or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › "Fringe" on Fox HD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Fringe" on Fox HD - Page 193

post #5761 of 6444
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post

Walter has a teleporter... it was used by the bad guy (forgot his name already) a couple of times in previous seasons, the first time was escaping from his jail cell!
Mr. Jones?
post #5762 of 6444
David Robert Jones. Teleportation was rough; he had to spend days in a bariatric chamber and his skin was messed up. He tried to do it again and Peter turned it off when he was half way through the portal, killing him. Of course, after the timeline was reset in the finale of season 3, none of that happened and Jones returned.
post #5763 of 6444
I thought Peter turned off the between universe window thing that Walter used, not the place the vibrating rods in a triangle thing that broke DRJ out of German prison. But I think they used the triangle-vibrator thing later to jump universes too.

v/r,
C-F
post #5764 of 6444
Quote:
Originally Posted by CANNON-FODDER View Post

I thought Peter turned off the between universe window thing that Walter used, not the place the vibrating rods in a triangle thing that broke DRJ out of German prison.

You're right--it was the universe gateway device in which the first David Robert Jones was bisected when Peter turned off while he was crossing, not the teleportation device.
post #5765 of 6444
I am going to go ahead and say there will be no teleportation involved (at least to a different universe) this season....Its the reason the window was passed by last episode, no more going over or involving the red universe, the Amber\Blue\Grey is where we will stay....
post #5766 of 6444
I posted that Captain Windmark (the apparent head Observer) teleported away when he noticed the about-to-detonate anti-matter baton lying next to Etta. Joseph Clark replied that we've seen that they don't teleport, just move at super speed; I disagree. The discussion of whether or not they teleport stems from that exchange and regards only their ability to teleport within this universe.
post #5767 of 6444
I can't recall any scene in which it's obvious that they teleport, but it was wrong to say that we've seen that they don't. I agree that it's inconclusive. They may. They're ability to move at superhuman speed, however, has been demonstrated on numerous occasions. After he makes the statement about "the reversibility of all phenomena," Walter says something about "particles traveling..." and then he trails off as the Betamax tape becomes garbled.. I can't recall the exact wording, but I latched onto the notion that he was referring to particles traveling faster than the speed of light, which would imply the ability to travel back in time. You may recall the controversy a few months ago, as a few scientists seemed to have demonstrated that particles sent from one point to another arrived faster than the speed of light allows. It caused quite a stir for a while.

Wait a minute! Perhaps the Observers can move faster than the speed of light. Perhaps that's how they "teleport." Maybe "teleportation" and "superhuman speed" are virtually the same. Perhaps our "disagreement" is really simple ignorance of the true science (or Fringe science) involved in these phenomena. biggrin.gif
post #5768 of 6444
So does this epi answers the question, do they Teleport, or move at super human speed confused.gif I'm leaning on the Teleportation thing ( Is teleportation not a word? I'm getting wiggly lines underneath the word) ...I think will be seeing a Dark, darker side of Peter with little feeling. Nicely written sci fi, not too sure how I felt about it as a whole, but entertaining none the less.


Djoel
post #5769 of 6444
This should be renamed the Twilight Zone as that is where they seem to be in. mad.gif
post #5770 of 6444
I'm on the teleportation side. The Laws of Physics, if we accept that the Observers have to have some grounding in reality, state that something moving so quickly as to be invisible to the naked eye couldn't possibly stop on a dime like that, without any residual momentum. When they suddenly materialize out of thin air they're completely still. Only teleportation could manage that, seems to me.

Thought it was cool last night when Olivia said to the materialized Observer "Yes, this is one of those guns." and he tried to catch the bullet but was too late. Take that you hairless future fascist loser!
post #5771 of 6444
Super speed.
post #5772 of 6444
And teleportation.
post #5773 of 6444
I wonder if all Peter's hair will fall out? smile.gif
post #5774 of 6444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph View Post

I wonder if all Peter's hair will fall out? smile.gif


LOL Yeah, the exactly same words I told my gal...

