Fringe - FOX TV sci-fi/drama (part2)

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by MilesSmiles, Oct 2, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    And I think the Fringe producers and writers pulled the ending together a lot better than Lost.
     
  2. Sean Murdock

    Sean Murdock Forum Intruder

    Location:
    Bergenfield, NJ
    Say, what did you think of the ending of Lost? I forget ... :rolleyes:
     
  3. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Not as good as the ending of Fringe.
     
  4. Sean Murdock

    Sean Murdock Forum Intruder

    Location:
    Bergenfield, NJ
    I'd really love to know someday what's truly behind your hatred of LOST and its finale, because if you're going to give the entire terrible (imo) last season of Fringe a pass just so you can say it's "better" than LOST, there's gotta be something more behind it than not liking them walking into the light.
     
  5. jriems

    jriems Audio Ojiisan

    :-popcorn: ad infinitum, apparently
     
  6. Sean,

    I have to agree that the ending for Fringe despite loose ends was pulled together much better than Lost and I had a issue with the whole sideways storyline that was more or less like a dream (hey they were in purgatory dreaming of some other life...) making it much weaker. While they did reset the "past" the show had done this before andot was much more I. The realm of the series than Lost where it seemed like a cheat--in essence the writers for lost wrote themselves into a corner and couldn't figure out any other way whereas I think that the reset because of the time travel storyline was, to some degree, always in the cards.

    I would much rather have Lost used another device to close off the series and the finale looked reeked of a cheap Sci-fi show from the 1970's.

    I had a lot of issues with the brief 5th season for Frimge but the finale wasn't one of them.
     
  7. daglesj

    daglesj Forum Resident

    Location:
    Norfolk, UK
    So guys we need some guidance here.

    We have watched all of the first four seasons of Fringe and loved it. It seemed that the series got a decent sign off at the end of Season 4.

    Season 5 comes out on DVD next month. Do we watch it or just pretend it never happened? Leave it as it was at the end of 4?
     
  8. While I enjoyed season five for what it was flaws and all, it seemed Ike a different series to me--a cheap SyFy channel knock off of Fringe rather than the show itself. You do get some additional answers about the Observers and there's additional info on their mission in the sltered timeline as well as the retirn of the child thst looked like an Observor and there's a great episode where Walter decides its time to cause some Fringe events himself) but, if you do see it, it won't taint the show in my opinion and neither does it enhance it for the most part.

    It reminds me of some of the filler episodes on The Prisoner that Macgoohan and his team had to come up with to get a package large enough for syndication--not essential but still nice to see the actors and their characters in action.
     
    bundee1 likes this.
  9. jriems

    jriems Audio Ojiisan

    Like all the rest of us, you are required to watch season 5 and experience all of the pleasure or pain - depending on your viewpoint - that we have experienced. :p No shortcuts allowed!
     
    wayneklein likes this.
  10. butch

    butch Senior Member

    Location:
    ny
    WK, the Lost parallel universe was originally that a parallel universe. That made sense in the context of the early episodes of season 6. for some reason, Lindelof and Cuse changed course. I found it more interesting to not emulate The Watchmen(the comic book ending where several survivors leave the island). They left too many questions unanswered, in essence they were making it up as they went along!

    Fringe's ending was far more successful. Then again it was less ambitious in its scope than Lost ever was. I will say this much that Fringe's last season could have even been better if Henry Ian Cusick was in every episode! Yeah I'm a Desmond fan......they kind of let his head get the best of him on Fringe!;)
     
