Ask JKM a Question #42: Fringe

A reader, Brian, writes:

“As best as I can tell from your site, it looks to me that you haven't written about Fringe since Fall of 2008. If that's true, is that because you gave up on the show, or is that because you just didn't feel like writing about it any longer? I ask simply because I watched the show early on and frankly was not very impressed, but I gave it another chance a bit later on in its run, and I could not be happier that I did.

If you have continued to write about the show, and I missed it, I apologize. If you continue to watch it and don't feel like writing about it, or simply don't like it, that's fine as well. But if you gave up on it early in its run, I think you owe it to yourself to give it another chance. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. If nothing else, they took your advice and spent an awful lot of time concentrating on the relationship between Walter and Peter Bishop, which you suggested in your earlier pieces.

Thanks for your time, and again, thanks for the great blog and books.”

Brian, thank you for your kind words about my blog and books.  I also appreciate your question, and actually you are not the first person to ask me here about Fringe. 

In correspondences both public and private, several Fringe fans have asked me to take a second look at the series.  When this many people (good-naturedly) ask me to take a second look at something, I weigh the feedback very heavily.

You’re also correct in your belief that I haven’t reviewed specific episodes since 2008.  The reason I stopped originally is because I found the series extremely formulaic, and something of an X-Files rip-off.

That established, I have  indeed decided it is time to give Fringe another  shot (the way I gave Vampire Diaries a second go recently), and see if I can power through the weak first season episodes and get to the good stuff that a number of fans have now mentioned and identified.

In fact, I’m going to make a multi-season Fringe purchase on Amazon.com today.  So hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, there’s Fringe-centric cult-tv flashback in the offing here…

Don’t forget to ask me a question at Muirbusiness@yahoo.com.

TV REVIEW: Fringe: "The Cure"

In something of a switcheroo, this week's installment of Fringe, "The Cure," plays more like an episode of Chris Carter's late, lamented Millennium (1996-1999) than of Chris Carter's The X-Files. Well, I guess that's what passes for originality on network television these days...

In "The Cure," our heroes, the Bishops (Walter and Peter) and FBI agent Olivia Dunham, investigate the strange case of a woman in Milford, Massachusetts who has been mysteriously but effectively "weaponized;" her brain transformed into a microwave generator that can "fry" innocent bystanders around her (meaning that their eyes bleed out...). The behind-the-scenes culprit is a nefarious physician working for INTREPUS, a giant pharmaceutical company (and competitor to Massive Dynamic). When a second woman is kidnapped and time starts to run out, Peter (Joshua Jackson) makes a Faustian bargain with Blair Brown's character, Nina Sharpe, and helps Olivia bring down the evil doctor with a God complex.

Meanwhile, Olivia also reveals -- rather unbelievably -- that she is being stalked by her own variation of Frank Black's Polaroid Killer (a serial killer who kept mailing photographs of Frank's family to him at his new address in Seattle.) In Olivia's case, the stalker is an abusive stepfather whom she shot several years before. Now, every year, the recovered stepfather sends her a birthday card reminding her he's still "out there." Yep. Because he cares enough to send the very creepiest.

First, this subplot is highly derivative of Millennium, right down to the coda which finds Olivia unexpectedly receiving the suspicious "card" or "mail" slipped under her front door.

Secondly, the background story that Olivia describes to Peter (about her stepfather...and shooting him...) is rather unbelievable. An incident of this nature this would have likely disqualified Olivia for consideration as an FBI agent. Not merely has she committed a crime (shooting someone several times...), but she's quite obviously become psychologically-scarred about it; or at the very least erratic. I found it even more unbelievable that her swarthy buddy in the FBI knew all about her stepfather's birthday cards, and jokes about it with her. Hmmm...how about an investigation instead?

This hackneyed bit of character "development" feels uncomfortably like a plot point added late in the creative process; one meant to drum up some meager human interest in Olivia, since she is the series' dullest character. Actually, the element I found most interesting about this week's Fringe is that the preview for upcoming shows only revealed a single image of Olivia Dunham, and very briefly (she was almost unrecognizable too, wearing a surgical mask). Instead, this entire coming attraction focused on the increasingly amusing banter between Peter and Walter. 

As for the rest of "The Cure" it plays rather like a second-rate hybrid of several Millennium episodes. We have the human test subjects in an experiment here, familiar from such episodes such as the first season's "Walkabout" and the second season's "Sense and Anti-Sense," plus the gory, bloody demises of "The Time is Now." The Pattern this week is much more Millennium Group than Syndicate, involving an organization acquiring "cures" to diseases for some hidden agenda.

