I usually approach TV shows that become faves in the same fashion: First, I’m a little late to the game, discovering a show in its third, maybe fourth season (fifth season with Lost). This turns out to be perfectly meant to be, because as I proceed to go into obsession mode, I can enjoy uninterrupted viewing, thanks to sites like Hulu and services like Netflix and Blockbuster-via-mail. No commercials (ok, maybe one or two if I’m Hulu-ing), and no waiting a week for answers to JJ Abrams cliffhangers due to scheduled programming.

Obsession mode with Lost (courtesy of Hulu) was intense, as I had five seasons to get through before the sixth and final season started the following month. At an average 22 episodes per season…you do the math. My approach: if I wasn’t working, eating or sleeping, I was obsessing. Sometimes sleeping took a hit – I recall one weekend when I watched back-to-back episodes starting on a Friday continuing well into Saturday morning, took an exhaustion nap, then picked right back up through Sunday. Eating, fortunately, is something I could do simultaneously.

The whole thing was triggered by my friend Rich’s comment, “I can’t believe you haven’t seen Lost. It combines three things you love: science, the supernatural, and Hawaii. You have to watch it – you’re gonna love it.” Thus began my love for JJ Abrams shows, which brings me to my most recent obsession: Fringe.

I can write about it now because my Fringe obsession is currently on vacation. Yes, I was Fringe obsessed up until about a week ago. And I will be Fringe obsessed once again come Season 4 on January 13th, though in a very controlled, more paced, may-even-DVR-it way.

So, most importantly than how obsessed I am is WHY, why do I love this show so much? Same reason I loved Lost: science and the supernatural (if Fringe were set on a remote beach, you’d never hear from me again). It’s a sci-spi show, and that’s the holy grail of media for me, but even more so than Lost, Fringe dives deep into high concept science and the ultimate idea for me: an alternate universe with a slightly different version of each of us in it, and infinite potential to answer the questions of who we are and why we’re here.

Fringe follows troubled but special FBI agent Olivia Dunham and her Fringe Division team – mad scientist Dr. Walter Bishop, his IQ-of-190-but-you’d-never-know-it-cause-he’s-so-the-opposite-of-bookish-plus-he’s-hot son Peter Bishop, and the lovely assistant agent Astrid Farnsworth.

(Walter is the one in brown. You can guess the rest.)

Here’s why I love this show, specifically:

∞ The show starts with you thinking that it’s going to be just another Law and Order SVU, but in between the catch-the-culprit plot points, you get exposed to electromagnetism, quantum entanglement, bilocation, teleportation, psychokinesis, multi-verses and more sci-spi stuff I find fascinating.
∞ Walter, “the Einstein of our generation”, will feel, smell, taste and otherwise “examine” anything to solve a case.
∞ The show reveals the unraveling of a bigger plan beyond cops and killers, beyond our world even, and our very existence as a race is at stake.
∞ The idea that an act of love could destroy the world – and a sacrifice may save it – is intriguing.
∞ Walter makes custard in beakers and Bunsen burners and is concocting, among cures for never-before-seen infectious diseases, parasites and viruses, the formula for the perfect strawberry shake.
∞ We get the feeling – and evidence – that the human brain is capable of much more than we could ever imagine.
∞ Peter and Olivia are in love – and will cross time and space to prove it. I’ve always thought love is the single human energy that is the key variable for evolution and elevation, and a sci-spi show with a solid love plot is just good sense (and good science).
∞ Walter can’t ever remember Astrid’s name and refers to her as, among other things, “asterisk”.
∞ Walter tampered with the very fabric of the universe, and we learn a lot from his mess.
∞ Walternate (Walter’s other-dimensional self) is smarter, richer and meaner than Real Walter, while Fauxlivia (what Walter calls Olivia’s other-dimensional self) is happier, cooler, and stronger than Real Olivia, all of which makes you wonder how your own other selves would be.
∞ Walter, Walter, Walter. And Peter. And not just ‘cause he’s cute and brilliant. More because, even though he is the single key to save the existence of multiple universes, he’s not an egomaniac but a noble, kind, and sweet regular guy. And a little sarcastic (it’s like Luke Skywalker and Han Solo in ONE. Lord have mercy.)

