Custom Blogs Search:
- - -

 

 

 
« Back to blog TV

The problem with 'Fringe'

Posted by DANIEL.WALTERS at 04:45 PM on Wed, May. 04, 2011

Somewhere along the line, the TV show Fringe became a fringe TV show.

Fringe has an extremely small, extremely loyal audience. That’s why Fox renewed it for next season, and that’s why Fox will probably not renew it next year. Thus, Fringe is in a unique position: Its only audience is its die-hard fans.

This focus on preaching to the fans, leaving the casual viewer behind, has had a curious effect: The quality of the show, throughout its run, as been like a bell curve — soaring, and then plateauing, and then sliding unfortunately downward.

Fringe began as extremely formulaic. It was X-Files with cheerier lighting, House with bigger parasites. It was simple: Something horrific and strange happened before the credits, the team ran around to try to figure out why, then, with just a few minutes before the victim/the city/the universe is destroyed forever, here comes a wave of technobabble, a fine heart-wrenching moment of acting from John Noble, and, hooray, we’re saved until next week.

The only larger story involved hints at “The Pattern” and some vague menace to mysterious superscience corporation Massive Dynamic.

But then, with the first season finale, Fringe ended with a shocking image — our hero, Olivia Dunham, landing in an alternate universe where the Twin Towers still stood. The major reveal that began driving the story: Turns out Peter Bishop was actually from that alternate universe, that he had been kidnapped by his father (mad scientist Walter Bishop) after his actual son (the Peter Bishop from our universe) died of illness. It’s a complicated sci-fi premise, but the ensuing guilt, agony and anger that Walter Bishop (from both universes) shows propels it to compelling viewing.

That theme gave us “White Tulip,” one of the strongest, most meaningful standalone sci-fi stories ever, by tying one man's guilt over losing his wife to Walter Bishop’s guilt over kidnapping his own son.

But here, it seems, the show peaked. Fringe fans praise the show, saying it's taking risks. But it’s taking the same risks, with diminishing returns, as it did for the past few seasons — and risks aimed at pleasing the fans. Recently, it seems as if the writers stood in front a whiteboard and brainstormed the show’s strengths:

1) Showing different variations of the central cast, in different forms or different worlds

2) Tying science-fiction stories to emotional themes, like love, guilt, or revenge

3) Striving to satisfy its diehard, intractable fans instead of the casual viewer.

The last season seems to have been using those strengths, in a very calculating way, to construct the rest of the show. Yet by doing so, Fringe has become a much weaker show in the latter half of this season. Almost self-indulgent.

Last season, Fringe brought its narrative momentum to a halt with a drug trip that resulted in a musical film noir-style quirkiness. Fancy costumes. This season, in an even bigger misstep, during a trip inside a main character’s mind resulted in much of the episode being animated. Like A Scanner Darkly animated. The animation was shoddy, the gimmick was a distraction from the emotional core, and the season suffered from it.

Fringe’s penultimate episode ended with a reveal that, somehow, Peter Bishop had been transported to the future. The future, of course, was grim and dystopic. It would be a great twist, of course, if it wasn’t for the fact that A) Dollhouse already did it, B) it’s a retread of Season One’s alternate universe twist, C) it essentially adds variations on characters, instead of deepening the ones we currently have.

By the time this season is done we will have seen at least eight versions of Walter Bishop: present-day Walter, alternate-universe present-day Walter, 1980s-flashback Walter, alternate-universe 1980s-flashback Walter, film noir drug-trip Walter, animated Walter, future Walter, and alternate-universe future Walter.

Secondly, Fringe has a habit of layering emotional stakes, a la “White Tulip,” onto nearly every story, big or small. Some, like an episode that riffs on Flowers for Algernon,  are compelling. But most, like a story in which a woman’s inability to let her dead husband’s memory go is creating a rip in space-in-time, have felt too desperate.

The notion that, in the alternate universe, a mad scientist wants to destroy our universe, partly in revenge for his son being kidnapped, should be emotional stakes enough.

But instead, Fringe added another layer, implying that the only way for the universe to be saved is for Peter Bishop and Olivia Dunham to love each other. Peter and Olivia don’t have much chemistry. This seemed to be a way to layer on emotional stakes and satisfy  “shippers” — fans that want two specific characters to hook up.

But as Dan Harmon, showrrunner of Community, has explained, one of the quickest ways to get casual viewers to hate a couple is to tell us they’re destined for each other, especially if they don’t have natural chemistry. Fringe did exactly that, implying that not only was it prophesied that Peter and Olivia be connected, their relationship was literally the key to the universe’s survival.

Part of Lost’s strength was the way the show morphed to a show about survival, to a show about mystery, to a show about conflict between two groups, to a sci-fi show about time travel, to a show about dueling demi-gods. Everyone has their favorite season, but the show never grew stale.

