Fringe: Interesting, But Inaccurate
Recently, I decided that it was time to take a break from watching kids cartoons and to start watching a 'grownup' show. I recently subscribed to Amazon Prime (Great service. I highly recommend it.) and looked at its suggestions for me. It recommended that I check out Fringe. From what I saw in the description, it looked to be an interesting enough show, so I decided to check it out. It held my interest for 3 seasons.
The premise of Fringe is that there is an FBI division called the 'Fringe Division' that handles strange occurrences that can only be explained by fringe science. A determined young FBI investigator, Olivia Dunham, begins noticing a 'pattern' of strange, fringe occurrences. She becomes curious and begins investigating them on her own. After having a good deal of success in her investigations, she's offered a position in the fringe division. Further investigation leads her to believe that a crazy, old ex-scientist named Walter is linked to all of the occurrences, and so she gets his shady son to release him from the mental institution he resides at. From there, the investigations into the strange and paranormal begin.
The show has a premise that I find relatively interesting, although majorly bogus. Many of the fringe occurrences they come across are physically and medically impossible. Also, Walter, the supposedly brilliant scientist, regularly substitutes 'theory' for 'hypothesis.' For those of you that aren't acquainted with the scientific terms, a hypothesis is an initial concept that needs to be tested and either proved or disproved. A theory is a concept that has been tested rigorously and appears to be accurate for all intents and purposes, but still has the possibility of being inaccurate. A law is an immutable concept that is constant and cannot be disproven. This is a common layman mistake to call a hypothesis a theory.
If you ignore the scientific, medical, and terminological fallacies, it is a relatively good show. The characters are interesting and believable. The main character, Olivia, is a character that's easy to identify and sympathize with. Walter is a bit of a stereotype, but not obnoxiously so. Peter is a fun character and plays off of Olivia well. Also, the most exciting part of the show for me, Leonard Nimoy is a key character, although he doesn't get much screen time. Of all the actors, I would definitely say his acting is the best, but, as an OS Star Trek fan, I may be biased.
I think the most disappointing part of the show for me is the over-arching plot line. I like the plot lines of the individual episodes the best. The over-arching plot of the series feels over dramatic and is, honestly, not that interesting. What kept me watching for three seasons was the characters and their fun and amusing interactions. I would recommend this show for others, especially if the paranormal and strange interest you. It's also fun for anyone that doesn't get easily annoyed with factual inaccuracies. I liked it alright!
The premise of Fringe is that there is an FBI division called the 'Fringe Division' that handles strange occurrences that can only be explained by fringe science. A determined young FBI investigator, Olivia Dunham, begins noticing a 'pattern' of strange, fringe occurrences. She becomes curious and begins investigating them on her own. After having a good deal of success in her investigations, she's offered a position in the fringe division. Further investigation leads her to believe that a crazy, old ex-scientist named Walter is linked to all of the occurrences, and so she gets his shady son to release him from the mental institution he resides at. From there, the investigations into the strange and paranormal begin.
The show has a premise that I find relatively interesting, although majorly bogus. Many of the fringe occurrences they come across are physically and medically impossible. Also, Walter, the supposedly brilliant scientist, regularly substitutes 'theory' for 'hypothesis.' For those of you that aren't acquainted with the scientific terms, a hypothesis is an initial concept that needs to be tested and either proved or disproved. A theory is a concept that has been tested rigorously and appears to be accurate for all intents and purposes, but still has the possibility of being inaccurate. A law is an immutable concept that is constant and cannot be disproven. This is a common layman mistake to call a hypothesis a theory.
If you ignore the scientific, medical, and terminological fallacies, it is a relatively good show. The characters are interesting and believable. The main character, Olivia, is a character that's easy to identify and sympathize with. Walter is a bit of a stereotype, but not obnoxiously so. Peter is a fun character and plays off of Olivia well. Also, the most exciting part of the show for me, Leonard Nimoy is a key character, although he doesn't get much screen time. Of all the actors, I would definitely say his acting is the best, but, as an OS Star Trek fan, I may be biased.
I think the most disappointing part of the show for me is the over-arching plot line. I like the plot lines of the individual episodes the best. The over-arching plot of the series feels over dramatic and is, honestly, not that interesting. What kept me watching for three seasons was the characters and their fun and amusing interactions. I would recommend this show for others, especially if the paranormal and strange interest you. It's also fun for anyone that doesn't get easily annoyed with factual inaccuracies. I liked it alright!
You lost me slightly when you threw Walter in there without mentioning who he was. ^^;; Otherwise, sounds like an interesting enough show.
ReplyDelete