I'll end this review on a positive notation: Dr. Bishop doesn't have all the answers this week!  Fringe's rigid formula is broken in "The Cure" when Dr. Bishop admits he's never seen anything like this "weapon" before. He never worked on a case involving it, and he has no deus ex machina device standing at the ready to combat it. What a relief! Also, on the positive side, the banter between Peter and Walter is, as I noted above, growing increasingly amusing. Dr. Bishop vets some funny material this week about recreational drugs being "entertaining" and an off-the-wall reference to sexual bondage. Peter's reaction to the latter is pretty damn funny.

If Fringe is to survive, the approach to take going forward is precisely the one that "The Cure's" coming attraction adopted: minimize Olivia and play-up the quirky father/son Bishop relationship.

TV REVIEW: Fringe: "Power Hungry"

The genre convention of an individual who can harness electricity (either accidentally or with an agenda), has informed many a TV series over the years. From Brimstone's "Executioner" and Reaper's "Charged" to Smallville's pilot back in 2001, audiences have seen this notion portrayed frequently. Even series regulars and recurring characters have sometimes been imbued with the ability to control electricity. Think of Brennan Mulwray on Mutant X, Gwen Raiden on Angel or Johnny B. on Misfits of Science.

This week, the new Fox series Fringe goes blandly where those other series have tread before in the underwhelming "Power Hungry." This story involves a down-on-his luck loser, James Meegar, who accidentally causes electrical equipment (like elevators...) to malfunction; sometimes with fatal results.

"Power Hungry" opens with a classic X-Files-style scenario and introduction. James (a disdained or discredited outsider/loser: an X-Files archetype) fails at a pitch to woo a lovely receptionist. His strange powers run amok commensurate with his embarrassment, and he accidentally causes an elevator to fall several stories...and crash. James alone survives the incident, which is then investigated by the Fringe science team as a "power surge of unknown origin."

All I can say (politely...) regarding this sequence is that -- in pacing, in characterization, in set-up and in visualization -- it is so dramatically reminiscent of an X-Files prologue you half-expect to hear Mark Snow's signature theme song at the end of it. The best part of the prologue? We get a cameo from last week's Man in Black, The "Observer." Nice continuity.

Again, it is not necessary to rag on Fringe for dredging up old, time-worn stories. That's what genre series do, to a large extent. It's not the story that matters; it's the handling of it, the vetting of it. And it is here, alas, that Fringe once more selects the rote, familiar path rather than something bold. fresh or, if you pardon the pun, energizing. Remember my list of Fringe cliches (already cemented after five weeks on the air)? Well, here's a refresher, applied to "Power Hungry."

1. We get another of Dr. Bishop's patented cutesie-poo insane moments. He minces around on a carpet and tries to shock Peter with a finger of static electricity. As usual Dr. Bishop is deadly serious when the script requires him to be; amusing when it doesn't. He has the most selective and "useful" brand of insanity ever!

2. The mystery of the week once more involves - as Dr. Bishop actually states this time - "a case" where he has "seen this" [human-created power surges] "before." Yep, he worked on a study years ago involving pigeons (!) that could track individual human electrical patterns. This is more than helpful, because the Deus Ex Machina of the week involves Bishop up-fitting pigeons to seek out and find fugitive James Meegar. Again, for a series that concerns fringe science, there is precious little scientific research actually going on here. Every single case seems to involve something Dr. Bishop already figured out in the 1970s and 1980s. This means that once Dr. Bishop figures out the problem of the week, he now merely references an old case and - voila - mystery solved. I can't fully express how dull and stupid this aspect of Fringe is. It might be more interesting if Fringe was actually set in the 1970s and 1980s, and concerned Dr. Bishop learned all this very interesting stuff in the first place.

3. The case is related to the myth-arc, or as Fringe terms it, "The Pattern." We know this is so, because the Observer is present at the elevator incident. And also because John Scott -- the dead agent played by Mark Valley -- was researching the case before he died. And that's another cliche too: John Scott shows up and brings up conflicted feelings in Olivia Dunham, our hero.

Hey! You know something? I just realized, I could write this show in my sleep. Anyone could. The ingredients are by now so repetitive, so familiar, so utterly predictable that the series appears to be running on automatic pilot. All I can say is: I hope this means J.J. Abrams is working on Star Trek...

