Fringe (possible spoilers)

[Mike G]

Anybody else see it? I thought it was OK, but I'm not sure if I should keep up with it.

 

[Cell]

I liked it even if it was a rather pedestrian offering in terms of predictability within the plot, twists and such.

 

[Demonn]

I missed the beginning. :brickwall:
I watched the middle and ending but was left very confused.

 

[Recoil]

I liked this show when it was called The X-Files.

Really, in my opinion, this show is little more than X-Files redone and revamped a bit. I still have yet to see a finished JJ Abrams series that impresses me. Alias fell horribly flat after Season 2. He got involved with Lost at the start, clearly without an entire plan, then went on to other things. While the Lost writers were given time to come up with an overall story a season or two ago, it still remains to be seen as to whether it will be done well.

So all this Fringe arc stuff about "The Pattern" really doesn't interest me. JJ delivered all the "Rambaldi" mythos very poorly in Alias, and I am not sure he will do any better here. Besides, in a season or so he will be off this and onto something else. He seems to like to jump into projects with all these ideas then turns his attention to the next shiny object that gets dangled in front of his face.

 

[KoshFan]

Oh, yes, my opinion of JJ is fairly low. He starts things well, but he doesn't end them. Alias ran into the ground. If Lost is any good it's because of Lindelof and Cuse, not Abrams. I expect much the same from Fringe.

 

[Recoil]

My brother had an interesting thought about this show when I was talking to him about it. I basically made all the comments to him I made above about JJ and how his shows seem so drop off quickly. He said he agreed 100%...but that just means it is likely to be a good show for at least a year or so.

...

Well I guess that's a good point. So what he is saying is that it is likely worth watching this season and maybe next. So I decided to keep up with it for now. But...(spoilers ahead)...the first episode after the pilot raised more doubts for me.

So basically their first episode really seemed to ram home an opinion I already had --- this is just the X-Files redone. The villain in this first episode was a guy who was basically an experiment and to ward off the effects of rapid aging, the had to kill women and surgically remove their pituitary gland. Apparently he had to do this every so often or he would rapidly age and die. The last case of murders from this guy was 12 years ago...then they stopped. Now its present time and there is another string of these same murders. Near the end when they just about have him caught, he is talking to his "father" and his "father" says "you only have one more to go, then you can be free for a bit". So it sounds like he has to ingest X number of glands from his victims, then he is OK for several years.

Sound familiar?

Well it did to me. For me this was not-so-loosely based on (IMO) the #1 X-Files villain of all time: Season 1 bad guy, Victor Tooms. Tooms, while having other freakish abilities, basically killed his victims for their livers, which he ingested. He needed 5 of them to sustain himself, until he went into hiding for 30 years, only to start the process over again. Tooms did it and could live forever. This guy did it to keep himself from aging.

Maybe I saw more parallels there because I was already looking for an X-Files ripoff...but come on. Its the FIRST EPISODE. Can't they be just a bit more creative? While I do think there is a hole that needs to be filled for an "Xfiles like show" if all that is going to be done is revisit prior stories, it will be a waste of everyones time. There is so much more they could do. I really hope this doesn't keep up.

Anyone else have similar thoughts?

 

[Cell]

Not really, because that type of character has been around in fantasy/sic-fi for quite some time, dating back to the classic fairy tales. I think the comparison is there, but not so much with X-Files as with the fact that they used a basic archetype character, and I didn't have much of a problem with that. I liked the episode quite a bit by the way, a definite improvement over the pilot. The lead actress seemed much better, John Noble is outstanding, I though Jackson was good again (although I've never thought of him as a bad actor like a lot of others have, and the story flowed much better and wasn't nearly as pedestrian in terms of execution as the pilot was.

As for Abrams, can't say I really agree that his shows drop off, I think Lost for instance is still as good today as it was in the first episode.

 

[Recoil]

Not sure Lost is the best example for you to use to defend JJ. He was barely involved in Season 1 (mainly with just the concept and a few episodes) and detached for the most part a season or so into it (which re-enforces my point about shiny objects). He is NOT a part of the recent turn-around of Lost, rather the current writers have had a lot to do with the story arcs, and they are the ones who have decided where the show will end. From what it seems JJ hasn't had much input at all these days.

Sure, there may be some classic "fairy tale" examples of that type of character....but there is also a much more recent and well known one --- VICTOR TOOMS. Dude if you can tell me off the top of your head which "classic character" this is based on, then fine. If you can't then you are like the rest of us...and the writers of Fringe...and can only recall the most recent an popular version of that story/character, which is Victor Tooms.

 

[Cell]

Not sure Lost is the best example for you to use to defend JJ. He was barely involved in Season 1 (mainly with just the concept and a few episodes) and detached for the most part a season or so into it (which re-enforces my point about shiny objects). He is NOT a part of the recent turn-around of Lost, rather the current writers have had a lot to do with the story arcs, and they are the ones who have decided where the show will end. From what it seems JJ hasn't had much input at all these days.

I'm not using it to defend JJ, merely to counter the point that JJ shows are good in the beginning and then poor as time goes on. Lost is just as good now as it was when it started, whether or not that is up to JJ or not really doesn't matter, since it is a JJ show. So was Felicity for that matter, and thatw as actrually better in the end than it was in the bgeinning, and he was heavily involved in that.

Sure, there may be some classic "fairy tale" examples of that type of character....but there is also a much more recent and well known one --- VICTOR TOOMS. Dude if you can tell me off the top of your head which "classic character" this is based on, then fine. If you can't then you are like the rest of us...and the writers of Fringe...and can only recall the most recent an popular version of that story/character, which is Victor Tooms.

There isn't any specific fairy tale, at least not one I can name. There is however the classic archetype of the being that eats/takes body parts of others to help itself stay alive or for mere sustenance. That archetype has been around for ages now and has been used on Buffy, X-Files, and Fringe in recent times as well as in a modified versions in stories like Hansel and Gretel from the far past. That archetype is well known, that's why it's a common archetype in the fantasy realm, and by using it Fringe is no different than any other series/movie/book/story over the years that has taken the classic archetype and put their own spin on it.

 

[KoshFan]

Come to think of it, it's basically vampirism, only less mythological.

I will grant you, however, that with all the "fringe science" stuff added on, this basically looks like X-Files to me as well. At least to someone who's seen neither.

 

[Cell]

Come to think of it, it's basically vampirism, only less mythological.

I will grant you, however, that with all the "fringe science" stuff added on, this basically looks like X-Files to me as well. At least to someone who's seen neither.

I think that actually separates it completely from X-Files. In Fringe the "fringe sciences" are viewed as completely real and are accepted as viable solutions to the problems. In X-Files it was the exact opposite, the show was reality where one man believed in the fringe and everyone thought he was a nutjob because of it. The fringe was hardly ever true, and in most cases it was proven to be a simple psychopath or some natural event by the end of the show. That all changed as the show went on and Mulder became more and more correct, but I think that main difference in views is what greatrly spearates the two programs.

 

[Cell]

Another enjoyable episode, each episode is better than the previous one and that's a trend I like. The chemistry is there, the stories are there, this is now must see TV for me.