Five Reasons Not to Like J.J. Abrams’ new show Fringe
[5] Joshua Jackson. Need I say more?
[4] It’s yet another big government against terrorism-which-is-really-big-business-which-is-intertwined-with-the-government show. And a poor one at that. Olivia Dunham is not a convincing FBI agent, nor does her setup feel authentic. I’ve only watched the Pilot, but does she really have that little authorial oversight? And is the FBI really that stupid? Nobody realizes who the double agent is until *way* into the episode. Why can’t somebody portray the FBI—even as bad guys, perhaps—as intelligent? Make them conniving, shrewd, nigh-unstoppable bad guys for all I care. Just don’t make them dumb!
[3] This TV series is the epitome of fearmongering. I don’t see how this show will be at all compelling except for managing to convince us that we’re re-entering the Cold War, only this time with extremist terrorists. There’s no way to get any real character development into this story because the plot is so choked up with fear. Oooh! Biological terrorism, nasty big businesses, weird science! What???
[2] It’s a “modern” show in a “postmodern” world. What do I mean, and why is it important? Well, I simply don’t believe that a mad scientist can be a hero in our postmodern times. We’ve already learned that science is not as objectively awesome as scientists wish. And the mad scientist who saves the day has no personality. He’s insane, crippled by poor social skills, and he saves the day by being a cold, calculating, perfectly scientific experimenter. (His use of LSD in the Pilot is a fantastic example of his superhuman science abilities.)
[1] None of these people are real people. The whole father/son dilemma (between Joshua Jackson and the mad scientist) is a farce. It’s cliche, way too old, and they get used to each far too fast in the Pilot. Similarly, Dunham exhibits a need to be loved, and that’s fine: I don’t mind having that as a plot device. But what happens in the end? She ought to be scarred, she ought to be broken, and yet she’s as calculating and mathematic about everything as the mad scientist.
To put it bluntly, I just don’t find the show believable. And not in a, “Wow, I wish that we could have a show about real, ordinary people for once.” I just don’t think that Fringe gets humanity.
Frank,
I haven’t seen the show yet, and prolly never will. But you have won me over, heart and soul, by force of your dauntless rhetoric, logic, and grammar. Well, mostly because of [2] and [5].
Harsh.
[5] As much as I want all the old WB alum to do well, I have to agree – he’s terrible in this.
[4-3] I think you might have a point on this one. I don’t know if conspiracy resonates as much as it used to. During the X-Files, conspiracy was… fun? Now it’s part of the cultural landscape. Could tapping into the zeitgeist actually backfire? Maybe.
[2] Also a good criticism. The X-Files comparison applies again. We can’t empathize with Scully anymore, because we’re all open to the supernatural.
[1] Least valid criticism. I see Fringe as a Sci-Fi variety show, albeit one with a complex mythology (can shows with complex mythologies succeed? Lost is probably the best example, but even it suffers in the ratings). I want to see classic Sci-Fi plots (time travel, shape-shifting, aliens, whatever) and I don’t really care about the characters as long as they’re reasonably likable.
I see your point about [1]. However, my reviews and critiques are always purely subjective. There are things that I like in stories and things that I dislike. Fringe happens to capitalize on the latter. Oh well.
I’m giving it two or three more episodes.