About that tech I assume there's more to that chip than what we've seen, I heard one of the capture mentioned to Peters they had some kind of nano bio cells swimming in there blood stream that helps them function. As to what I would see the epi again.

DJoel
post #5775 of 6444
The laws of physics are just suggestions for Fringe. biggrin.gif

A big problem with my lightning speed theory is that the human body wasn't designed for it. According to what we know about human anatomy and the laws of physics, had Captain Windmark whisked Etta away to save them both from the antimatter bomb, the sudden acceleration would have done incalculable damage to both their bodies - internal organs, tissues, bones, everything. It's why Superman can't save people by catching a falling elevator while standing at the bottom of the shaft (i.e. in a rerun of Lois and Clark the other night smile.gif). There's no difference in the damage that would be induced by the floor or his arms if the elevator stopped that fast. He'd have to catch them higher up and then decelerate them slowly enough not to cause any serious trauma. The science fiction of Fringe might explain such a discrepancy the way comic books have - that the Observer somehow shields himself and anyone within his "sphere of influence" with some "advanced" technology. As fans of sci fi, we'd suspend our disbelief of what we know because we assume that advanced technology has solved the problem.

However, IMO there are liberties that Fringe takes all the time with the known laws of physics that violate the principles of the best science fiction writing. Take for instance the "teddy bear cam" that captured September's abduction by his fellow Observers from the Harvard lab. Only a very expensive high speed camera could have come close to doing what they suggest this toy did. Video cameras operate at very specific frame rates, pixel resolutions and shutter speeds. At the speed at which they were moving, the camera in the stuffed animal should not have been able to resolve the detail necessary to see what happened, no matter what motion algorithms they used. It would have been nothing but a vague blur at best, and as such the premise is nothing more than a convenience to move the story along. It's deus ex machina, and Fringe is full of it. I love the show, but I have to look past these contrivances all the time. It's just my opinion, but I don't think the best science fiction sacrifices the science that we know for the convenience of the fiction it would have us believe. But in the end, we forgive them. That's just how magnanimous we are. biggrin.gif
post #5776 of 6444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

...Captain Windmark whisked Etta away to save them both from the antimatter bomb...

He was not shown to have taken Etta's body with him.
Quote:
Only a very expensive high speed camera could have come close to doing what they suggest this toy did. Video cameras operate at very specific frame rates, pixel resolutions and shutter speeds. At the speed at which they were moving, the camera in the stuffed animal should not have been able to resolve the detail necessary to see what happened, no matter what motion algorithms they used. It would have been nothing but a vague blur at best, and as such the premise is nothing more than a convenience to move the story along.

Yeah, I rolled my eyes at that in a post above. Nanny-cams run at 12 or 30 fps; nothing could have been discerned in that recording that couldn't have been seen by examining the individual frames.
Edited by michaeltscott - 11/3/12 at 10:24am
post #5777 of 6444
I know, Michael. That was always just my theory of what might have happened, as I thought about ways Etta might return.
post #5778 of 6444
I speculated elsewhere...

In the original timeline we had artificial lifeform shapeshifters.

In last season's timeline we had human hybrids...

So, I'm wondering... if the Observers might ultimately be revealed to be the eventual evolution of all that tinkering to "make a better human"...
post #5779 of 6444
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

Perhaps without Etta's contributions the revolution was bound to fail. After all, she's the one who got her parents, Walter and Astrid released from Amber.

And all the posters of Etta that Olivia sees in the alley in this week's episode point to her becoming a martyr for the resistance. I really liked the title of last week's episode, "The Bullet That Saved the World." After Etta was killed and I had a chance to think about it, I began to get the sense that the title must refer to more than just the bullet that killed Olivia in last season's finale. Perhaps the bullet that killed Etta will, in some sense, become the one that saves the future.
post #5780 of 6444
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post

I speculated elsewhere...
In the original timeline we had artificial lifeform shapeshifters.
In last season's timeline we had human hybrids...
So, I'm wondering... if the Observers might ultimately be revealed to be the eventual evolution of all that tinkering to "make a better human"...