The rote, robotic aspects of Fringe (meaning the story lines...) might be forgiven if the characters were as dynamic, as human, as individual and real as, say, Mulder and Scully. But they're not. I've warmed to Peter (as played by Joshua Jackson), but the screenplays continue to make this "genius" an absolute idiot. Why is he constantly asking how things are possible if he's such a genius? Fringe seriously needs to stop using this character as the "spur" for exposition, and endow him an intelligent, imaginative and curious side. As he is now, Peter just gets to quip a little, look pissed off, and set-up his Dad's scientific explanations. It's getting old. Real. Fast.

But by far, the series' greatest deficit is Anna Torv in the lead role. She projects no real humanity as Olivia Dunham. Take for instance, her final interaction in "Power Hungry" with James Meegar, the loser with the power to harness electricity. Poor James has just had mechanical implants drilled into his brain and has essentially been tortured. And this is after accidentally killing his boss, his mother, and his would-be girlfriend! James is being loaded in an ambulance when Olivia approaches him. Desperate, James begs her to tell him what the hell is going on; what is happening to him. She doesn't. Instead, she coldly explains she has "questions" for him. So...is Olivia a human being? Or was she built by Dr. Bishop too? As viewers, we need to know the answer to this question: does Olivia have any sympathy for James? For the fact that he was made a human guinea pig in the larger "Pattern?" Or does she not care a whit? Is Olivia so single-minded and obsessed with the case that she can no longer see the human picture?

One way or the other, as viewers we need to know what Olivia feels. I want to identify with her emotions and point of view, regardless of that point of view. I want her to be more than a cipher who each week "fronts" an investigation and then brings down the perp. My newest recommendation to the makers of Fringe is this: ditch Olivia Dunham (and Torv) and re-focus the series entirely on the Bishops, father and son. They are about a million times more interesting (cutesie-poo insanity and all...) than Olivia is.

Sometimes it is useful in a review to compare the approach of one series with another. Allow me do that in closing. The Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles also had a "pattern" to follow (the Terminator feature films), yet the creators of that series have gone out of their way to intelligently and inventively expand that pattern....overturning viewer expectations and making the series wildly unpredictable. Fringe, which is so derivative of The X-Files, has by contrast settled irrevocably into bad cliches, superficial characters, and lazy, derivative stories. In my opinion, Fringe should be canceled now. Terminator should be saved.

CULT TV REVIEW: Fringe: "The Arrival'

Last week, while bemoaning Fringe's highly repetitive plot structure, I offered my own personal template for episodes of the series. As you may recall, the template went something like this:

1. There is a strange and/or horrific attack (or incident) in the shocking prologue.

2. Dr. Bishop has cutesie-poo insane moment

3. Mystery clue dropped as to Peter's background and nature.

4. Olivia investigates the case-of-the-week and ties it to "the Pattern," after making mention of her relationship with Agent Scott.

5. The case of the week involves something paranormal or "fringe" Dr. Bishop worked on once directly (but because of his cutesie-poo insanity has conveniently forgotten about, until it comes up in this new context). Also conveniently, Bishop knows of a functional device built just for solving this case. Deus ex machina alert!

6. Case leads back to Massive Dynamic.

7. Olivia interviews Blair Brown's character at Massive Dynamic, and she "denies all knowledge."

8. The case of the week is solved, but many questions remain about Massive Dynamic and the conspiracy/Pattern , so we can have future episodes that tell us just as little.

9. Epilogue: something's going on with John Scott (Mark Valley), the dead FBI agent.

This week's episode, "The Arrival" -- the best tale of the series thus far -- adheres mostly to this by-now overly-familiar formula, but also breaks away a little. Enough, anyway, not to make the hour a total bore.

First the bad. There is indeed a horrific incident in the opening prologue (a subterranean missile pops up at a Brooklyn construction site and causes massive damage; #1). Dr. Bishop again has his trademark cutesie-poo insane moment, here over his desire for a root-beer float (#2). Also, there is a mystery clue dropped about Peter's background (#3), the case ties back to the Pattern and somebody makes mention of Olivia's relationship with Agent Scott (#4). Also, Dr. Bishop has previously been associated with this case (as we learn in "The Arrival's" denouement; # 5). Finally, the episode ends with a nod to Agent Scott's condition (#9).

However, last week I looked to Fringe -- challenged it, really -- to break the mold in even one of the above nine categories. And if I'm being objective here, I must note that in "The Arrival," it did just that. To wit: Blair Brown did not guest star this week; and the case (of the subterranean torpedo...) did not lead directly back to Massive Dynamic.

Too incremental a change? Hey, I'll take what I can get...

