J.J. Abrams tells 'Fringe' viewers they can't handle the truth

November 12, 11:29 AM

Noel or Ben? What's Rambaldi's big secret? What's up with the smoke monster, four-toed foot, polar bears, numbers and formerly invincible Others?

Oh yes, J.J. Abrams knows from personal experience that TV viewers have a rather desperate craving for narrative closure and an annoying tendency to threaten mutiny when their big questions don't come with rapid answers.

Over the years, the Felicity, Alias and Lost mastermind has almost made a running joke of posing myriad quandaries and then, rather than resolving them, doing an end-around and raising new mysteries instead.

J.J. Abrams: You want answers?

Viewers: We think we're entitled.

J.J. Abrams: You want answers?

Viewers: We want the truth!

J.J. Abrams: You can't handle the truth!

Abrams' new show, the FOX drama Fringe, hasn't made it through even a half-a-season, but certain viewers are already experiencing deja vu. Every time we're told something new about The Pattern or Massive Dynamic or Walter Bishop's past experiments, a dozen fresh unknowns emerge.

In a spectacularly meta moment, Tuesday (Nov. 11) night's Fringe -- scripted by Abrams and showrunner Jeff Pinker -- addressed the issue head-long. After an episode in which Anna Torv's Olivia Dunham had to fly to Germany to rescue a man from a Little Shop of Horrors-type parasite latched onto its heart, the eternally fresh-faced Dunham got a little petulant.

"But what about answers?" she mewled to the ever-enigmatic Agent Broyles. "We don't know anything!"

Viewers at home were probably crying the same thing, which is why Broyles practically stared into the camera to give his next monologue.

"You have a problem, Agent Dunham," Broyles said, really speaking to the audience. "You're not easily satisfied. You want everything and you want it now. In your mind, somehow a small victory is no victory. What you did was save a man's life, but that does nothing for you. I would tell you to snap the hell out of it, to stop whining about what you can't know, can't control, can't change. I would tell you to get some sleep while you can, because tomorrow we'll do this all over again and guess what, you'll have a million new answers and a million-and-one new questions. I would tell you those things. But I won't. Because your dissatisfaction is what makes you so damned good, someone I'm proud to say I work with."

To which Dunham practically blushed and just muttered, "Thank you."

When what she should have done was said, "Dude. Stop handling me. I'm tired of the fact that every single episode, I do a lot of leg work and research without any background. I come to you with what I've learned at you say, 'Oh yes. This relates back to these three cases we were already pursuing.' Every week we do this. Maybe if you'd just properly brief me, I'd be a much more efficient agent."

Sigh. Nobody on J.J. Abrams shows ever asks the questions they're supposed to ask, so they never get the responses viewers hope for. It's actually an authorial trademark at this point.

So I ask you, readers...

Is the journey good enough for you, or are you one of those people who aren't easily satisfied?

And does it matter to your dissatisfaction whether the show is great as Lost sometimes is or as inconsistent as Fringe has proven to be?

Were you properly mollified by Broyles' speech or did it just remind you that Fringe is probably never going to tell you what you want to know?

in Fringe

Permalink

Comments (42)

Comments

It is all on page 47!

Dukat | Nov 12, 2008 11:47:58 AM | #

Actually, Broyles (and by extension, J.J. Abrams) was right on the money. The younger audience that makes up the majority of the ratings for Fringe are spoiled when it comes to plot denouments and easily-packaged plots. Fringe, Lost and a very select few other shows on TV right now do not deliver the entertainment equivalent of Chicken McNuggets, so they start griping about having to spend too much time paying attention. Older (and by that, I mean only a few years beyond the 18-32 range the ad execs masturbate over) viewers are, at least initially, content with not having all their questions answered right away because it keeps them invested in the show. They only become whiny, tiresome and annoying when things get dragged out too long, such as over multiple seasons.

This is not new. Back in the late 80s, there was a show on called Wiseguy, which was one of the best of the time. Most of the plotlines weren't resolved in a single episode, or even a half dozen. Those who loved the show enjoyed being able to watch things develop like a very well-written novel (one without the filler of Stephen King or Tom Clancy, that is). The show eventually failed because too many viewers got tired of waiting.

