HitFix Interview: Blair Brown talks 'Fringe'
What's coming up for Nina Sharp and Massive Dynamic?
Comments: 3
Blair Brown of 'Fringe'
Credit: FOX
Back in August, I was on the "Fringe" set in Vancouver.
During that long afternoon, I appeared as an extra in a scene from the episode titled "Do Shapeshifters Dream of Electric Sheep?" That episode, the season's fourth, will air this Thursday (Oct. 14).
I'll be telling you more about my scene and my experience acting with John Noble -- I'm gonna keep spoilers to a general minimum, but still... -- later in the week, but I also got the chance to chatter with several of the show's stars.
As I listened back over the interviews, a couple of them were a little too spoiler-y to be posted earlier, but if you've watched as far as the episode two weeks ago, the one which ended with Walter realizing that William Bell's will had left Massive Dynamic to him, I don't think there's anything that should be untoward.
Up first was my chat with Blair Brown, five-time Emmy nominee for "The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd" and star of the most excellent "Altered States," the 1980 cult classic that supplied "Fringe" with much of its early DNA.
On "Fringe," of course, Brown plays the enigmatic Massive Dynamic bigwig Nina Sharp, a character whose motivations are probably among the show's most mysterious.
What details does Brown know and what details could she spill?
Click through for my full interview...
HitFix Interview: James 'Jimmy T' Tarantino talks 'Survivor: Nicaragua'
The latest 'Survivor' castoff discusses his lack of opportunities
Jimmy T of 'Survivor: Nicaragua'
Credit: CBS
Jimmy Tarantino never had a chance.
If you ask Unquestioned Tribal Leader Marty and his Espada Alliance, Jimmy T was voted out during Wednesday (Oct. 6) night's episode of "Survivor: Nicaragua" because he had a negative effect on tribe chemistry, with his persistent requests to be put in a leadership role and his persistent complaints at being improperly utilized.
If you ask Jimmy T, he was voted out on Wednesday for daring to question why a struggling tribe was refusing to mix up the status quo and let other people -- mostly Jimmy T -- show what they could do.
HitFix spoke with Jimmy T on Thursday and tried to get to the bottom of his rivalry with Jimmy Johnson, plus his sense of being under-appreciated by his "Survivor" peers.
Click through for the full interview...
TV Review: '30 for 30' - 'Four Days in October'
The 2004 Red Sox comeback was inspiring, but this doc is by-the-numbers
The 2004 Boston Red Sox celebration
Credit: AP
Normally, Sepinwall does his reviews for the "30 for 30" franchise. Through this whole ESPN series, he has at least offered a few words on nearly every one of the documentaries.
But Sepinwall isn't watching this week's "30 for 30" doc, "Four Days in October," focusing on the 2004 Red Sox and their unlikely comeback from a 3-0 series deficit against the New York Yankees.
Now I'm gonna leave aside the number of times I've watched Bill Buckner and Aaron Bleeping Boone, often willingly, usually unavoidably. I'll also leave aside that Sepinwall's beloved Yankees have a more recent World Series title than the Sox and that, unlike the Sox, they're still alive as baseball heads into the 2010 postseason.
I'm not going to get into that, because "Four Days in October" isn't about the rational. It's about an unimaginable thing that happened 2004, something that had never happened before in baseball. But it isn't about understanding a new version of what happened or getting a new perspective on what happened. It's just about reliving that thing that happened. I can see why one wouldn't want to necessarily relive those four days, if you happen to be a Yankees fan (or a Red Sox hater).
Because of the lack of perspective and the lack of insight, "Four Days in October" doesn't really have very much reach. If you're a Red Sox fan, there is no chance that it won't push all of the right buttons and leave you emotional and misty-eyed.
I am and it did.
If you aren't, it'll just remind you of that four-day period where the Red Sox (and their Nation) went from lovable underdogs to frequently insufferable bullies, but it won't push any deeper than that.
That's a simple explanation for how I found "Four Days in October" to be both utterly satisfying and frustratingly disappointing.
[More thoughts after the break...]
Listen: Firewall & Iceberg Podcast No. 40
Dan and Alan honor Stephen J. Cannell, mock 'SNL' and talk 'Mad Men'
Have you heard the one about the bottle of sparkling apple juice? I sent it to your house. Didja get it?
