Fringe Discussion: “Dreamscape”

Killer butterflies, hallucinogenic frog extract, and a Massive Dynamic project that takes a leaf from Batman’s Scarecrow‘s book. Was this episode better than usual?

Title: The Dreamscape

Directed by Fred Toye

Anna Torv as Olivia Dunham
Joshua Jackson as Peter Bishop
John Noble as Dr. Walter Bishop
Lance Reddick as Philip Broyles
Jaskika Nicole as Astrid Farnsworth
Mark Valley as John Scott
Tom Riis Farrell as Gregory Worth
Susan Misner as Tess Amaral
Ptolemy Slocum as Mark
David Vadim as Michael Kelly
Yul Vasquez as George

9 replies on “Fringe Discussion: “Dreamscape””

  1. Fez says:

    Review or Discussion?
    Seems the review part of the review is missing. Is this supposed to be a discussion thread instead?

    • Timeshredder says:

      Re: Review or Discussion?

      Seems the review part of the review is missing. Is this supposed to be a discussion thread instead?

      *Heh* It’s a discussion. I will continue to request guest reviewers, since some of us are still watching the show, and I catch it now and then.

  2. Fez says:

    Observations…
    High Point: Walter’s "Uh oh!" and especially the line that followed.

    Low Point: Torv’s continued lack of depth and ability. My wife continues to call her "Princess Cardboard". We have also taken to calling her Agent Dumbham because she continues to run off on her own into the depths of weird buildings, to which she was led by hallucinations/"alien memories". Why doesn’t she ever take backup? Or at least let someone know she’s going? How long until one of these is a trap? It doesn’t seem like an action that a respectable agent would do repeatedly.

    The acting disparity is worse than Smallville when Lex and Lionel were on. They always stole the show and outshined everyone. So it is with Fringe, Walter and Peter are still the only characters that seem to really have anything going for them.

    They could kill off Dunham next week and I wouldn’t bat an eyelash. I might be a little upset if they replaced Broyles but he’s shadowy enough that his departure or replacement could further the plot and I’d be OK with it. Astrid is alright, but very underutilized.

    • TwistyHat says:

      Re: Observations…
      I on the other hand think Dunham is fine, and it would be a mistake to get rid of her – astrid on the other hand is superfluous

  3. zonk3r says:

    better than usual?
    Was this episode better than usual?

    No. Frankly I’m surprised it’s still on the air. I like scifi but this show asks for leaps and bounds of logic that I can’t give it.

    • Fozzy_Bear says:

      Re: better than usual?

      Was this episode better than usual?

      No. Frankly I’m surprised it’s still on the air. I like scifi but this show asks for leaps and bounds of logic that I can’t give it.

      I disagree with you ( in that I like it ) but that’s actually not what I’m posting to address…

      As for why it is still on: While I do actually still like it, I also am surprised it is still on, however I think it has something to do with the wacky commercial format that it has.

      I can’t imagine the studios going… "Well, lets give this new Sci-fi story a try and not burden it with commercials." – More likely, I believe, there is some primary sponsor/puppetmaster that is bankrolling the whole endeavor. If so, then this show will continue until that entity is either done with their intentions, or convinced that this approach will not work.

      Personally I like the idea of a primary sponsor. And I refer back to comments made here a few weeks back about the commercials that ARE being shown being for stuff people like us might actually buy.

      If you want to sell something to sci-fi fans, sponsor a show that they will watch and dont’ worry if nobody else watches it. If you see your sales go up after starting it, then the ""ratings"" dont’ really matter to you, since the people who are NOT watching wouldn’t be the ones buying your product anyway. YOUR sales are UP. – And if your paying for it, the network has no reason to pull it for something else that might, or might not, make them money.

      Maybe I am just giving into my "idealist" side, but I think this may be a good sign.

      As for the show being good… replace Torv with Nicole deBoer. She’s hot AND has Sci-fi cred’. I doubt there would be anywhere near as much complaining after that…

      • sjaskow says:

        Re: better than usual?

        replace Torv with Nicole deBoer. She’s hot AND has Sci-fi cred’.

        If you’re looking for DS9 veterans, Nana Visitor or Terry Farrell would also make good choices.

        I’d also throw out Claudia Christian or Mira Furlan from "Babylon 5" and Torri Higginson from the Stargage franchise.

        • Fez says:

          Re: better than usual?

          replace Torv with Nicole deBoer. She’s hot AND has Sci-fi cred’.

          If you’re looking for DS9 veterans, Nana Visitor or Terry Farrell would also make good choices.

          I’d also throw out Claudia Christian or Mira Furlan from "Babylon 5" and Torri Higginson from the Stargage franchise.

          I would second those choices, especially Torri Higginson. Or how about another Stargate alum like Teryl Rothery, or Stargate/Farscape – Claudia Black.

          Most of those are significantly older than Torv, though.

          • Fozzy_Bear says:

            Re: better than usual?


            or Stargate/Farscape – Claudia Black.

            ah yes… The poster child for Frontal Assault.

            hmmm.. on second thought… maybe not right for an FBI agent.

            definitely nice to watch though…

Comments are closed.