This would tie up a lot of loose ends.
post #5781 of 6444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

The laws of physics are just suggestions for Fringe. biggrin.gif
A big problem with my lightning speed theory is that the human body wasn't designed for it. According to what we know about human anatomy and the laws of physics, had Captain Windmark whisked Etta away to save them both from the antimatter bomb, the sudden acceleration would have done incalculable damage to both their bodies - internal organs, tissues, bones, everything. It's why Superman can't save people by catching a falling elevator while standing at the bottom of the shaft (i.e. in a rerun of Lois and Clark the other night smile.gif). There's no difference in the damage that would be induced by the floor or his arms if the elevator stopped that fast. He'd have to catch them higher up and then decelerate them slowly enough not to cause any serious trauma. The science fiction of Fringe might explain such a discrepancy the way comic books have - that the Observer somehow shields himself and anyone within his "sphere of influence" with some "advanced" technology. As fans of sci fi, we'd suspend our disbelief of what we know because we assume that advanced technology has solved the problem.
However, IMO there are liberties that Fringe takes all the time with the known laws of physics that violate the principles of the best science fiction writing. Take for instance the "teddy bear cam" that captured September's abduction by his fellow Observers from the Harvard lab. Only a very expensive high speed camera could have come close to doing what they suggest this toy did. Video cameras operate at very specific frame rates, pixel resolutions and shutter speeds. At the speed at which they were moving, the camera in the stuffed animal should not have been able to resolve the detail necessary to see what happened, no matter what motion algorithms they used. It would have been nothing but a vague blur at best, and as such the premise is nothing more than a convenience to move the story along. It's deus ex machina, and Fringe is full of it. I love the show, but I have to look past these contrivances all the time. It's just my opinion, but I don't think the best science fiction sacrifices the science that we know for the convenience of the fiction it would have us believe. But in the end, we forgive them. That's just how magnanimous we are. biggrin.gif

There in lies the problem when dealing with people\things that are far far into the future. We are discorvering new things all the time, whos to say that there wasnt a discovery that negates some of what we consider base physics today? The Observers are from what ~600 years into the future, we cant even begin to imagine what we will know then.......This is where they take liberties, but with a show like this, I dont get bogged down by the "real world" details, if I did, I would have probably stopped watching a very long time ago.

Great episode, Im goign to ahve to watch again to pick up what I missed. IT will be inderesting to see Peter as a psedo Obsrver and it may point to why they wanted him to dissapear so badly wink.gif The Obseervers for the most part a product of thier technology, if we ahve learned anything from Fringe, Walters device will be something that either kills the plants, or neutralizes thier technological advanage biggrin.gif
post #5782 of 6444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Clark View Post

Wow, intense episode, I was very surprised at how lethal the fringe team was (not that I'm complaining, it was quite exciting), Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
and a huge loss for me with the exit of Georgina Haig, a more attractive actress/character than the rather bland Olivia...

I disagree. Younger yes but not what you are claiming.wink.gif
post #5783 of 6444
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

He was not shown to have taken Etta's body with him.
Yeah, I rolled my eyes at that in a post above. Nanny-cams run at 12 or 30 fps; nothing could have been discerned in that recording that couldn't have been seen by examining the individual frames.

But this was a camera that Walter setup. I would think that Walter had modified it. At least that was my thought when they showed it since that is the only explanation for why it could capture the observer moving fast.
post #5784 of 6444
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

But this was a camera that Walter setup. I would think that Walter had modified it. At least that was my thought when they showed it since that is the only explanation for why it could capture the observer moving fast.

I don't think that I've ever seen Walter diddling with digital electronics and his application for the nanny-cam was monitoring the cleaning crew, hardly worth the time and effort to augment a nanny-cam for super high frame rate videography.

But if that explanation comforts you hold on to it smile.gif.
post #5785 of 6444
Their world is not ours. Obviously their "video" cameras work on a completely different principle from ours.