Actually, as I noted above, I liked this episode the best out of the four I've watched so far. The mystery is genuine (the origin and nature of the torpedo...), and furthermore, there's no rush to solve the mystery in forty-five minutes. The secrets of the device remain ambiguous to say the least, and I appreciate the restraint. I hate being spoon-fed explanations all the time and much prefer a slow-building, multi-faceted mystery.

I was also fascinated in "The Arrival" by the presence of "The Observer," a bald, hairless "watcher" who mysteriously appears at Pattern-related crime scenes. I don't know if "Mr. No Brow" (as Peter calls him...) is an alien, a time-traveler (from the future) or an emotionless android, but the presence of this mind-reading figure added significantly to "The Arrival's" narrative. Hero? Villain? Impartial witness? I'm very curious to find out. Finally, Fringe is proving interesting.

Also, Joshua Jackson -- the standout performer on the series -- was awarded with a more substantial part in "The Arrival." I'm not talking about his predictable "should I stay or should I go" dilemma, but rather his conflict with his father, which results in what we see in this episode: a real love/hate relationship. I'm glad the makers of Fringe are also giving Peter some new duties as a "civilian consultant to the Department of Homeland Security," because in the last three episodes the character as pretty-much wasted on exposition or wise-cracks. Also, some mysteries of Peter's background are solved here. That's all I'll say, in case you haven't watched the episode yet.

In toto, "The Arrival" seems like a step in the right direction for Fringe. Like Mr. No Brow himself, I'll continue to "observe" the series next week; and hope that it continues to rely on only five or six out of the nine conventions which have appeared in episodes thus far. I read today that the series has been picked up for a full season. That gives Fringe adequate time to improve, I hope.

TV REVIEW: Fringe: "The Ghost Network"

On week three, the new Fox genre series Fringe continues to lurch wildly from one X-Files-type narrative to another in search of some defining style or plotting. Worse, it keeps coming up short in the actual science department. The coup de grace, however is that this week's episode, "The Ghost Network," reveals a format "hardening-of-the-arteries" as well. Just three installments in on this new series and the attentive viewer can already detect and chart a repeating, predictable and tiresome formula, or "pattern," if you will.

Let's start with the X-Files riff that informs the subject matter (because that's always fun, and sadly, obvious). "The Ghost Network" deals with a man who is experiencing psychic visions of terrorist attacks. He is actually receiving information mentally about the crime, via a psychic wavelength that Dr. Bishop terms "The Ghost Network." For X-Files episodes in which people inexplicably experience strange psychic visions of the latest and most dangerous crimes (including child abduction or murder), I refer you just off the top of my head to "Oubliette," "Blind" and the latest feature film, "I Want To Believe."

Yet in fairness, Fringe utilizes the idea of a psychic connection a little differently than these examples; it attempts to explain, specifically, that the psychic visions are merely communications signals on a different wave-length; one utilized by the secret Conspiracy. Where the X-Files often endowed loners, losers and misfits with psychic powers, thus examining their "outsider" status in our society, Fringe begins with this tack (in a scene at St. Ames Cathedral in which the psychic confesses to a fear that the Devil is sending him dreams), but then drops that tangent like a hot potato in favor of a conspiracy-oriented tale. Honestly, this is the least rip-offish of the first three Fringe episodes. It starts out familiar, then takes a turn. So give it a pass there. It's not like Teliko's stealing pituitary glands this week, at least.

The problem is that Fringe only skims the surface of an interesting idea, and comes up short on the actual science on display. Let me point out two basic goofs. Early on, Peter Bishop (Joshua Jackson) rattles off the names of a few drugs that his father, Dr. Bishop is concocting at the lab for self-medication. Peter terms them "psychotics." The drug names he rattles off, however, are the generics for Xanax and Paxil, if I caught them right. Those aren't psychotics. A genius with a 190 IQ wouldn't make that simple a mistake, would he? I mean, I caught the error and my IQ is a lot lower. (A lot lower...).

Secondly, while conducting brain surgery with a drill (and we see a pool of blood flowing as the drill cuts), Dr. Bishop fails to administer a local anesthetic to his patient. Remarkably, the patient doesn't even wince as the drill whirs deep into his skull. Bishop administers a sedative, mind you, but that's not the same thing. What is this, Awake?

When Fringe fails to convey accurate information on routine subjects such as psychiatric drugs and surgical procedure, you have to wonder about the integrity of the series. And seriously, this episode is muddled beyond belief. Are we to believe that the people behind the Pattern are using "The Ghost Network" to communicate about terrorist attacks and the like? If that's the case, have they wired all their cell phones to operate on "The Ghost Network." (Can you hear me now?)

