J.J. Abrams' FRINGE in TV Terrors Forum

Forum Jump

J.J. Abrams' FRINGE

Author	Comment
Dr Spyclops	J.J. Abrams' FRINGE	Lead	[-]
Sep 8 08 1:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	FRINGE, one of the most anticipated new series of the fall will premiere on FOX, Tuesday, 9/9 at 8:00-9:35 EST. It's being described as a cross between THE X-FILES and BONES and was co-created by J.J. Abrams, the writer/director/producer behind LOST, ALIAS, CLOVERFIELD and the upcoming STAR TREK movie. I've no idea whether FRINGE will actually be any good or not, but in my view, anything by Abrams is worth a look. -Rob-
George Kaplan		#1	[-]
Sep 8 08 2:55 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'm totally psyched, and will be watching for sure. Only new show I'm looking forward to with greater anticipation is DOLLHOUSE.
oldmanster		#2	[-]
Sep 8 08 5:10 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'll watch the pilot, with some reservations. Does the 90-minute timeslot mean there are no commercials? ... Reed
Dr Spyclops		#3	[-]
Sep 8 08 6:36 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Reed, there'll definitely be commercials but supposedly, the length of the commercial breaks themselves will be greatly reduced. And don't forget those extra five minutes. It's a 95 minute pilot. Wouldn't want anyone taping the show to miss out on any possible plot revelations during the closing moments. -Rob- Last Edited By: Dr Spyclops Sep 8 08 7:32 PM. Edited 1 times.
Charles Thaxton		#4	[-]
Sep 8 08 7:59 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think Abrams is totally overrated. LOST has become a chain yanking annoyance with more questions introduced every show than are answered and it feels like they're making it up on the fly. I hope he doesn't butcher STAR TREK. And the new show sounds REAL original...FBI agents investigate the paranormal??? Wow. Never been done (sorry Mulder)
Dr Spyclops		#5	[-]
Sep 8 08 8:20 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Charles Thaxton wrote: I think Abrams is totally overrated. LOST has become a chain yanking annoyance with more questions introduced every show than are answered and it feels like they're making it up on the fly. Ahh... that used to be the case but did you watch LOST last season, Charles? Once the producers made a deal with ABC to set a definite end date for the show, LOST came into its own and major plot revelations flew fast and furious. Isn't it a bit soon to knock FRINGE's originality before it's even aired? Besides, everyone knows that there aren't any original ideas. It's what you do with the old ones that counts. -Rob-
Charles Thaxton		#6	[-]
Sep 8 08 8:34 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	yes I watched last season and still don't get most of it. WHAT is the smoke monster (they always ignore asking anyone who might know) and why does it sound like a T Rex from Jurassic Park...what's up with the time bouncing.....and the invisible guy in the jungle shack....and all the various computer rooms underground....the purple sky magnetic pulse....I keep expecting Patrick McGoohan to show up in an ape mask.
Mattel Jones		#7	[-]
Sep 8 08 8:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I will be checking it out and hoping for the best, but I agree with those who say the premise seems like an amalgam of lots of shows we've already seen. Besides the obvious X-FILES resemblance the promos I've seen for it sound an awful lot like ELEVENTH HOUR a Granada Television series starring Patrick Stewart that was re-run last year on BBC America, and subsequently remade for American television with its debut on CBS later this month. The difference being FRINGE sounds like it goes much further into SciFi land than its predecessor did. It'll be interesting to see how FRINGE compares quality and ratings wise to the ELEVENTH HOUR remake.
Dr Spyclops		#8	[-]
Sep 8 08 8:55 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Charles Thaxton wrote: "yes I watched last season and still don't get most of it. WHAT is the smoke monster (they always ignore asking anyone who might know) and why does it sound like a T Rex from Jurassic Park...what's up with the time bouncing.....and the invisible guy in the jungle shack....and all the various computer rooms underground....the purple sky magnetic pulse....I keep expecting Patrick McGoohan to show up in an ape mask." Now, if LOST began answering those big questions too soon, no one would tune in for the remainder of the show. However, Abrams and company have stated in interviews that enough hidden clues have been planted since the first episode to prove that yes, there really has been a game-plan all along. I don't want to make this thread about LOST though. We've got a thread for that already. I'm looking forward to FRINGE and reading everyone's comments after the pilot airs. Hopefully, we'll all be pretty enthusiastic. -Rob- Last Edited By: Dr Spyclops Sep 8 08 9:00 PM. Edited 1 times.
