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

Of course they didn't tie all of the Pattern or Fringe events into the main storyline and the First People plot line concluded with the Relevation that the machine was sent back from the future by Walter for them to use. If they intended to suggest thst the Machine might have come from Walter from the future he went to with the boy, they didn't do a good job of it or never explicitly stated it.

 

Indeed but I don't think it hurts to have maybe a one/two page treatment of the entire concept from start to finish. If I was one of the execs tasked with green-lighting shows I'd want them to prove to me the show has a defined arc. A complete product if you will, after all I'll be signing off tens of millions of dollars on it potentially. Then at least I'd know they had put more than 5 episodes thought into it.

Like Lost, the big question I'd have asked was "So do they get Found?"

 

When J.J. Abrams was on Howard Stern's radio show a year or two ago, he asked him, "you know, the ending of Lost confused the hell outta me. Can you explain to me what the Island was, anyway?" And J.J. just kind of babbled for :30 seconds and finally gave up and said, "you know, you'll really have to ask Carlton (Cuse) and Damon (Lindelof), since it was far more their show than mine." If my name was on a show twice every week -- once as co-creator and once as executive producer -- you can damn well be sure I'd have a brief explanation of the essentials like that. "Well, the Island could be seen as a metaphor for the battleground of good and evil. In our show, it was a real place, an uncharted island that's almost impossible to find, one that defies the laws of physics, and a world where a force of pure, unadulterated evil is kept in check by a kind of metaphysical cork in the bottle. The Island can move, both in time and space, and it also has a kind of intelligence that influences people to help protect it." There, I said it for him, and I think I came pretty close a thumbnail explanation.

The problem is, sometimes this "defined arc" gets changed over time, especially as actors leave, ratings rise or fall, writers make discoveries that nobody planned, stuff like that. In the case of Lost, actor Michael Emmerson ("Ben Linus") admitted that he had only been hired for six episodes in Season 3, but wound up being the main villain for the next four years. So clearly, they only had a vague idea of what direction they were going to go in. It's a little bit more than "making it up as they went along," but at the same time it's not the solid, perfect story arc you might hope for.

I think modern-day dramatic shows are going for self-contained stories that work for each individual episode, and then occasionally throw in questions and answers to a larger story arc that encompasses the entire season (if not the series as a whole). Fringe did that reasonably well, but they did occasionally diverge from the formula; for example, they waffled back and forth for years as to whether Nina Sharp (Blair Brown) was on the FBI's side or had ulterior motives. There was a lot unexplained with her. And I think a whole lot of stuff with the Baldos was left a bit up in the air... and yet I enjoyed September's character very much, particularly when he was reduced to a mere human in the last couple of episodes.

 

I know I've said this before somewhere, but I'll repeat anyway. I don't care how "concrete" an idea is at the beginning, but over time producing a series you are going to find that some things work, some don't and the show has to morph and go with the flow. You might have a minor character that the audience falls in love with and so you have to develop them and give them more screen time. You might have a major plot point that you're building up to when you realize it's just not clicking...time to step back, adjust and come up with something else. I think that's how you keep a show "alive" and in tune with the audience, you have to adapt.

The byproduct of "going with the flow" is you're invariably going to create some holes. You are going to have elements that are never resolved, characters that just vanish either for longs stretches of time or altogether, minutia that never gets answered. But in the grand scheme of things if the changes you make help to further develop the characters and keep the show consistently entertaining that's the most important part.

 

Not if they try very hard and write extremely well.

I do agree that keeping the show entertaining is the most important thing, but there's a line that gets crossed when too much is left unexplained, and too many elements make no sense. I think Heroes is a classic example of a show that went off the cliff in both regards.

 

Finished rewatching season one and they did a pretty good job of tying up the loose ends of ZFT, William Bell and the parallel universe story they were setting up. Still some loose ends but remarkably coherent for on the fly story arcs.

Even the fact that Walter took out the ethics portion of the ZFT manifesto suggesting how he had changed and why Bell removed portions of his brain later at his own request because of who he was becoming hinted at the darkness that consumed Walter later.

 

Boy the bad CGI looks even worse in high def. still, enjoying most of season 5 even if it was uneven and, essentially, a new show.

 

So, you've watched all the intervening seasons between now and your last post?!?!

 

Oh I saw it when it originally aired. I watched all of season one and picked my favs from 2-4. I would lose my mind trying to pack thst much fringe in such a short span of time.

 

Maybe that's why Walter was nuts!

 

Yes, he went on a Fringe binge.lol

 

Amazon just e-mailed me to say that Fringe Season 5 has just shipped. I hope to have it on Saturday.

 

Got my blu-ray set of Season Five today!

 

Finally watched the last episode online.

It's was ok, I guess, but budget cuts, writer burn out, and JJA's essentially nutty concept made it a show that I'm unlikely ever visit again.

JJA is overrated as a TV guy imho.

 

+1!

 

Watched the retrospectiveon the Blu-ray.

Writer/producer J. K. Wyman...did he lose a bet and have to have his hair gelled into a mohawk? What the heck is it with these people. Don't they realize how stupid they look?

 

Fringe binge!

 

Mine arrived today as well

 

+1. So did mine!

 

The nutty concept is why I loved it so much and found it more interesting than most other shows on TV. I'm a big fan of weird.

 

The last season esp. I found myself laughing out loud then they came out with yet more utterly sideways plot points and monsters. I actually laughed more during that show than many comedies, which is a good thing.++

And the actors were all good and likeable.+++

 

I'm shocked, shocked do you hear, to learn that a rich and famous Hollywood writer/producer has decided on an affected "look"!


Brian Grazer / Imagine Entertainment



Lana Wachowski

 

I guess fashion faux pas knows no age limit. Brian, well, he makes enough money to look stupid and get away with it. Lana, well he became a she so clearly didn't know any better regarding a fashion faux pas but Wyman...he's not rich and he's not exactly famous (and hasn't had a sex change that I know of)....I guess they have an excuse. I just find it a bizarre look for a guy that has never been known to do that before.

Could be worse I suppose. Imagine Wyman dressing like Lana without a sex change. Still, a mohawk? Today?

 

Forgot Tim Burton:

 

He just looks windblown. No mohawk for him. On second thought....