But by repeating variations of what has worked in the past, with different variations, Fringe forces its story into an awkward, predetermined mold and invites comparisons to better moments. Fringe has been renewed for what is probably its final season. With that, it has the gift and curse of freedom: Let’s hope the final season tells a unique, cohesive story, instead of just one that will satisfy fans.

My suggestion? In Friday’s season finale, kill off some beloved characters. Destroy our universe, and have the entire next season take place in the alternate universe. Great shows aren't just afraid of the fans. Don’t just give variations on the status quo – change it entirely. 

 
Your assumptions about the device and what is going to happen in the season finale are wrong, so I think you have come to the wrong conclusions about the show.

Peter hasn´t transported anywhere. There was no time travel. The story hasn´t moved ahead many years (like Dollhouse). This is a vision of the (possible) future (like what the Observers can do).

I also think that instead of more universes and more characters being created (too complicated, even for die-hard fans), I believe the two universes will merge into one.

I do agree, that if I had to destroy one universe, I would pick the Red-verse. Even though I have an emotional attachment to "our" universe, it would be much more interesting to live on the other side, with all their strange differences. May 05, 2011 | Reply to this comment

 

Why don´t you wait until the season finale airs before you start comparing the show to the tiresome Dollhouse (BTW, what the hell? Dollhouse was NOT the first show to do time travel)

Other than that, your review is null and void not to mention, very ignorant. May 05, 2011 | Reply to this comment

 

"But me, I enjoyed the hell out of “Brown Betty,” and I enjoyed the hell out of “LSD.” I’ve always been a “journey not the destination” kind of guy, and so long as a TV show entertains me, I’ll never consider my time wasted."
Noel Murray AVclub

http://www.avclub.com/articles/lysergic-acid-diethylamide,54608/

You seem to be a "Destination not the journey" kind of person and the problem with this article. May 05, 2011 | Reply to this comment

 

Noticed you also insulted my new favorite "The Killing". What a joke.

First of all. PROOFREAD. There is an H in Has!

I will not take the time to go too far into your article.

You apparently just don´t like Fringe, so do not put an article out pretending to be a criticizing fan.

This Third Season has been Fringe´s best season BY FAR. I will not even bother arguing that.

I was going to write more, I have decided to stop there.

This is an Ignorant piece of junk, and I must agree with KatBeel, Null and Void. May 05, 2011 | Reply to this comment

 

"emotional stakes"? Lol, did someone run out of Kleenex on Friday night? I´d consider the show´s emotional themes to be tertiary to the show´s main focus(es), at best. These "themes" you speak of are what humanize the sci-fi genre. And as I just stated, they are there, but the "woman’s inability to let her dead husband’s memory go is creating a rip in space-in-time" is barely even a tenth of what Fringe is focusing on. If anything it was a way to tie in the Peter/Olivia subplot... which brings me to my next point...
I don´t know where your issue with the P/O "chemistry" comes in; as was mentioned in one episode, both characters have a tendency to be a bot closed-off emotionally, so any "natural chemistry" is not going to be blatantly depicted. But I suppose it´s difficult to get this impression of either character, being that the depth of the characters is so lacking and the many "variations on characters" makes it quite easy to get thrown off (unless you have some solid critical thinking ability.)
Going off the P/O storyline, the idea that Peter has to "choose" between the two "versions" of Olivia is still ambiguous, and there are indications of this either 1) not being the case at all, or 2) being a lot more complex than just a little love triangle between two entangled universes at conflict with one another.

"The animation was shoddy, the gimmick was a distraction from the emotional core" -- so now the show needs to focus more on "the emotional core"? Isn´t that a bit contradictory to the notion of superfluous "emotional stakes"?

There is most definitely a "larger story", which ties in the Pattern, Massive Dynamic, and alternate universe story lines. Any notion that these are independent subplots is a huge misconception.

On that note, the notion that Fringe´s audience is "extremely small", and that they are "leaving the casual viewer behind" - as well as the resulting implication that the show´s audience is, in essence, a sort of elitist cult following - is also all a huge misconception. The show´s nature inherently draws in an audience consisting of individuals characterized by an appreciation for complexity, and unique, quirky, yet thought-provoking writing in a television series and/or film. However, this does not equate with elitism. Fringe´s main audience is far from unanimous in terms of the course of the series´ writing that they´d deem"satisfying." So the idea that the writers are only trying to please hardcore fans holds no logic.

I could go into significantly MORE depth as far as reinforcing the statement that this "review is null and void not to mention, very ignorant", but that would be a waste of my time.

P.S. -- thank you for the incentive to create and Inlander account. :) May 06, 2011 | Reply to this comment

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close