THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD WATCH FRINGE!

[beccatoria]

Found via a rec from kiki_miserychic on twitter.

I wasn't lying when I said one of the awesome things about Fringe was how the main action hero is a girl. Because seriously, this isn't a selective slice of the show. I mean, she gets to do stuff other than fuck up people's shit, sure, cus she's the main character. She gets to do things like have awesome and confusing and pissed-off conversations with morally ambiguous middle-aged women with robot arms and Leonard Nimoy about how she may or may not be teh speshulz and destined to like, save the world or something. BUT ALSO SHE DOES STUFF LIKE THIS.

(For the spoilerphobic, to be honest, this isn't a narrative vid and most of the spoilers are so out of context you wouldn't understand them anyway. Though the framing device, such as it is, might spoil you for one of the major start-of-S2 plotlines. But like...WATCH IT ANYWAY. It's not like you'll really remember or anything. YOU WILL JUST REMEMBER THE ASS-KICKING.)

Comments

[thuviaptarth.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, I keep telling people Fringe is my methadone for TSCC. It's not as ambitious or as moving, but it's an action science fiction show with a kickass, reserved female protagonist who has a strong if unconventionally demonstrated protective streak. Olivia is more capable of demonstrating tenderness than Sarah, but she's had less to deal with (so far). There's even some examination of parenthood and caretaking, although this doesn't tend to be examined via Olivia or be as central to the show as it is to TSCC.

Also, I am in love with Anna Torv's voice.

Also also, the cinematography is really pretty.

I think the show really picks up and finds its voice around halfway through season one. The plots are kind of decent pulp adventure at best, but I'm not watching for the plot. Olivia shoots people! Things blow up! The science fictional plot twist at the end of season one is really cool! That is what I am watching for.

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I can see that comparison, actually. And Anna Torv does have a pretty fantastic voice.

It's interesting that you glom onto parenthood and caretaking as a central theme translated from TSCC whereas for me it was the hope of a complex, non-binary discussion on technology and our relationship to it, though again, that issue, while obviously important to the larger plot arcs is not as explicitly discussed as it was on TSCC (or BSG).

I would say, though, on the parenthood and caretaking front, that I really enjoy Olivia's relationship with her sister and niece, even though there's not much of it (apparently they're having trouble getting the actress who plays her sister consistently due to other filming commitments). I love unconventional family setups (another transference from both TSCC and BSG), and I also enjoy how Olivia falls into the pattern of, basically, the Working Man of the House, except, you know, not at all. a

[thuviaptarth.livejournal.com]

I also see technology as key to SCC; I didn't see it as carrying over to Fringe, but yeah, you're right, it does. I have just been so disappointed that they seem to have dropped the critique of multinationalism from S1 that I've blocked most of it out.

One of the things I love about SCC is that the technology and parent issues intertwine, that so much of the plot is about education, expectation, and indoctrination, for robots as much as humans.

I really loved the bit in 208 where Olivia's niece has clearly internalized the "Don't protest Daddy's absence when he's working" dictum, only applied to Olivia.

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

Yes, you are right that the parent/child relationship in TSCC were really, really good. I found myself really wishing they'd done more with Weaver and John Henry because the parent/child=robot/robot thing was actually a lot different to the usual parent/child=human/robot parallels that are drawn in scifi.

Can you elaborate more on the critique of multinationalism? I'll confess that's not something I picked up on, but I'd be interested to hear more.

I really loved the bit in 208 where Olivia's niece has clearly internalized the "Don't protest Daddy's absence when he's working" dictum, only applied to Olivia.

Absolutely!

Which is sort of a pattern with her. Like...even when they did the blatantly sexualised thing of having her kiss the stripper, which was kind of an obvious grab for "OMGEDGY!" Olivia was basically being the guy. I mean, she LITERALLY was the guy, but also, she was in the masculine role in that scenario. Which on the one hand, I don't want to hand out props to a show that only ever sexualises its heroine by going "omggurlzkissing!" and then denying her femininity at all other times, except...I kind of don't think that Fringe does that with her? Like...it was a bit borderline in that instance, but it's so good at letting her be a woman without a lot of the sexist crap that when they DO have her picking up strippers and her niece internalising male parent stereotypes about her, it feels intriguing and like the show is playing with gender rather than cheap? Maybe? I hope?

HMM.

[thuviaptarth.livejournal.com]

In the first season, when they were building up Massive Dynamic as the villain, there was a lot of focus on Massive Dynamic's power and wealth and its involvement in many of the cases being investigated. In one episode, I forget which, I am pretty sure someone explicitly said Massive Dynamic was more powerful and/or richer than some nations. The dangerous science, although often descended from individual mad scientist Walter Bishop's initial research, developed into something dangerous with corporate backing. Even when Massive Dynamic offered help, there was a price tag on it -- the possibility of developing trade relations (i.e., exploiting) Indian tribes in the Amazon, or bringing down the stock price of a rival corporation.

In Season Two, with the general efforts to rehabilitate William Bell's image, there's been much less focus on this and many more instances of individual scientists producing monsters in their basement labs. That's a narrative I'm a lot less interested in.

I think the girlkissing was exploitative, but I liked it anyway. I'm not sure how thoughtful the show is about gender -- my previous experience with J.J. Abrams is Star Trek and Alias. And in Alias he had a lot of powerful female characters -- who mostly worked against each other, or were isolated from each other in mostly male networks, and the subplots always enforced a deeply conservative idea of family and loyalty. So I tend to think of Abrams as someone who shares some of my character kinks, but can't be relied upon to sustain gender subversion on multiple narrative levels. But that means when he gives me something extra, I am pleased and surprised.

[chaila.livejournal.com]

kickass, reserved female protagonist who has a strong if unconventionally demonstrated protective streak.

Oh Sarah. I gathered the similarities a little bit from beccatoria's talking about it, but it's good (and effective!) to hear the specifics. An analgesic for the pain of TSCC cancellation sounds pretty good! Things blowing up tend not to hold my attention on their own, but if it's a non-sexualized kickass girl doing the blowing up, I think I can be convinced. And it sounds like there's enough TSCC-esque thinky plottiness to be going on with. At least, the way you guys are discussing the similarities between the shows makes it extra appealing--having something to compare and contrast to TSCC, and thus to keep it in the mix, is probably enough to earn my affection. I have definitely been convinced to stick in season 1 and see what happens!