  11. Sean Murdock

    Sean Murdock Forum Intruder

    Location:
    Bergenfield, NJ
    Hi Wayne -- While I will always argue in favor of the LOST finale, that doesn't mean I think it (or the final season) was perfect. I do agree that they had written themselves into some tricky corners, but for this viewer (and fanatical analyst of the show), I was satisfied with the way they wrapped up the show. I have plenty of issues with the show as a whole -- many more than you might guess if you've read my knee-jerk defenses of it, particularly in response to Vidiot -- but considering the restrictions they were working under (network TV, new season every year, so many episodes per season, etc.) I think they did a good job. LOST basically shattered the idea that network dramas HAD to be 22-24 episodes a season, and ushered in the age of cable-length seasons (10-13 episodes), and cable-like flexibility in scheduling (split seasons, non-September debuts, extra time to develop a season when needed, etc.) -- but because they were breaking the mold, they got to make the mistakes too. I thought season 4 (the first shortened, 16-episode season) was terribly disjointed and rushed, with major arcs ("Meet Kevin Johnson" and "Life & Death of Jeremy Bentham") were crammed awkwardly into single episodes; I also thought certain aspects of the whole Oceanic Six story were less than gracefully handled (Kate's "trial" was a sub-Law & Order joke, etc.). Season Five was, to me, a major rebound with some extremely exciting and brave storytelling -- especially for a network show. I think they found their footing within a cable-length season and set themselves up for a great finish.

    Season Six was almost doomed to be a love-it-or-hate-it deal from the beginning. Personally, I thought the "sideways" storyline was clever and very good -- a lot of people thought it was all "a waste" when they found out the sideways timeline wasn't "real" and was just "imaginary" or "purgatory," but I don't see it that way (obviously, I guess). To me, the sideways was VERY "real" because it gave us hints of the post-Island lives of the survivors, and it gave us a deep look at the psychological longings of most of the characters. We can infer from the sideways, for example, that bad-boy Sawyer really did reform his life after leaving the Island and, by the time he was in "purgatory" he thought of himself as a GOOD person -- a cop, even! -- who helped others and didn't regress to his old self-hating, self-destructive ways. We can also guess, sadly, that he never got over losing Juliet, because he didn't "awake" from the sideways until he found her. These are not small bits of character development for me, and it allows the viewer to decode the post-Island lives of our favorite characters -- without hokey epilogues or flash-forwards.

    That said, one of the biggest problems of Season Six for me was the time wasted in the Temple -- ironic, because the writers were trying to please the "gimme some damn ANSWERS" crowd, but often when they did ("Beyond The Sea," the magic golden cave) we learned (the hard way) that sometimes mystery is more satisfying than answers. In the end, some failings were unavoidable (the disappearance of Taller Walt), and some should have been avoidable (say, who the hell was shooting at them in the outrigger?), but in the end, emotionally, I loved the finale. Jack's death on the Island was heart-breaking, and the reunion in the church was hard-earned and cathartic. Clearly, lots of people -- not necessarily MOST people! -- hated it, but for me it worked, and as it was an emotional reaction I wouldn't be able to stubbornly defend it on principle three years later if I didn't love it. Yes, myriad little details got forgotten or ignored in the rush to wrap it up, but contrary to popular opinion, we DID get hundreds of "answers" throughout the six year run, and they DID provide closure to the stories of the main characters, whether we accept the result or not.

    Which brings me back to Fringe. Fringe was a show I only watched in the first place because of the J.J. Abrams connection -- another reason to thank LOST! -- and I thought the first season was VERY rough; it was a thin X-Files rip-off with an even more preposterous set-up (the mad scientist freed and given full access to the most sensitive FBI cases, the criminal con man being made an agent without a day in Quantico, the lack of student protests over the never-ending corpses being carted in and out of Harvard University, etc, etc.). But they got better, and Season Two was very strong, and by Season Three it was one of my favorite shows -- thanks to great storytelling and the deeply-felt relationship between Peter and Olivia and Peter and Walter. But for me, they lost their way in Season Four and completely fell apart in Season Five -- when they should have had the liberating freedom of throwing ALL the ideas they were holding back into the final season. As I commented earlier in this thread, while Season Five was underway, it felt like a low-budget spinoff, and the interminable search for the clearly-season-lengthening series of videotapes was worse for me (and less exciting) than the episodes LOST wasted at the Temple. By the time the finale of Fringe came along, I didn't CARE about any of the characters anymore -- and however flawed LOST was, I never stopped caring about the characters. I watched the final season of Fringe out of grim loyalty, and after the finale aired I never thought about it again -- indeed, I only think about it when this thread pops up.

