Saturday, June 13, 2020

Walter Bishop, a moral discussion (Fringe TV show) **Spoilers**

**SPOILERS ALERT**

I've watched this series several times now, and one hangup I have with the show is how Walter just kinda "gets away with it". Don't get me wrong, time and time again the writers try to address the moral issues, and Walter is portrayed as having huge guilt for his actions. 

But.... He BROKE TWO FREAKIN' universes. His actions caused millions of deaths directly and in one timeline billions! I mean, I get it. In the fits of grief over losing his son, and watching as another version of himself was losing his son as well, he crossed over to save the boy. And he never meant to kidnap Peter, but when Nina tried to stop him and the cure was broken, he did the only thing he knew to do. He brought Peter back to cure him. I mean I get it, he did the wrong things for ALL the right reasons. And I believe he really did intend to take Peter back. But at the end of the day, he doomed two entire universes in the process. The ends do NOT justify the means.

And let's not forget that he and Bellie experimented on CHILDREN!!!!! Let's never forget that!

The part I can't figure out is throughout the series they throw the moral implications out there. But you never really FEEL it. Of course in one timeline Walter was put in prison for his crimes, but only because of the destruction that was happening on the main storyline side. The main universe (MU) brings him to "justice", trial and all, but he's never brought to justice in the alternative universe (AU). Or in the MU for his crimes against the AU. In fact, the whole thing starts a full out black ops war with the AU, just because there is never any justice for the kidnapping of Peter and the destructions that resulted on the AU side from that kidnapping.

But like I said, in almost every episode there is some reference to his crimes and his guilt. It seemed the writers really WANTED there to be moral implications, but they never follow through with it in a way that I feel had any real true feeling or intent. It's always kinda on the fringes (no pun intended), but never at the heart of the story. Maybe that doesn't make good Hollywood, but really folks, don't you think it should have been? I loved the show, don't get me wrong, but the whole time I had this nagging feeling the implications were far too glossed over. 

And in the ending, sure Walter states because of his actions and his guilt he has to take "the boy" to the future to save humanity. Leaving Peter and everything he knows behind. And you could see that as a punishment, I guess, kinda. Walter sure seems to. But is it really? 

Sure, he has parts of his brain removed because he didn't like whom he had become, but that's not really punishment or atonement either. That was more like running away and hiding from what he had done. 

And about that ending. This isn't a moral discussion, just plot holes. If the observers HAD won and wiped out humanity, wouldn't that mean they would also wipe themselves out? I guess they could have crossed timelines, but then Walter and the boy going to the future wouldn't have changed anything in this timeline. It would be like us going back 10,000 years and killing everything on the planet. If we did that, we wouldn't have ever survived to go back and do it. There is a massive plot hole here. 

And what was the timeline that survived? The final timeline? I think it was the timeline where both Peters died, but he "returned" to the timeline because no one could forget him (really JJ, really? That's the best you guys could come up with?). The timeline where he just "appeared" out of then air and no one remembered him? Of course, they retconned that by giving Olivia her memories back "just because', and Walter was given his memories back by "the boy" Michael. So more or less, seasons 4 and 5 didn't happen? This is confirmed (I found after writing this) by producer David Fury here. 

So pretty much in the final timeline, while Olivia and Walter remember Seasons 1-3, they never actually experienced them. And that begs the question, exactly how many Olivia's did Peter have sex with? Inquiring minds want to know. At least 3, maybe 4?

No comments:

Post a Comment