I mean, we see the psychic man reporting cell phone conversations at a station miles away, and are told he has accessed the Ghost Network band...so that could only means that the perpetrators have Ghost-tuned their cell phones. Correct? Perhaps I'm missing something, but this just seems...silly to me. Fringe establishes that there is a ghost communications network, and that the psychic is tuning into it, but this episode doesn't make clear who is actually using the network and how they do it, except that they're bad and behind some kind of technology exchange. But what mechanism are they using? Adapted cell phones? Do both sides (people) in the exchange have these new phones, or just one? Again, the ideas are superficial that they don't bear up under the slightest scrutiny.

My biggest concern about "The Ghost Network" -- by far -- is that it seems to indicate a creative rut. Here's the outline of Fringe episodes so far:

1. There is a strange and/or horrific attack in shocking prologue. (Plane attack in pilot; motel room fertilization in "The Same Old Story," bus attack in "Ghost Network")

2. Dr. Bishop has cutsie-poo insane moment (here over pancakes and pianos; last week over car seat heaters)

3. Mystery clue dropped as to Peter's background (here in a diner; last week in a comment by Dr. Bishop)

4. Olivia investigates case and ties it to "the pattern," after making mention of her relationship with Agent Scott and how she feels betrayed (on a park bench last week; here at a funeral).

5. The case of the week involves something paranormal or "fringe" Dr. Bishop worked on once directly (but because of his cutsie-poo insanity has conveniently forgotten about, until it comes up in this new context). Also conveniently, Bishop knows of a functional device built just for solving this case. Last week ("The Same Old Story"), it was a machine that could read images from retinas. This week, the good doctor happens to have a kind of helmet stored away in his old house that can adjust brainwaves. By far, this is the worst element of the show so far: the deus ex machina of the week.

6. Case leads back to Massive Dynamic. Always.

7. Olivia interviews Blair Brown at Massive Dynamic, and she "denies all knowledge." Why doesn't Olivia just arrest this evasive exec? She's now been tied circumstantially to three cases. How about haulin' her ass down to HQ for questioning?

8. The case of the week is solved, but many questions remain about Massive Dynamic and the conspiracy/Pattern , so we can have future episodes that tell us just as little.

9. Epilogue: something's going on with John Scott(Mark Valley), the dead FBI agent, at Massive Dynamic.

I look forward to episode four, when I'm sure that this creative rut will be destroyed, and Fringe will go in a new, exciting direction and not rely on the same plot. Right? Right?

Seriously, to re-mediate itself, Fringe need only fix one or two of these elements next week. How about Dr. Bishop not have a miracle device (or know of a miracle device) at the ready? How about a crime of the week not involve Massive Dynamic or the Pattern? How about Olivia investigating a case that is new to Dr. Bishop, not an old case he's forgotten about (then conveniently remembered)?

Okay, I'm sure people are going to say that I'm picking on Fringe. So I do want to say something nice. Joshua Jackson is doing a more-than credible job in this series. He's getting better at delivering one-liners, and has developed a nice way of puncturing the mock-profundity with his funny dialogue delivery. Seriously -- and this may merely be a symptom of how bad Fringe is -- Joshua Jackson is the bright spot of every episode so far. He makes the show watchable, and occasionally amusing.

Fringe reveals so little improvement over the last two weeks that I may have to impose my old Supernatural rule: I will stay tuned for five weeks, and if things don't get better after that spell, I'm outta there!

So Fringe gets two more times up at bat as far as I'm concerned. Oh heck, I'm a nice guy. I'll set the bar even lower. If the fourth episode next week does not involve an old case of Dr. Bishop and the old man actually has to invent something instead of relying on old research, I'll double my watching duration to ten weeks.

That's a challenge, Fringe. Break the pattern!

TV REVIEW: Fringe: "The Same Old Story"

Well, what do you know? -- Truth in advertising!

Fringe's second episode is entitled "The Same Old Story" and it really is the same old story. The plot concerns a baby growing from infant-hood to adulthood at an accelerated pace (a matter of hours). If you're a genre fan, you realize that this storyline closely mirrors several hours of classic sci-fi television programming. From Christopher Penfold's "Alpha Child" on Space:1999 in 1976 to "The Child" on Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1988.