oldmanster		#9	[-]
Sep 8 08 9:44 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I lost interest in Lost in the second season, but that doesn't necessarily turn me off J.J. Abrams -- I'm a fan of Cloverfield, for instance. It's just that when a new series is blurbed as "part X-Files" with that show's tendency to murky, unexplained story arcs, and the marketing hype also stresses the Lost imagery, I'm just a tad leery. But as I said, I'll watch Fringe tomorrow, and make my decision on the worthiness of the pilot. Dr., thanks for the heads up on the running time. ... Reed
oldmanster		#10	[-]
Sep 9 08 8:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Just finished watching the pilot. It's... okay. Strong on high concept, a bit weak on story arc ("The Pattern!!!"). It began well, sagged in the middle, picked up at the end, but was strangely predictable for an Abrams creation. I liked the female lead -- a Cate Blanchett variant: not a classical raving beauty, but fine screen presence. Joshua Jackson wasn't given a great deal to do, which probably fits his one- or two-note emotional range -- but I still like him in a general way. In keeping with some of the comments on the HBO True Blood thread, I'll give this another couple of weeks before passing final judgment. ... Reed
Dr Spyclops		#11	[-]
Sep 9 08 9:41 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I agree with your general assessment, Reed and I think this excerpt from this week's Entertainment Weekly might be of interest: Abrams - who remains closely involved in the show's day-to-day operations - believes the pilot, though entertaining, doesn't quite nail his character-driven vision; "In many ways, the first episodes that follow are better. They're much more focused." All involved promise a show that won't get bogged down in its own mythology, meaning plenty of stand-alone episodes that cater to the casual viewer. I thought the pilot showed a lot of promise, with three really interesting, lead characters and had a nice balance of sci-fi, intrigue, action and humor (loved the cow). I wasn't quite sure what to expect from the show but I definitely liked what I saw. Count me in as a viewer for several more episodes at least. -Rob-
Mattel Jones		#12	[-]
Sep 10 08 1:01 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I thought it was boring and predictable. There is some executive at Fox TV that LOVES to greenlight these weird conspiracy shows. I kind of liked the crazy professor but couldn't have cared less about any of the other characters. The whole premise just feels like been there, seen that.. I'll watch a couple more episodes to see if it gets any better but after getting burned by Abrams with ALIAS, and despite great casting, being a little bored of all the muckety-muck on LOST (and not being as thrilled by CLOVERFIELD as some of you folks were), I found my low expectations were pretty much met by this pilot.
SanzarQ		#13	[-]
Sep 10 08 7:54 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I thought the opener was rather "Ho-Hum", but I'll give it a few more chances before making a decision to watch faithfully or to resort to the latest Netflix DVD.
evilskippy		#14	[-]
Sep 10 08 9:21 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Part predictable and part I didn't see THAT coming. So we'll stick around for a while and see what develops. "The world's going to change tonight, doctor, I'm glad you'll be able to watch it. And... happy Halloween."
sirharryflashman		#15	[-]
Sep 10 08 9:28 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think I liked it better than the True Blood opener; or at least found it more accessible at any rate. Unfortunately that is likely for all the wrong reasons, which is to say it was all so very familiar and relatively predictable. Liked the female lead - Anna Torv - well enough, and really enjoyed John Noble's bizarre Dr. Walter Bishop (took me forever to recognize him as Denethor from LOTR), but Jackson was just so much dead screen space. Thought the jumbo location titles a bit over the top, especially when the camera was shooting up through a loop in the letter "B" in one shot. Bit weird that. Anyway, I'll certainly be along for the next few episodes. Cheers, Charles Prepolec Gaslight Grimoire Blog: News, Interviews and Updates Sherlock Holmes News: Sherlock Holmes in Films, Books and Media
Mattel Jones		#16	[-]