    So, to bring it back to my sarcastic response to Vidiot -- one of dozens, I know! -- I find it disingenuous that he would blindly overlook the many, MANY blatant flaws and problems with Fringe just so he can hammer (AGAIN) how much he hates the LOST finale. We all like what we like, but he keeps bringing it up, again and again -- and I find it frustrating, to put it nicely. I was deeply disappointed with the ending of Fringe, and at the time I said my piece, but I don't keep coming back week after week, and every single damn time something is mildly irksome chime in with "At least it wasn't as bad as the Fringe finale!" I wish he would either explain himself, once and for all, or just STOP BRINGING IT UP. Respectfully,
     
    IronWaffle likes this.
  12. autodidact

    autodidact Forum Resident

    TV shows in general tend to deteriorate after a couple of years, for whatever reasons. There are a few that get stronger, better, but I'd have to say these are the exceptions. Right now I have finished season 5 of the X-files. But I like the show well enough to finish the series, even though I know it went through some changes and almost surely deteriorated. I like the characters enough -- even the new ones they introduced in the last seasons, to go along with it.

    And that's the key thing. You can suspend disbelief, you can ignore flaws, inconsistencies, if there are larger aspects of the show that appeal to you -- and I suppose that is a very personal thing. For me, that is the case with Fringe. Season five certainly wasn't a triumph, but it wasn't a disaster, either.

    As for LOST, I simply found very few aspects of the show enjoyable at the last. I watched it to the end, but gritting my teeth through it, or maybe just wearily enduring it. Maybe that was a mistake, but after maybe three good years invested, you felt like you had to see it through. And then feel betrayed at the end. I felt no such animosity at the end of Fringe. But this is a personal thing. I suppose there are many who found the latter seasons of LOST enjoyable, and were not maddened, frustrated, infuriated at the flaws. For me, it is only a bitter taste in my mouth.

    One other thing... I think it is much better for TV series to have 12 or 16 episodes per year like cable shows (Monk, Psych) than 22 or 24 episodes on big network shows. Maybe even better are British shows with fewer episodes per season (6-10 episodes/year for Waking the Dead, 6-8 episodes/season for Doc Martin, 10 or so episodes per season for Lark Rise To Candleford, etc.). I really think when they try to push out too much product, the people producing these shows lose important aspects of quality in the mad rush. Maybe if you have a grand plan like Babylon 5, it can be done without jumping the shark. Otherwise, it's very difficult.
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  13. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    There was really only 1 episode of Season 5 of Fringe that I wasn't crazy about, I really enjoyed the rest. The show had re-created itself so many times in the past I had no problem following it down another path. While the reduction in budget was apparent I don't think it detracted from my overall enjoyment and I still loved the characters so much that in the end I felt it was very worthwhile.

    I agree with this, if I'm completely invested in the characters of a show I can be forgiving of other story elements.
     
  14. daglesj

    daglesj Forum Resident

    Location:
    Norfolk, UK
    I agree that few shows can maintain a consistent 22 show level per season. You usually end up with a a few what I call "Oh dear Troi has a headache!" episodes per season. That or the one that relies on 30 minutes of previously shown footage for flashbacks...

    Lazzyyyyyyy!
     
    Vidiot and autodidact like this.
  15. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I think there was more of an effort made to explain a lot of little plot issues that went all the way back to the first season, plus the final episode wrapped everything up in a way that felt a lot more satisfying. (Note that I predicted the ending six months previously, where I essentially said "Walter will find a way to turn back time so that Olivia and Peter are back in the park with the little kid, and everybody has a different life.")

    I suspect J.J. Abrams was very rattled by the critical reaction to Lost, and this time they made damned sure they had a series conclusion that sorta/kinda made sense and took care of a lot of the loose ends. In fairness to Fringe, they had a less-convoluted plot, fewer episodes, and far fewer characters than Lost. I can't argue that Lost was one of the most ambitious shows in the history of television.