Yet I'm not going to fault Fringe for updating a familiar old chestnut because -- let's be truthful -- that's the name of the game, to a certain extent, in the genre. The X-Files skillfully updated spooky and supernatural tales seen on Kolchak: The Night Stalker, and now Fringe in turn is trotting out the same old conventions too; attempting to breathe new life into them. I have no fault with that idea in theory. What bothers me, rather, is the piss-poor execution.

I see precious little here to alter my diagnosis of last week that Fringe is X-Files lite; in other words: X-Files without the subtlety, nuance, intelligence, or good writing. In my blog of last week, I enumerated six similarities between Fringe and X-Files in terms of setting, characterization, milieu (the FBI) and even story arc. This week, my biggest complaints involve the characters.

First, let's tackle Peter Bishop (played by Joshua Jackson). He's supposed to be a genius, and boasts an IQ of 190 (according to "Same Old Story.") Yet throughout this story, the teleplay has Peter asking stupid questions. "How'd you do that?" What's going on?" "Why are we here?" Part of being a genius is the capacity to employ deductive reasoning, isn't it? (That eliminates "How'd you do that?" as a valid question. Instead he should have said something along the lines of "What aren't you telling me?") I don't mind that he's constantly asking questions in general, but they should be smart questions. The answer to "why are we here?" is obvious even to a dullard: simply "your expertise is required. So is your father's" I could figure that out just from context, and I certainly don't have a 190 IQ. So why is Peter asking? Why can't he figure it out from contextual clues?

Peter's Dad, Doctor Bishop, has also settled into an annoying rut. He's the "funny" insane guy who is dead serious and sane when the script requires him to be; and funny and nuts when there needs to be comic-relief. I call this cliche "cutsie-poo insane." One minute we're supposed to take all of the good doctor's exposition as gospel (and as accurate!) and then the script turns around and has him mouth nutty, objectionable things. It's just not very good writing. In a word, it's contrived.

As for Olivia, I find her dull as dishwater. I acknowledge it; this is just my personal bias: I don't find the actress either attractive or convincing. Objectively, all I can say about her is that she has approximately zero chemistry with Joshua Jackson.

"The Same Old Story" involves our old friend: the mutant of the week; one introduced in a creepy prologue (just like an X-Files creepy prologue!). This story type should be familiar to you if you ever watched The X-Files. This week on Fringe, the villain is a hyper-aging man who must extract and eat the portion of the brain housing the pituitary of his victims so as to remain young and decelerate the aging process. On The X-Files, we were introduced to Tooms, a mutant who had to ingest human livers to maintain his metabolism ("Squeeze," "Tooms"). In "2Shy" we saw a a killer who could not produce adipose and other fatty materials, so he had to ingest the fatty tissue of women to remain alive.

Again, not a one-for-one match: but the idea of a genetic mutant "stealing" what he needs to biologically survive is one that is very familiar from many repetitions on The X-Files. "The Same Old Story" is...again...the same old story. But once more, my problem is not the derivative nature of it, it's the rotten execution.

Take for example the resolution. The episode ends with an unforced confession from the aged killer in which - on his death bed, literally - he obligingly explains everything to Olivia, the agent pursuing him. The confession is unprovoked firstly, so that it stands out like a sore thumb. Why is he offering this information to a stranger? And secondly, this confession explains the details of the entire show, which takes away what little mystery still existed.

On The X-Files, Mulder or Scully might have speculated about motives or relationships of killers in their case reports...but the answers were opaque. We were left, as viewers to put everything together...to assemble "the truth" for ourselves, based on the input of two points of view (science and belief). Here we get spoon-fed a cliche instead: the talking killer who tells us everything about everything, and robs our imagination.

Maybe that's why "The Same Old Story" is never truly scary. Never actually, much more than a diversion, a freak show. There is no room left for the imagination. One last example of this problem: Bishop discovers that he can "transmit" the last image on the retina of a murdered girl in an attempt to identify her killer. Fascinating idea, right? Well, Fringe doesn't explore the "how" or science of it. Nope, Olivia just goes to Massive Dynamic and immediately acquires a device called an Electronic Pulse Camera which can complete that very task. Lickety-split! Again, we are not invited to participate in the answers or the investigation: just asked to accept a deus ex machina.

It's all very flat, distancing...and unintelligent. But I'm still watching Fringe. At least for a few weeks. To coin a phrase, "I want to believe" it's going to get better. Or, at least, "get smart."

CULT TV FLASHBACK # 57: Strange World (1999)

I felt a tingling sense of deja vu while watching the alarmingly-derivative Fringe (2008) pilot the other night, and it wasn't merely because the whole thing seemed like the dumbed down, Cliff-Notes versions of the far superior X-Files.

