After reading Alex's Fringe ...
Question: After reading
Alex's Fringe rant, I felt compelled to write in. It's been three episodes! Are they really supposed to have everything figured out already? Granted, some shows get it right from the start, but those shows are more the exception than the rule. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a lot more common for a show to take some time to find its way? Also, I don't see how constantly comparing the show to others can lead to anything but disappointment. No, I suppose you can't put Anna Torv and Joshua Jackson in the same league as Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny, but I doubt anyone was calling even their chemistry legendary after only three episodes. Now, I'll admit that Olivia Dunham isn't the most sympathetic of characters, and if that doesn't change soon there's going to be a problem, but she just found out the guy she loved was not who she thought he was. It makes sense for her to be closed off. Likewise, if Joshua Jackson comes off a bit childish, maybe that's because his character is forced to play guardian to a father he resents. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some Joshua Jackson fanatic who'll defend him to the death, but the way people keep writing him off seems unfair. From what I've seen, he's been pretty adept at handling a character that, if done improperly, could be kind of annoying. Lastly, for a fan of
The X-Files,
Alias and
Lost to say that
Fringe has a "confusing central mystery" has got to be some kind of joke. Those shows have arguably some of the most confusing/convoluted mysteries in the history of television. And besides, isn't that pretty much par for the course in a J.J. Abrams series?
Answer: All good points, and what's saving
Fringe for me right now has less to do with anything the wan Olivia does than with the chemistry between Peter and his endearingly crazy father — look what the amazing John Noble can do with an obsession with root-beer floats. I'm finding myself more and more on the fence about this show each week, which surprises and unsettles me greatly. I'm still intrigued, but less and less sold. Even though this is my kind of show when done right, the last two episodes' mysteries did the opposite of knocking me out. I hate the reliance on torture scenes to generate suspense, and I thought (from the advance publicity) that this show wasn't going to get murkier by the week. That said, welcome back, Mark Valley, and I'm a fan of Michael Cerveris, so am eager to see more of this new "Observer" character. But honestly, in a reversal of earlier opinion, if I were to be asked to recommend a new series in the Tuesday 9/8c time period, I'd probably go with CBS's likably quirky
The Mentalist. This week's second episode was even better than the pilot in the way it revealed new facets of Simon Baker's playful yet soulfully intuitive (and manipulative) crime-solver. We learned he's unbeatable at rock-paper-scissors, and that he's not above using hypnotic suggestion to get a witness to spill. At the end of that hour, I felt satisfied and entertained, which is more than I can say about an hour devoted to some nebulous underground cylinder.
