Comments on: Why Casting Leonard Nimoy on FRINGE is Highly Illogical

By: TV Talk From Fellow TV Addicts | the TV addict

TV Talk From Fellow TV Addicts | the TV addict — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:43:50 +0000

[...] This week, the TV Addict wondered if casting Leonard Nimoy in FRINGE is well, highly illogical (The TV Addict) [...]

By: Naf

Naf — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:59:14 +0000

I actually think this decision is pretty typical of Fringe. The show has gone out of its way to be not another Lost, only occasionally going down the long running story route. It only needs William Bell a few episodes at a time if it’s still going to focus on the case of the week most of the time. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, although I have enjoyed the more Lostish episodes of the show so far. And who knows, maybe Nimoy will go on the show more frequently if he enjoys his time on it, or if the audience demands it enough. If I remember correctly, Alec Baldwin was originally only going to be on 30 Rock once in a while, but the audience loved him, Baldwin loved his time on the show, and NBC found enough money to convince him to stay full time.

By: Ace

Ace — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:45:53 +0000

I could not agree more. When I read on Ausiello that he would only be around for a few episodes I had a “what the heck?” moment. I thought he was going to be more like the “Cigarette Smoking Man” from the X-Files. Always messing with the main characters and giving them just enough information to be dangerous.

By: Josh Emerson

Josh Emerson — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:04:50 +0000

I don’t watch Fringe, but I think your point about Lost and Heroes is spot-on. Speaking of Heroes, it’s the villains and the “are they good or bad” characters that have always made the show. I care a lot more about scenes with Sylar, HRG, or Angela Petrelli than I do about Peter or Claire.