No, my memory banks kept tripping on another sci-fi TV series that sought to aggressively mine some of the same "fringe" territory as this new J.J. Abrams series.

That program was called Strange World (1999) and it aired on ABC from March 8 to March 16, 1999. Although thirteen episodes were developed and crafted by uber-producers Howard Gordon (24) and Tim Kring (Heroes), the program was only broadcast three times on ABC before the network unceremoniously pulled the plug. At the time, I remember being terribly disappointed by the quick cancellation, because the series felt like it might actually go somewhere interesting, despite the fact that it tended to orbit similar kinds of stories as The X-Files or Millennium.

Strange World focused on Dr. Paul Turner (Tim Guinee), an M.D. who had been exposed to a deadly toxin during the Gulf War. (Remember the series aired before we were back in Iraq...). In the early 1990s, Turner returned Stateside only to learn that he was being kept alive by a mysterious antidote, one administered by a secret cabal's representative, the Mysterious Japanese Woman (Vivian Wu). While attempting to resolve this mystery, Turner also took a job at US ARMIID (United States Army Medical Institute for Infectious Diseases) to investigate, and I quot:, "the criminal abuses of science in the United States."

So yeah, this is pretty much what Oliva Dunham is doing in Fringe. Oopsy.

What kind of stories did Strange World tell? Well, they were few in number, I can tell you that! More importantly, the plots involved the terrifying side effects of illegal scientific experiments (gee, just like the engineered plague we saw in Fringe's pilot!).

One Strange World episode, "Lullaby," centered on pregnant women learning they were pregnant not with human babies, but with developing human organs that could be "harvested" by the shadowy conspiracy. Another episode (the pilot), concerned an illegal and unethical cloning operation. The last story aired on ABC, "Azrael's Breed," involved a scientist who was pushing "the boundaries of death" by injecting the brain cells from dead people into the minds of the living to create so-called "death memories."

The X-Files outlived good imitators (Nowhere Man), bad imitators (The Burning Zone), and sometimes just mediocre ones (Sleepwalkers, Prey). Strange World seemed pretty promising, as I recall, though in fairness Guinee looked as though he was the victim of a cloning plot involving David Duchovny.

The facet of Strange World that I found most appealing (and which granted the series some sense of urgency) was the personal nature of Turner's quest. His life depended on discovering the answers to the weird weekly cases and scientific riddles. He knew he was a "pawn," a piece of a larger puzzle and so had to sort of "gut check" himself to make certain he was operating by his own agenda, not the (unknown) agenda of the cabal.

Okay, so Strange World is not a great show, but maybe it is one that would have matured and improved if given a little time and support. I wonder if Fringe, which has some Strange World DNA mixed in with its corrupted X-Files genetic material, will survive longer...

If you're interested in Strange World, I understand that the Chiller Network has aired all thirteen episodes. I know I'd love to see the show again today. I suppose there's no fan base out there pushing for an official DVD release...

TV REVIEW: Fringe (pilot)

The pilot for J.J. Abrams' series Lost (2004 - ) is -- without any exaggeration -- the finest I've ever seen. That's not a comment on the direction the series has ultimately taken (don't get me started, please...). Just my honest assessment of the involving, intense first episode. It was...amazing.

By direct contrast, the pilot for J.J. Abrams' new genre series, Fringe is one of the absolute worst that I've seen in a good long while. With Fringe's disappointing initial outing, we very much have a modern case of the Emperor's New Clothes: the pilot is alarmingly naked in terms of real human interest, and shockingly devoid of originality in terms of conception, look and execution.

There's been a lot written in the press lately (hype) about how Fringe is not a rip-off of The X-Files. Don't believe a word of it. This show is such a flat-out rip-off of Chris Carter's work it's actually an embarrassment. Allow me to enumerate (briefly) some of the many similarities between the two productions:

1. Fringe, like the X-Files is set in the milieu of the FBI. With agents, search warrants, stake-outs, car-chases and "investigations."

2. Fringe, like the X-Files, finds solutions to unusual problems (like a nasty new airborne disease/terrorist WMD) in the notion of "extreme possibilities" (the paranormal/fringe science) On The X-Files, this description meant any number of things (NDEs, Astral Projection, psychokinesis, etc.). First up in Fringe: "a synaptic transfer" that allows two minds to meet in the dream world. You may have seen this idea played out already in Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) with Linda Blair and Louise Fletcher. Lower. Lower...