As others have pointed out, the physics of a TV world is limited only by the imagination (or lack of knowledge) of the script writer.
post #5786 of 6444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

Their world is not ours.

Huh? I'm pretty sure it's intended to be our world. Certainly not a universe with different laws of physics.

It's science fiction; if something doesn't make sense in the context of real known science, you just let it go and enjoy the ride. As someone said, there's lots of deus ex machina in play here smile.gif.
post #5787 of 6444
We really don't have an equivalent of Massive Dynamic, although there are several companies which might be comparable to parts of it. I'd be willing to posit that the teddy-bear's camera is one of their mass-marketed high-end security products.
post #5788 of 6444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

We really don't have an equivalent of Massive Dynamic, although there are several companies which might be comparable to parts of it. I'd be willing to posit that the teddy-bear's camera is one of their mass-marketed high-end security products.

I get the idea that Massive Dynamic doesn't have commercial products and is largely a government contractor. We're never shown anyone using any commercial product branded Massive Dynamic or any technology in advance of our current state of the art in use by the general public (in the blue universe smile.gif). In the beginning of the story Olivia is completely ignorant of their existence. (Olivia: "Massive Dynamic? What do they do?"; Broyles: "The better question is what don't they do.").

As I imagine them they kind of remind me of Beatrice Foods, which turned out, largely unbeknownst to the public, to be hugely diversified, with dozens of divisions with well known names, some of which having absolutely nothing to do with food, like Airstream, Avis Rent A Car and Playtex. In the mid-1980s they launched an advertising campaign to raise public awareness of the company, ending ads for their myriad divisions' familiar products with, "We are Beatrice. You've known us all along". It was kind of creepy. (Not long after they were taken over by a leveraged buyout with all of the divisions gradually sold off).

Perhaps Massive Dynamic has a public subdivision which produces nanny-cams in teddy bears, but I cannot imagine them being equipped with super high frame rate cameras. What would be the application? Being able to view your nanny slapping your child in super-slo-mo?
post #5789 of 6444
To paraphrase Nina Sharp, "Massive Dynamic creates technology. What others choose to do with it is NOT our concern. We just own the patents." Insert wry smile. But only in Bizarro World would a company create a nanny-cam with the capability to do what they did with it. It's use in that episode is "deus ex machina" - even though it is a minor example.

From Wikipedia:

"A deus ex machina (play /ˈdeɪ.əs ɛks ˈmɑːkiːnə/ or /ˈdiːəs ɛks ˈmækɨnə/ DAY-əs eks MAH-kee-nə;[1] Latin: "god from the machine"; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object. It can be roughly translated as "God made it happen," with no further explanation, and, depending on usage, is primarily used to move the story forward when the writer has "painted himself into a corner" and sees no other way out. However, in other cases, it is used to surprise the audience, or, commonly influenced by editors and/or publishers, bring a happy ending into the tale."

It surprised me a bit last year when Astrid and Walter used this very term to describe how the Observers seem to function. It was one of my favorite episodes, "Making Angels." (I thought it was brilliantly acted by Jasika Nicole.) The red Astrid's father dies and she flees to the other side to try to come to terms with the death by meeting her other self. In science fiction, the term "deus ex machina" carries a generally negative connotation, which I'm sure did not escape the Fringe writers who used it overtly in their own script. Still, it was a clever justification of the use of the technique, in that it does fit the almost magical powers the Observers seem to possess. With one stroke in that episode, they poke a little fun at the times they've gone to that well, while at the same time absolving themselves for using it as often as they do. Clever little boys and girls. biggrin.gif
post #5790 of 6444
"Deus ex machina" is latin for "god from the machine". Many ancient Roman plays had horribly convoluted plots that couldn't possibly be worked out in a performance of reasonable length. So they'd end with an actor portraying one of their gods (Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, etc) being lowered on a cable by a machine to hover over the stage fixing problems with their divine powers and pronouncing the fates of the various characters like a parent sorting out a dispute among children. We use the phrase to describes a "this is the way it is because we say so; don't question it" plot device.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › "Fringe" on Fox HD