Incomprehensibly negative reviews here: what heights of TV brilliance were all these disappointed people expecting? Seriously, this is just 'mad science' packaged beautifully for mid-evening TV (after work, brain no longer required), and it does, I think, exactly what it says on the tin. I understand that creator J J Abrams was behind "Alias" and "Lost". OK, yes, pretty good. But...er...the soaring expectations were based on what, exactly? (And no, I'm not counting his wonderful "Star Trek" - different medium, different ball game.)
The formula is familiar to us all from countless scientific exploration/forensic/detective shows, so to me there was no great leap to understand the setup, and definitely no questioning of it. It's not deep – add one part crime detection, two parts quirky "work family", one part dysfunctional father-son relationship, and four parts pseudo-science, conspiracy government plot science. Do we actually mind that it's "X Files" for a new generation? Or that the detecting conclusions leapt to through impossible scientific bounds are tenuous in the extreme? Who cares?! Does it actually need to make sense if it's addictive and well made?
I don't spend my mid-evening TV time worrying about continuity and logic, especially not for shows like this which make throwing logic out of the window sort of a point of honour. Provided - as in this case - it loosely ties together, the characters are not cardboard cut-outs and have interesting inter-relationships, and it looks pretty good and keeps the low-IQ part (of course it's only a part!) of my brain entertained, I pretty much got what I came for. I like Agent Olivia's fearless stares; I like Peter Bishop's murky past (a little at odds with his boyish face under the beard); I like the supporting cast, especially Broyles (forever Lt. Daniels in my mind!) and, crowning glory, I adore Dr Walter Bishop, bless his delightfully unhinged self-medicating cotton socks. I love it. And now despise me if you dare.
The formula is familiar to us all from countless scientific exploration/forensic/detective shows, so to me there was no great leap to understand the setup, and definitely no questioning of it. It's not deep – add one part crime detection, two parts quirky "work family", one part dysfunctional father-son relationship, and four parts pseudo-science, conspiracy government plot science. Do we actually mind that it's "X Files" for a new generation? Or that the detecting conclusions leapt to through impossible scientific bounds are tenuous in the extreme? Who cares?! Does it actually need to make sense if it's addictive and well made?
I don't spend my mid-evening TV time worrying about continuity and logic, especially not for shows like this which make throwing logic out of the window sort of a point of honour. Provided - as in this case - it loosely ties together, the characters are not cardboard cut-outs and have interesting inter-relationships, and it looks pretty good and keeps the low-IQ part (of course it's only a part!) of my brain entertained, I pretty much got what I came for. I like Agent Olivia's fearless stares; I like Peter Bishop's murky past (a little at odds with his boyish face under the beard); I like the supporting cast, especially Broyles (forever Lt. Daniels in my mind!) and, crowning glory, I adore Dr Walter Bishop, bless his delightfully unhinged self-medicating cotton socks. I love it. And now despise me if you dare.