Credit: NBC
Happy Monday, boys and girls. It's Firewall & Iceberg time, as per usual.
After two weeks of frenzied fall preview podcast and even a few straggling reviews last week, this week is a bit more normal. We pay tribute to Stephen J. Cannell, make fun of "Saturday Night Live," discuss the return of "Caprica," answer some reader mail and spend a lot of time on "Mad Men."
The breakdown...
Stephen J. Cannell -- 00:00 - 08:30
"Saturday Night Live" -- 09:10 - 18:00
The return of "Caprica" -- 18:10 - 24:05
Reader Mail, Ratings and Show Titles -- 24:40 - 35:10
"Mad Men" -- 35:25 - 56:00
As always, you can subscribe to The Firewall & Iceberg Podcast over at the iTunes Store, where you can also rate us and comment on us. [Or you can always follow our RSS Feed.]
And here's the podcast...
Set Visit: 'The Thing' filmmakers hope to remain true to John Carpenter
On the Toronto set of 'The Thing,' producers and director discuss their prequel
On the set of 'The Thing'
Credit: Universal Pictures
Perhaps it's George Lucas' fault, but for certain movie fans, the word "prequel" has become a dangerous one, not quite as fatigued as the word "reboot," but close.
"Prequel" has come to mean, "Answers unresolved questions you never really had in the first place, only with a cheaper cast and no understanding of what made the original work."
Every once in a while, though, there's a prequel idea that actually makes sense.
John Carpenter's 1982 film "The Thing" is a genre classic that holds up amazingly, 28 years later. It's a masterful combination of practical effects and flawless suspense technique, boosted by swaggering performances and an evocative Ennio Morricone score (Razzie nominated, but to heck with them).
But while some movies end with question marks, "The Thing" begins with one. There's the helicopter, the two Norwegians and the dog they're trying to kill. There's the trip to the ravaged, body-strewn Norwegian camp, the mysterious block of ice and the briefly revealed crash site. We saw the havoc the protean Thing was able to wreak on the American base, but there's a whole story that had already taken place when Kurt Russell, Keith David, Wilford Brimley and company became involved.
That story is the basis for Universal Pictures' "The Thing," which keeps the name of the Carpenter original, but definitely isn't a remake. Back in June, HitFix joined a small group of outlets at the film's production stages in Toronto, where the filmmakers explained their approach to the Carpenter favorite.
Click through for one of several reports from the set of "The Thing," this one focused on producers J. Miles Dale and Marc Abraham, plus director Matthijis Van Heijningen. More to come...
Set Visit: Mary Elizabeth Winstead takes on 'The Thing'
'Scott Pilgrim' star masters a flamethrower in a prequel to the John Carpenter favorite
A lot has changed since 1981, but on movie screens, at least one thing remains the same: If you absolutely, positively have to kill a body-inhabiting, shape-shifting Thing from space, use a flamethrower. Accept no substitutes.
That was the case in John Carpenter's 1982 feature "The Thing" and fans will be relieved to know that it's also apparently the case in Matthijis Van Heijningen's prequel/prelude, which hits theaters on April 29, 2011.
Given the amount of flamethrower action in Carpenter's genre classic, I don't think I'm spoiling anything when I say that it's early June on the Toronto set of "The Thing" and Mary Elizabeth Winstead is doing her part to make a flamethrower into next summer's hottest -- lame pun intended -- accessory.
"I still have yet to burn an actual person," Winstead laughs. "But we are doing that. The stunt people have this fire retardant gel and so they're not even covered. It's their own skin and but they got this gel on and you're burning them. So I'm a little bit nervous about that, but kind of excited!"
[More from Mary Elizabeth Winstead's conversation with reporters on the set of "The Thing" after the break...]
Watch: Brendan Hines and Hayley McFarland talk 'Lie to Me'
Tim Roth drama returns to FOX on Monday night after 'House'
Hayley McFarland and Brendan Hines
"Lie to Me" returns to FOX to start its third season on Monday (Oct. 4) night at 9 p.m.
It's an earlier premiere than planned for the Tim Roth-driven procedural and it puts the show on a different night than FOX originally announced in May, but the hasty cancelation of "Lone Star" also wasn't part of that schedule.