Abrams is a younger man, and I am always surprised at how much of an anomoly he is amongst his generation. He knows how to tell a proper story, as the old bards and tale-makers used to do it. True, sometimes he seems to have no earthly idea what's going on, but then neither did most of the bards.

Fringe will ultimately succeed or fail depending on the viewers, and that is unfortunate. Gone are the days when even sitcom creators are allowed to give the show their own personal spin on old jokes and stories. Now, it's either put up the numbers, or you're gone. With ad execs dictating who is important amongst those numbers, the chance of great storytelling being a part of network television has dwindled down to single digits. Impatience and cultural ignorance rule the day, and even if Fringe does collapse under the weight of its own mythology, it won't all be the fault of the show's creator or its writers. That defeat will rest solely on the people who just can't sit still long enough to let the stories flow around them. And that's a damn shame.

Thorny | Nov 12, 2008 11:54:31 AM | #

Dude, unfortunately, J.J. took page 47 and wiped his, er, bottom with it!

KaDe | Nov 12, 2008 12:02:22 PM | #

There are just many things I find annoying about the show, that not having answers is the least of my issues.

I don't mind not having answers. I watched the X-Files for years without knowing anything significant about Samantha Mulder or The Cigarette Smoking Man. I don't really care.

I just hate bad character development, or botched mysteries, like the "Bob" reveal on Twin Peaks, which ruined the show. Or the 2nd and/or 3rd season of Lost, where they seemed to be making up mythology as they went along.

I don't care what the Pattern is, or what Massive Dynamic has to do with it. Because, honestly, I already know they're behind it. They're Haliburton, but with more sinister plans than ripping off the Pentagon. LOL!

Nando | Nov 12, 2008 12:03:55 PM | #

I love mythology stories that seem to be going somewhere, but I hate when FRINGE or LOST hyper-extends a story line just to milk it. But there's two things that have turned me off to FRINGE:

1. Torv
2. It's so damn moody. At least with ALIAS, Marshall had great goofy moments. But in FRINGE, it's just a bunch of sour faces. Serious, they need to lighten up.

Elia | Nov 12, 2008 12:24:32 PM | #

To answer your question, the Broyles speech just reminded me that I'm never going to get any answers to any questions.
J.J. Abrams signature style is to just layer question upon question on top of the plot so that things get so convoluted that he can then just make things up as he goes along in later seasons. It's like he doesn't really have a master plan, just a good initial idea and is figuring out things as he goes along.

IggyPop | Nov 12, 2008 12:37:39 PM | #

Joshua Jackson and Walter are the comedic relief on Fringe. It's there and it's good. I like Fringe and plan on sticking around. I love Lost and I don't need things explained easily away in every episode or talked down to like a 4-year-old. I enjoy watching the story unfold and am almost positive, lol, that at some point we'll have answers. My attention span is not short and I do like becoming invested in a show. If I can't become invested, whether it's the storyline or the characters, I won't watch. One reason I don't watch HIMYM is because I can't stand anyone on there, the characters and I get tired of sex jokes and bathroom humor. I like my brain to be stimulated. We need more shows like Lost, Fringe and Journeyman (really miss Journeyman).

tvho | Nov 12, 2008 1:00:59 PM | #

"Back in the late 80s, there was a show on called Wiseguy, which was one of the best of the time. Most of the plotlines weren't resolved in a single episode, or even a half dozen. Those who loved the show enjoyed being able to watch things develop like a very well-written novel"

You never heard of The Wire, or The Sopranos, Thorny?

I quit Fringe because it was idiotic, and every episode had the same story (how many research projects can one scientist have exactly?). I got especially tired of listening to the excruciating drivel that was supposed to pass for science. I don't know what kind of awful novels you read that you'd seriously compare Fringe to them (Dan Brown maybe?), but it's not like the books I read. If The Wire is a fine steak then Fringe is warm, half-finished flat bear with cigarette butts floating in it. Lost is good, Fringe is drivel. Maybe it isn't the "kids today" who are wrong Thorny (and you're obviously around 35), maybe it's your standards that have dropped.

