Tonight is the Golden Globes night. Tonight is the night Tatiana Maslany is gonna rightfully win an award as best actress in a drama series. Tonight is the night sci-fi will be finally recognized. Because, let’s face it, the fact that finally a sci-fi actress gets a nod from those type of awards must mean she’ll win. I don’t see any other type of message from those nominations.
However, I can’t help but wonder where the hell were all the critics and those people from these awards when FRINGE was on. Did they not see the work both FRINGE and his actors did in the first 4 seasons??? Especially Anna Torv.
And I honestly don’t see what’s the difference between now and then. I mean, Orphan Black is about clones. Fringe was about parallel universes. Tatiana Maslany plays different clones interacting with each others. She sometimes gets to play one clone pretending to be another clone. Anna Torv played different versions of one character. Which is playing different characters. They also interacted with each others. Not to mention that, at some point, she even played the opposite gender. She played those characters pretending to be the other or, thinking they’re the other version of themselves, which was even more challenging to do.
Now, can somebody explain to me what’s the difference between the two shows and the casts? Why, unlike Orphan Black FRINGE didn’t get any recognition for its first 4 seasons? Is it because 1 was on FOX and the other on BBC America?? Because I seriously I don’t get why people treat these two shows differently.
Tara: A fan wanted to know “Where was Olivia’s wedding ring?” in season five.
AS: I wish we had that level of control. But in some degree the actors are interpreting their characters and what they would do, wear and not wear. I know Josh (Jackson) has specific ideas about how the wedding ring was functioning for his character, and Anna (Torv) had hers. I don’t have another answer to that except on that level.
DF: I agree, it really fell to the actors to recognize they should be wearing their rings. I know Josh did, and I’m sure Anna did at some point decide on when to take it off. What she had in mind, she didn’t necessarily share with us but she made decisions. At one point, we also played around with Peter and Olivia having great difficulty and being a little bit estranged. We went away from that but I don’t know if any of that came into play and whether that came into plays with the rings. http://www.tara-bennett.com/?p=794
Honestly? This type of answer doesn’t satisfy me. At least, not entirely.
I truly appreciate the fact actors can be given this kind of responsibility and I certainly love both Joshua’s and Anna’s personal choice.Actually, I honestly believe it does prove my idea that, some times, actors know their characters better than the writers as they have to play and live them. Because that’s exactly what they both did with those rings. So, bravo to both Josh and Anna!
However, I do feel that Joel and, later, both David and Alison somehow washed their hands in regard to Olivia’s ring. It’s like as if they didn’t want be held responsible for the lack of any explanation about it. Its absence in 2036 was so obvious that fans were desperate to know what had happened to it. I am among those who believed she had tossed it away sometime between 2015 and 2036. But, once Joel tweeted that we would have known what had happened to it, I was so expecting to hear of it, at least once. I swear, I was sure they were gonna talk about it by the end of the show. But it never happened.
Am I supposed to believe that the complete lack of explicit piece of writing in regard to both Olivia’s and Peter’s ring is due just to the actors? Do I really have to believe they were the ones who decided the entire “history” of the rings??? Because I honestly don’t. Though I truly appreciate what Anna and Josh did, this wasn’t the type of answer I had been waiting for all this time.