3. Fringe, like The X-Files, focuses on an untrustworthy authority figure. In fact, this character-type was a regular staple of The X-Files. Specifically, I'm referring to the incredibly sympathetic notion that someone derided, dismissed or de-valued by society at large (perhaps a criminal, perhaps a madman, perhaps just an unconventional thinker...) could be the best source for understanding "the truth" about the featured mysteries. Even "Spooky" Mulder fits this type to some degree. As do the conspiracy theorists, The Lone Gunmen. As late as this summer's X-Files: I Want to Believe, we saw this character type at his most raw and troubling, in the form of the psychic pedophile priest. On Fringe, we get quirky, inappropriate Dr. Bishop, both a madman and a criminal, one who possesses many secrets.

4. Fringe, like The X-Files, focuses on the "The Mytharc" or "Pattern." The X-Files was famous for an exploration of a larger conspiracy, one including the FBI, heads of state, and various departments in the United States Government. The conspiracy had a secret, malicious agenda. In Fringe's pilot, we're introduced not only to a specific episodic mystery (an airborne, self-eradicating germ) but the conspiracy operating behind it. There's not a Cigarette Smoking Man hanging around yet, but we have Blair Brown (replete with a cheesy robotic arm...), a representative of the company Massive Dynamic. She and her corporation are working behind the scenes on the by-now rote malicious and secret agenda.

5. Fringe, like The X-Files, centers on a male/female pair-up. It's Duchovny and Anderson on The X-Files, and Joshua Jackson and Anna Tory on Fringe. I should point out an important difference here. On the X-Files, Scully and Mulder actually boasted fields of expertise. Mulder was a behavioral psychologist (and one of the best profilers in the FBI). And Scully was an M.D. The characters on Fringe seem to have no specialties at all. Peter Bishop (Jackson) is simply tagged a "genius" (that way, a writer has to do no research whatsoever - the character is just SMART!) and Olivia Dunholm (Tory) is merely your average gun-toting, ambitious FBI agent. Each character is about as interesting as wonder bread. Without the crust.

6. Both shows have the same home: The Fox Network. Wonder how that happened?

So yes, pretty clearly, Fringe is a dedicated rip-off of The X-Files. iI's also a rip-off of a short-lived, obscure series from 1998 called Strange World, which concerned "medical mysteries" like the one featured in this pilot. My problem: it's not a good rip-off of either show.

The X-Files is such a classic not merely because the subject matter (the paranormal) is fascinating; not merely because the conspiracy is intriguing. But rather because it boasted the good sense and artistry to create two characters (Mulder and Scully) who viewed their world in vastly different ways. As viewers, we saw the world interpreted through each lens. The writing and acting were so utterly brilliant that moments of heavy exposition played not like boring recitation of fact...but foreplay. We fell in love with Scully and Mulder because they were both smart and passionate. And I don't mean passionate about sex, necessarily, but in the manner they interpreted "the facts" of any given case. Ideas represented the currency of the show. Bold ideas; boldly interpreted.

Whereas on Fringe, there's only the veneer of intelligence, not intelligence itself. In other words, all the concepts and ideas in the pilot are pulled from smart sources (like The X-Files and Altered States), but don't feel organic to this enterprise. You can't import intelligence, and you can't import wit. This was the same problem I had with Orci and Kurtzman's brain-dead Transformers (2007) movie. There was no authentic human element to grasp. Similarly, Fringe already seems anti-science, railing against "science" and "technology." In The X-Files, the villain was the misuse of science and technology, not science and technology itself. There's a distinction there. One asks us to examine human nature (how do we apply our knowledge wisely and morally?) and the other is blatantly anti-intellectual.

So what we're left with in this pilot is a dull police procedural with a conspiracy underneath, and a touch (and I mean a touch...) of the paranormal. Oh, there's a car chase, well-staged. There's a creepy prologue (also an element of The X-Files' formula), here set on a plane in flight. There are some nice special effects involving a man with translucent skin, but the X-Files has already done that too (in Fight the Future and the Season Six premiere.) Worst of all, in Fringe's pilot there's no joy, no fun, no sense of curiosity at all. It's a mechanical, heartless product...a machine grinding out sausage for the masses.

I'm going to keep watching, and I hope the series gets better. I would always rather write a positive review than a negative one. And I have been wrong before, that's for dang sure. But for the time being, I'm going to call a spade a spade: Fringe is a charmless, brazen rip-off of The X-Files. One that copies all the specific elements of that TV classic, but has zero understanding of why it worked in the first place. Fringe is positively soulless. In fact, that's the creepiest thing about it.