Kuo | Nov 12, 2008 1:06:21 PM | #

Kuo, yeah, I've heard of those shows, but since that paragraph started out with the phrase, "This is not new," I picked a show that was not new, hence Wiseguy.

At the moment, I'm reading Anathem by Neal Stephenson (on page 722, as of this writing), which the majority of viewers of Fringe wouldn't understand if it were condensed into Cliff's Notes. My point had nothing to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of Fringe, which I'll agree is not even in the same league as a lot of truly great shows (like Wiseguy) that didn't resolve plots in 44 minutes. And if you've seen my posts elsewhere, using this persona and a few others (I currently have four, which I change around depending on my mood), you should know that my standards are exactly why I'm constantly decrying the poor state of modern entertainment. In short, it sucks, with rare glimpses of greatness helping to keep me from giving up on it altogether. I expect better, and I get truly peeved when others don't expect the same. Don't get me wrong, I can sit down and watch a marathon of Tom and Jerry cartoons when I'm in the mood. But when I want something to hold my interest at an adult level, I expect more than "It's time to blow up the world, oh, wait, closing credits are about to roll, problem solved," which is what passes for plot on most dramas nowadays. I gripe because I care, I guess.

Oh, and good guess on the age, btw. :P

Thorny | Nov 12, 2008 1:40:30 PM | #

I think Fringe is already in danger of having too many questions out there, even for viewers with decent attention spans. By the time the answers finally arrive will we remember what the questions were, much less figure out how they're tied together?

Nate | Nov 12, 2008 1:57:16 PM | #

J.J. Abrams is a master creator and director. That being said, he runs the risk of becoming TV's M. Night Shyamalan, where every show after his first becomes increasingly frustrating--and ultimately boring. ALIAS, LOST and now FRINGE had/have way too many questions. In the case of ALIAS, and to a degree LOST, many were never answered. I did not, and will not, watch FRINGE because of it.

Michael | Nov 12, 2008 2:08:31 PM | #

MICHAEL --- that's a great comparison. After watching SIXTH SENSE and UNBREAKABLE (and loving them), M. Night has fallen far, far from grace. Case in point: THE HAPPENING. Ugh.

IGGYPOP --- you're right on the money. Abrams gets paid really, really well to come up with fancy medoicrity that goes nowhere.

TVHO --- if Jackson and Walter are the show's comic relief, then that'll mean Carrot Top is a genius.

Elia | Nov 12, 2008 2:43:55 PM | #

American viewers don't seem able to understand the concept of the telenovel, a storytelling format big in Japan, Latin America and to an extent Britain, where answers are not given sometimes for years. US viewers are too used to answers being spoon-fed to them every 52 minutes. It's why so many arc shows have had trouble getting started. For example, Threshold wasn't planning to spill its beans for at least 3 YEARS, yet viewers grew impatient and so the show died at episode 13 and we never learned the answers. I think Abrams, through the words of his character, have nailed things on the head.

Alex | Nov 12, 2008 3:45:16 PM | #

I like a show that raises some questions and makes you wait for the answers. The problem with Fringe, in my opinion, is not that it poses questions, it that its not interesting enough to make me care about the answers.

MaryJ | Nov 12, 2008 5:24:53 PM | #

The problem I have with Fringe and TV shows like it, is that there really is no story structure or long term plan. When I pick up a novel no matter how long and convoluted, I know by the end of the book most of the mysteries set up in the begging will be wrapped up, even if the book is part of a series. Fringe on the other hand struggle along episode by episode, season by season with no idea where they are going just hopping they can keep views by throwing in a twist here and there. This show will end up just like the X-files slowly fading after a a couple seasons. Eventually they will try and make a mediocre movie to wrap up the story-lines left hanging after the show has been canceled and in the end we will find out that there never was a plan just a flashy new idea and a good budget.

imageblock | Nov 12, 2008 5:49:53 PM | #

Never apologize. Never explain. Tell us the ending at the ending and still leave something unexplained on the table. Thank you, Mr. Abrams.

Samuel | Nov 12, 2008 7:22:01 PM | #

I lost interest in Lost at the end of season one when I realized none of the mysteries would ever be solved. Every episode more crap got added to the mystery pile and the plot got more and more ridiculous. I'm never going to waste my time with another one of his tv shows.