    There was a time I might have disagreed with you, but in the last few years, I've come to the conclusion that maybe limited-run series are a better idea: do a finite number of shows, get to the point, and get out before you overstay your welcome. Makes sense.
     
    IronWaffle and benjaminhuf like this.
  16. Sean Murdock

    Sean Murdock Forum Intruder

    Location:
    Bergenfield, NJ
    Well, "satisfying" is too subjective to be debated, but I disagree that Fringe tied up all its little loose ends better than Lost did. I mean, you yourself was mad that they had abandoned the whole "Pattern" storyline, and there were myriad HUGE (not little) plot issues that Fringe had to overcome just to become a competent show -- Walter not a believable character, Peter not a believable character, the whole Olivia/partner/lover thing that went nowhere, etc. Lost, on the other hand, hit the ground running and was absorbing and believable right from the pilot. You just seem very willing to defend Fringe and all its flaws (or overlook them) because you're still SOO angry about the Lost finale. Why can't you accept that some are willing to make the same allowances for Lost that you make for Fringe?
    Since J.J. had no active creative role in either show, I really doubt he felt any "ownership" of the Lost backlash, and I similarly don't think that it had any affect on how the Fringe team wrapped up their show. It is nice to see that you still concede that Lost was an incredibly ambitious show, however. Far, FAR from perfect, but within the confines of network TV, still remarkable. (As was Fringe as well, just less so, imo.)
    Arguably, Lost was a ground-breaker there, too. When the future of the show was seriously in doubt (during the Season Three ratings "crisis"), Lindelof and Cuse did something NO show-runners had ever done before -- they negotiated an ending date that would be SOONER, rather than later, while the show was still young and profitable. (Other hit shows, particularly sitcoms, had negotiated final seasons before, but only when they were aging and running out of gas, not to protect the storytelling.) Lindelof and Cuse protected the integrity of their overall story (hold the snark!) by insisting that they couldn't keep running in place without knowing when they had to wrap it up -- AND they negotiated three shorter seasons to do it. (ABC wanted two standard 22-24 episode seasons.) I'm sure Chris Carter wishes he could have done that with FOX and the X-Files -- a great show that ran aground by sticking around way too long. These days, we have year-round "seasons" of TV, fewer episodes per year, negotiated end-dates (Breaking Bad thanks you!), uninterrupted "repeat-free" runs, etc. -- surely cable was the leader here, but Lost (and 24, another show that HAD to be seen in sequence and sucked when broken up by repeats) brought that thinking to network TV.
     
  17. ganma

    ganma Senior Member

    Location:
    Earth
    I just finished watching the series ...
    Series 5 was great! In fact, I thought it was a vast improvement over series 3 and 4. The acting was brilliant throughout the series but like a lot of Sci fi series the plot started to unravel in series 3 and the writers started piling on the cheese and cliches. Series 5 brought the plot back sharply into focus and ended on a high note. Bravo!
     
  18. daglesj

    daglesj Forum Resident

    Location:
    Norfolk, UK
    I think Lost suffered from the "We never thought it would get past season 2 so we've now got to make a load of stuff up as we go" syndrome.
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  19. Sean Murdock

    Sean Murdock Forum Intruder

    Location:
    Bergenfield, NJ
    In fairness, though, don't MOST shows suffer from that "syndrome"? I mean, when you write a pilot, you CAN'T think about five seasons down the road -- you have to write a pilot that will get MADE and then put on the air. Then, when it gets picked up for a season, you have to write episodes that will generate buzz and get people watching, so you get picked up for a second season. That's just how TV works. Then, if the show is a hit and gets renewed, the producers and writers look at each other nervously and say, "NOW what the hell do we do?" Damon Lindelof has admitted that during the first season of LOST, they just wanted to avoid being cancelled, so they wrote the best 11 episodes they could think of, and didn't think about the consequences. But then the show was a smash hit, and the kid who played Walt grew six inches in between seasons, and they were like, "Oops."

