009, 02:40 AM	#33
stj Rear Admiral Location: the real world	Re: Is Fringe any good? To agree with others, the character of Walter Bishop is extremely entertaining. He's not believable. The show can't seem to make up its mind about how mentally ill Walter is. Even worse, the producers seem to think that a mentally ill scientist is a particularly well qualified one, instead of one who can't do science because he's sick. One character doesn't make a show, however. Peter Bishop is slowly being modified to a character hanging around because he wants a relationship with his father. But his original motive (horny for Olivia Dunham) still lingers, and the show's plots are all skewed because there's no real reason for him to even be there, much less be Olivia's partner/boy friend. The producers seem to think that Peter's militant ignorance makes him cool, instead of realizing it just makes his presence even more inexplicable. The so-called mytharc is only interesting in respect to the Walter/Peter dynamic. The less said about Olivia the better. Anna Torv is very attractive so maybe you won't want to throw things at the tv when her character's on. My recommendation is do not, do not, buy this until it's marked down to $6 for a season set at Big Lots. __________________ Morals are what you do to other people. Other people, what we call society, are essential to human happiness. Therefore, morals are the path to happiness. My morals, your happiness; your morals, my happiness: It's a fair trade.

November 29 2009, 03:20 AM	#35
stj Rear Admiral Location: the real world	Re: Is Fringe any good? ^^^Lance Reddick is a supporting character. Walter is a main character, and the de facto star of the show. At least, in the sense that he is the only thing worth watching on it. __________________ Morals are what you do to other people. Other people, what we call society, are essential to human happiness. Therefore, morals are the path to happiness. My morals, your happiness; your morals, my happiness: It's a fair trade.

November 29 2009, 04:04 AM	#36
Harvey Admiral	Re: Is Fringe any good? ^^ He may be the only thing worth watching on it, but aren't the young FBI agents (The Mulder/Scully clones) the supposed leads? __________________ "What do you hear, Starbuck?" "Nothing but the rain, sir." "Then grab your gun and bring in the cat."

November 29 2009, 05:02 AM	#41
stj Rear Admiral Location: the real world	Re: Is Fringe any good? Yes, Olivia, Peter and Walter are the leads. But Olivia is developing superpowers, which makes her nothing like Mulder or Scully, although it does make her a boring comic book heroine. Peter's obtuse disinterest in science, or the Pattern, or a relationship with his father (whom he calls Walter as a signal to the audience) parallels Scully's invincible skepticism in the face of repeated personal experience. Astrid does not suffer from the adolescent interests of the producers. For that reason she has an engaging, sexy persona that is vastly more interesting than the long suffering, multiply endangered, dream figure of Dunham. Her, you want to see more of. Olivia, you only want to see less clothing of. Despite this, she is a minor character. They ostentatiously introduced a religious FBI girl but she got unceremoniously dumped, unless the followup is ludicrously delayed. __________________ Morals are what you do to other people. Other people, what we call society, are essential to human happiness. Therefore, morals are the path to happiness. My morals, your happiness; your morals, my happiness: It's a fair trade.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

November 29 2009, 08:09 PM	#44
TheMasterOfOrion Fleet Captain	Re: Is Fringe any good? No, IMO the show is too long. TOS Trek works because it was canceled in its Prime. I don't think JJ's style suits tv, he's more suited to movies not tv. I got through a season of a half of Lost and then cursed the show, his Alias was even worse. If Fringe interests you download a few of its best eps, the Arrival, Human Action, Fraction, the season pilot, the S1 finale...what ever gets 5 stars reviews or whatever ep is the top rated on the net. If it does not keep your attention then ditch it quick, life is too short to waste on bad tv. Personally I hate shows that drag on, most of them bored me to death and you can see how the writers trash shows, stretching them out trying to fit into that exclusive syndication club. The only long show I would recommend is Babylon 5 and that works because it has a really long complex series of story arcs and one of the best writers in the industry, DS9 works, its got the better actors, better fx but I think B5 was the shorter and sweeter package.