Sep 10 08 11:07 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	sirharryflashman wrote: Thought the jumbo location titles a bit over the top, especially when the camera was shooting up through a loop in the letter "B" in one shot. Bit weird that. Thanks for mentioning that. The first time they did that with the Boston Airport location title I thought it was really cool, but the reverse angle shot you refer to just annoyed the heck out of me (and the wife). I was expecting to see a kids climbing around on some of the later ones. I guess those giant floating titles were supposed to suggest something massive and dynamic? This show writes its own Mad Magazine parody.
grgstv338		#17	[-]
Sep 12 08 1:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Just caught up with this online. Like others have said, a mixture of the familiar with a few unexpected twists/modifications (then again, how many debuting TV shows can't you say that about?). Overall, I thought it was pretty good. I liked Anna Torv (although she reminds me strongly of the female lead in CHUCK) and John Noble was good. I liked the cow, too! The final twist was pretty good as well - and solved the question of how they'd allow for any romantic tension to develop between Torv and Joshua Jackson in subsequent episodes. The big, floating location lettering was a bit bewildering ("we're doing it because we can") and, imho, totally out of place with this type of show (it would work far better with something more fanciful like PUSHING DAISIES).
Bill Warren		#18	[-]
Sep 12 08 2:55 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I was amused when we saw one of the floating location signs from beneath. I think they should have added scaffolding. As for the show itself, based on the premiere, it might be okay, but I'd rather there be no what's-behind-it-all elements. None whatsoever. I'll watch it for a while. Incidentally, after the first few episodes, I think J.J. Abrams has had little if anything to do with LOST.
grgstv338		#19	[-]
Sep 12 08 4:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Incidentally, after the first few episodes, I think J.J. Abrams has had little if anything to do with LOST. Yeah, I have to admit I get a little annoyed when people keep referring to LOST as "that J.J. Abrams show" when it's really much more Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse. But Abrams has become pretty much a brand, so putting his name front and center has become an accepted part of the marketing of anything he's connected with, even something like FRINGE (yeah, he co-created, co-wrote and co-exec produced it, but with two other guys, so who's to say how much of the final product is identifiably his? 1/3? 4/5? 1/10?). Getting back to FRINGE, one of the plot points had me shaking my head (I know, I know - you ask "just one?"). It comes when the FBI agent is told only family members have access to the loony scientist - er, okay, to the exclusion of federal investigators? All right, maybe secret government types or the big business cabal really have him under wraps for their own nefarious purposes. But, after they visit the institution, they say sonny boy Joshua Jackson has the power to "sign out" the wacky scientist? Wuhhhhhhh? He's so sequestered an FBI agent investigating a supposed terrorist attack can't have access to him, but Pacey can just waltz in and waltz out with the guy? This came across more as a credibility-stretching convenience to explain why the Joshua Jackson character would be along with our comely FBI agent throughout the investigation (and, presumably, all future episodes).
John T Chance		#20	[-]
Sep 13 08 7:45 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well, can't say that I was overly impressed with FRINGE. I did like John "Denethor" Noble as the kooky mad scientist (his delivery of the line, "Excellent...Let's make some LSD!" had me in stitches). As for the rest...meh. Plot holes galore, and with a disappointing focus on "save the boyfriend" rather than "investigate all the weird goings-on". The premise does have some (limited) potential. It all just seems like too much "been there, done that." I expected a little more innovation from J.J. Abrams. The floating setting markers or whatever you want to call them didn't bug me; I kinda thought they were a cool touch, albeit one that could wear out its welcome quickly. Overall, the show struck me as a weaker riff on THRESHOLD, from a few seasons back. That show had its problems, too, but it was graced with a much more interesting team of investigators than FRINGE, not to mention having the smoldering Carla Gugino in the lead.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

J.J. Abrams' FRINGE

J.J. Abrams' FRINGE