FOX turns to "Lie to Me," knowing that the series is no stranger to succeeding in circumstances other shows might find challenging, whether that includes three showrunners in three seasons or a lengthy midseason hiatus last season leading into a surprisingly strong summer run.
HitFix caught up with Brendan Hines and Hayley McFarland to talk about what's in store for "Lie to Me" this season, how the new showrunner will impact things and how Roth sets the tone on set.
Check it out...
Watch: Michaela Conlin talks 'Bones' Season 6
'Bones' co-star has great expectations for the upcoming season
Michaela Conlin of 'Bones'
Good things are on the way for Michaela Conlin's character on FOX's "Bones."
As fans already know, the "Bones" premiere saw Conlin's Angela Montenegro reveal that she's expecting a baby, news that either will or won't change things dramatically for the free-spirited character.
HitFix caught up with Conlin before last week's premiere (also check out my interview with Tamara Taylor and TJ Thyne) to discuss her reactions to the end of last season and the beginning of another year of "Bones."
Check it out...
TV Review: NBC's 'Law & Order: Los Angeles'
Skeet Ulrich, Terrence Howard, Alfred Molina and palm trees star in Dick Wolf's latest
Terrence Howard of 'Law & Order: Los Angeles'
Credit: NBC
There's a very simple review to be written for "Law & Order: Los Angeles."
It goes something along the lines of: "Law & Order: Los Angeles" is exactly what you'd expect it to be. If that prospect is disturbing or discordant for you, you probably don't want to watch. If, however, you figure, "Well what harm could it do the 'Law & Order' franchise to be transplanted to the Left Coast?" you'll probably find something solid, reassuring and unremarkable about the show NBC is insisting on dubbing "LOLA," even at the expense of my spending two consecutive months with The Kinks stuck in my head.
So is that enough for you? "Law & Order: Los Angeles" is "Law & Order" only it's in Los Angeles.
On one hand, that means that the look and feel and flavor of the show is completely different. Forget the rotating casts of "Law & Order." The show's stars were producer Dick Wolf and the New York City. One remains, one is gone. So "Law & Order" could be the "Joey" of the "Law & Order" franchise -- New Yorker we used to like departs the Big Apple for Los Angeles and suddenly becomes a good deal less charming.
On the other hand, if Dick Wolf and New York City were two of the stars of "Law & Order" (and its respective spinoffs), the familiar structure -- detectives & lawyers, ripped-from-the-headlines plots and that beloved chung-chung transitional sound effect -- would be the third star. In that case, it's just like continuing with a hit show after one star leaves, rather than after a mass cast exodus. And plenty of shows have lost a couple stars here or there and found ways to hold onto quality and viewers.
It's all just a matter of perspective.
In this case, keep in mind that the perspective is coming courtesy of a writer who respected the "Law & Order" franchise greatly, but rarely felt the need to watch episodes, much less two episodes in a single morning, as I did with "Law & Order: Los Angeles" yesterday.
More thoughts after the break...
TV Review: ABC's 'No Ordinary Family'
Michael Chiklis and Julie Benz topline this light-hearted superhero series
Michael Chiklis of 'No Ordinary Family'
Credit: ABC
I used to play superhero games in the backyard with capes and sticks. Those games used to be modeled after the idea that having superpowers would, in fact, be super. I've watched and read enough superhero yarns over the years to know how wrong I used to be.
As you may have heard, with great power comes great responsibility, but calling them "super-responsibilies" isn't as heroic. I can just imagine running round outside with my ill-fitting mask yelling, "Look at me! I can fly! It's such a DRAG!"
In movies, on TV and in many comic books, superpowers are just something else to eat into your leisure time and mess up your relationships to friends and loved ones. Power don't mean freedom. They mean secrets and inconvenience and, much like having a job or a marriage or children, they mean responsibility. With superpowers, it's all about the up-keep.
Buy why shouldn't superpowers occasionally make life better? And not just in a "Here I Come to Save The Day!" way? People with superpowers are always so invested in improving life on a macro level that they rarely do anything other than make things worse on a micro level.
Maybe that's why I like ABC's new family dramedy "No Ordinary Family."
Full review after the break...