Melissa | Nov 12, 2008 7:29:36 PM | #

As a rabid Lost fan (obsessive really!), I want to state that there is another Melissa who dislikes Lost. NOT ME! Just for the record...

Melissa | Nov 12, 2008 9:18:55 PM | #

Well, about 13 million viewers don't think the plot of Lost is "crap", myself included. It's certainly possible that some of the mysteries will never be answered (probable, in fact), but many already have, and the big ones were obviously never going to be explained until the end or there would be no more show. Some people do find the wait and later payoff more rewarding. I never saw Alias, so I can't blame viewers who did for being a little worried about Lost falling apart. However, it's silly to judge anything before the ending.

And I do love when someone who checked out of the show years ago says it hasn't gone anywhere and never will with such authority. If you checked out after Lost's classic first season, clearly it wasn't your taste to begin with.

Fringe, on the other hand, has a bigger problem than ongoing mysteries: It's dull.

Natalie | Nov 12, 2008 9:24:47 PM | #

As a reporter, I interviewed JJ. Abrams during the first year of production of "Alias". WHat struck me at once - and firsthand - was how this "wunderkind" of Television addressed his viewers - without any respect. All the questions that were asked him belonged to two categories : the ones he found fit to be asked and the stupid ones. I don't think he has matured in anyway ever since. This is, in my humble opinion, an example of a very overrated invididual working with very underappreciated (by him) professionals. This is the explanation why shows like Alias, Lost and Fringe got on the air in the first place (others than JJA put them there with hard work) and how they fail to achieve their promises (he "runs" them). IMHO, JJ Abrams is an overrated producer. And a self-centered overly confident, immature and conceited person. And it shows in his shows.

Marc (from France) | Nov 12, 2008 10:44:57 PM | #

He does come off that way in interviews. Luckily he seems to bail on his shows after a little while. He got lucky with Damon Lindelof, who, by the way, doesn't get as much credit as he deserves for running Lost. (Usually, Abrams, who hasn't been with the show since the first season, gets it). Here's hoping he leaves Fringe before it goes the way of Alias.

Shawn | Nov 12, 2008 11:33:04 PM | #

I totally agree with Shawn. Abrams gets the credit for things he didn't do, and he belittles others people's work: he did that on Alias after he left it to "create" "Lost", and came back ; and then he left "Lost" to do something else -- "Fringe" and, unfortunately the upcoming "Star Trek" movie.
He doesn't fare as bad on movies because he probably doesn't have the same freedom (movies are one-shot and involve much more money than a TV show that can be readily cancelled). One thing all Abrams shows have in common when he helms them : they totally lack humor and humility. They start showing some when he leaves. But how long do you think "Fringe" can last without humility and humor ? At least, "Alias" was fun to watch and "Lost" is intriguing. "Fringe" is neither.

Marc (from France) | Nov 13, 2008 12:07:15 AM | #

Unless you are confined to a room with a TV, watching a show that NEVER gives you and answer and always finds a way to extend the question is just to difficult and time comsuming to watch. Yeah, a 3 or 4 week "arc" is ok but 22 weeks? 3 years? Stupid! Who can watch it all? I have a life and I refuse to give it over to TV.

| Nov 13, 2008 5:27:08 AM | #

Loving the layers, loving Fringe!

Fringe-Forum Fanatic | Nov 13, 2008 5:37:20 AM | #

The poster @ 5:27 AM got it right: some viewer work is good; too much will lose an audience. Fringe is just that - too much work. And too unbelievable.

My problem is that it's not only inaccurate in physical science, but downright sophomoric. For example, I'm still stewing over a reference to an injection being both subcutaneous and intravenous at the same time. Sub-Q is only under the skin; IV is directly into a vein. Radically different.

Also, this supposed genius scientist behaves like a retarded 13 year old. Maybe some research into how people of his intelligence and character would be in order - and also make a far more interesting character (they are interesting personalities in real life, if you've ever met one; they're smart, interesting and unexpected with being like annoying high-schoolers).

The show also keeps it's main character in the dark on purpose. That her boss would do that is just stupid.

Therefore, this show is jumping the shark, big time.

hd | Nov 13, 2008 5:54:21 AM | #