    In contrast, all the heavily serialized, "mythology" type shows in recent years (The Event, Flash Forward, etc.) that bragged about having multiple seasons planned out -- supposedly so they wouldn't be "making it up" like LOST -- all flamed out in one season. It's not as easy as it looks, folks!
     

  20. They didn't abandon The Pattern storyline instead it changed into the much larger story involving the war between the universes, the various "experiments".

    Abrams was a consultant for the first season of Feinge and wrote 5 episodes of the first season of Fronge. I wouldn't doubt he was involved in the early story arc involving the cold war between the two universes as well.

    Abrams wrote only two episodes of the fist season of Lost and left the show largely in the hands of Lindelof Ad Cuse as I recall.

    Abrams wanted the larger story like they had with Lost but also wanted as many self contained episodes/seasons as possible.
     
  21. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    David Fury (Buffy, Angel, 24) was co-executive producer on the first season of Lost and wrote 4 episodes (Walkabout, Solitary, Special & Numbers). He did not continue with the show after the first season. He was also co-executive producer on Fringe and wrote 7 episodes.
     
  22. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    None worse than X-Files. I was told by a 3-year former show producer that she was absolutely convinced that Chris Carter and the writing staff had "absolutely no clue" on the direction of the show, and didn't care at all whether the show made any sense year to year. The actors were frustrated by it as well.

    No, I think they kinda gave up. There's a million plot holes there that they just sort of abandoned; even Fringepedia admits there are still a lot of elements that were never really adequately explained. "First People" is just the tip of the iceberg, as was "The Pattern," which to me was a lot of disconnected events that were never satisfactorily tied together. I think there were also a lot of character elements they forgot about over time -- for example, the fact that Peter Bishop had international gambling debts and people were looking for him -- and just got discarded.

    Read this essay on The Pattern as many examples of plots for which there was no real payoff or explanation. But I still like the show overall, and I think a lot of it works very well.
     
  23. Meltdown

    Meltdown Forum Resident

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    It doesn't explain it in that link, but I thought the Pattern did get explained, or at least an explanation was hinted at:

    Walt's initial crossing of universes caused a fracturing of the universe, resulting in a whole bunch of scientific anomalies and weird stuff occurring. The Pattern was just the name government agencies gave to these occurrences, in the mistaken assumption that there was some conspiracy behind them. I believe at one point they showed a map with the locations of all the incidents, and they all circled Reiden Lake.

    I agree with you that much in Fringe was ridiculous:
    -The initial premise seemed silly
    -Every season 1 episode contained the line, "Belly and I were working on something like this in the 70s"
    -The writers attempted things without an exit plan, including time travel and messing with the timelines
    -Logic stuff, including them working in the lab during season 5, no one noticing the mental stuff going on (see the actual real life reaction of Boston this week to one armed teenage terrorist to the one in the show)
    -Structure. The more serialised it was, the better (though season 5 did have some serious structural issues).

    However, at its best, Fringe was brilliant.

    All the stuff with Peter's near death and Walt crossing over. The end of season 1 is, for me, iconic. It seems a little divisive, but I really liked season 5 and the answers on the Observers, and certainly don't have the yearning for answers that the Lost finale left me with.

    It was really funny, really emotional and played with difficult sci-fi ideas in interesting ways. I'm going to miss Fringe.
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  24. You and I will have to disagree here--while I don't think they tied up all of the Pattern events, In rewatching the first and second season, it's clear that once they recognized that there was a universe war going on and they recognized that they were behind some attacks while others were testing done by ZFT to prepare the population for that war and "testing" their devices, etc.
    http://fringe.wikia.com/wiki/The_Pattern
     
  25. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Well, it might have been nice if at some point somebody said, "hey! You know what? There is no pattern at all! It's just a bunch of random weird crap!"

    I agree 100% with your sentiments.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine