TV review: “Fringe”
“Fringe” (Wednesdays, Fox): The new show from “Lost” and “Alias” creator J.J. Abrams is promising, though the almost-double-length pilot episode was filled with contrivances and clichés. Then again, it surprised me several times, too, so I guess you take the good with the bad. It’s about an FBI agent named Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv) who’s recruited to help the Bureau investigate weird phenomena, with a civilian genius named Peter Bishop (Joshua Jackson) and his crazy scientist father (John Noble) assisting in an unofficial capacity. Now, how you can make a show about the FBI dealing with paranormal activity and not mention “The X-Files,” I don’t know. But the pilot suggests that, unlike in “The X-Files,” all the stuff they’re going to be investigating is somehow tied together — “The Pattern,” they keep calling it. (Yes, I know some “X-Files” things were tied together, but certainly not all of them.) An evil corporation run by a lady who has a robot arm is involved. Also, I believe they can reanimate the dead. Things like that keep me intrigued, the central characters have potential, and the writing is snappy. I’m gonna stick with it.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Maybe it’s the fact that I’ve heavily invested my viewing time from Twin Peaks-to-X-Files-to-Lost, but this just seemed like more of the same. I’m still ticked that X-Files blew the opportunity to make the movie that people were waiting for: Molder finally gets evidence that convinces the world leaders that an invasion is taking place, and, with our 21st century technology, we kick some serious advanced-alien fanny. Didn’t they learn from “Independence Day” that you can make some big-time money on that idea?
September 16th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I enjoyed the Fringe as well, hopefully it can only get better
September 16th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
It was semi-enjoyable. Worth tuning in to watch more. If the X-Files movie was even close to this good, I would have walked out of the theater a much happier person.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Wow, interesting to see so many positive reviews. I thought it started off pretty good but then it really started testing my willing suspension of disbelief. The speed with which they overcame bureaucracy and accomplished their end goal was too implausible for me.
/which is strange because typically i’m the one defending plotlines that most other people find to be ludicrous or impossible
September 17th, 2008 at 7:05 am
True that Ryan,
I like the show so far. I’m going to go with the idea that the show will get better as it progresses, like many good shows do. However, I have the same concerns as Ryan, they were able to get that lab back a little easily. It’s harder for me to believe that the team can work through some of the bureaucracy than it is for me to accept that they can bring people back from the dead.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:56 am
I really enjoyed the first episode, but the second one was a big disappointment. I think part of the problem is that they try too hard to explain the science–like they’re trying to be CSI–but their explanation is so implausible that you can no longer suspend disbelief. For example, in the second episode, if they merely said they had a cool piece of technology that allowed them to see the last thing someone saw before they died, then we probably would just accept it. But, when they tried to explain how it worked–and the explanation was absurd–it made me focus on ALL the absurdities in the show.
(This kind of surprises me, given how Abrams other shows–Lost and Cloverfield–never explain ANYTHING.)
September 17th, 2008 at 9:14 am
I like the main character. She kind of reminds me of Sydney Bristow from Alias with a good mix of tough/soft. The, uh, “science” did bug me.