The show creators took care of even the slightest detail  – the intro credits change depending on the universe you’re about to observe, for example, and check out the promo pic up on top: Olivia’s hair is arranged in a nautilus. There are also serial killers and seriously disturbing biochemically-challenged shape-shifting beings, as well and fungi that emotionally connect with young minds, so don’t say I didn’t warn you. I’m not an advocate of any media related to death, fear and unnecessary drama unless it has a message/lesson, but that’s just it – this show is not sci-fi porn, not weirdness for the sake of shock. It’s science-meets-spirituality, conspiracy, saving the world, the potential for very probable parallel realities not much different than our own, and the idea that love can conquer all. Or can it?

Fringe’s fourth season will premiere January 13th at 9 p.m on Fox, and I’ll be watching.

Multidimensionally yours,

Marylternate

(Images courtesy of Fox.)

Media: Don’t be fooled by that sexy commercial – making food choices based on television advertising results in a very imbalanced diet according to a new study comparing the nutritional content of food choices influenced by television to nutritional guidelines published in the June issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Investigators found that a 2,000-calorie diet consisting entirely of advertised foods would contain 25 times the recommended servings of sugars and 20 times the recommended servings of fat, but less than half of the recommended servings of vegetables and fruits. In fact, the excess of servings in sugars and fat is so large that, on average, eating just one of the observed food items would provide more than three times the recommended daily servings for sugars and two and a half times for fat – for the entire day. “The foods advertised on television tend to oversupply nutrients associated with chronic illness, (for example, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium) and undersupply nutrients that help protect against illness (fiber, vitamins A, E and D, and calcium and potassium),” said Michael Mink, PhD, lead investigator in the study. Luckily, we know that’s not how YOU make your food choices.

Behavior: Reality TV is much higher in aggression than regular television, says a new study. Researchers looked at five reality shows and five non-reality shows and found 52 acts of aggression – gossip, insults, dirty looks, etc… – per hour on reality TV compared to 33 per hour for the non-reality programs. Which show topped the list? Donald Trump’s “The Apprentice”, with 85 acts of verbal or relational aggression per hour. Second best was Simon Cowell and “American Idol” with 57 aggressive acts per hour, but the scientists did comment that this may be because it is harder to backbite while you’re singing. One interesting point the researchers made was that the actual aggression was not so much of a reality, but seemed more induced by the producers via the common tactic of putting participants in a booth and baiting them to say something nasty about their competitors. No big deal, you say? Think again. Plenty of other studies have confirmed that meanness rubs off on viewers (monkey see, monkey do). The study was published in the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media.

Parenting: Want “smarter” kids? Scheduled sleep time can help. According to a study published in the journal Sleep, consistent bedtimes are linked to better language, reading and math skills in preschool children. Results of the research indicate that among sleep habits, having a regular bedtime was the most consistent predictor of positive development outcomes at 4 years of age. Scores for receptive and expressive language, phonological awareness, literacy and early math abilities were higher in children whose parents reported having rules about what time their child goes to bed. Having an earlier bedtime was also found to be predictive of higher scores for most developmental measures. Another tip: According to the research on optimal sleep patterns, preschool children should get a minimum of 11 hours of sleep each night.

Sleep: Nighttime noise from nearby road traffic, passing trains and overhead planes disturbs sleep and impairs morning performance, according to research presented at the annual conference Sleep 2010. Results of the study show that exposure to traffic noise during sleep contributed to slower reaction times the following day, among other markers of neurobehavioral performance. Special care should be taken with risk groups, people who are more susceptible to sleep disturbances, such as children, shift workers, the elderly and people with chronic medical conditions.

Skin: New research published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention definitively links indoor tanning to increased risk of melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer. The study, the largest of its kind, found that people who use any type of tanning bed for any amount of time are 74% more likely to develop melanoma, while frequent users of indoor tanning beds are 2.5 to 3 times more likely to develop melanoma than people who never use tanning devices. The increased risk applies to all ages and genders. “We found that it didn’t matter the type of tanning device used; there was no safe tanning device,” said DeAnn Lazovich, Ph.D., lead author of the study. Before this study, indoor tanning had been only weakly associated with melanoma risk, she added. Risk also increased with increased use.

Gender: Macho men are not the safest behind the wheel, a study says. “Catch that car!” was the instruction given to 22 men sitting in a driving simulator during the research; the results indicated that the more “macho” the man, the more risks he took on the road. “Some men develop a passion for driving that can verge on the obsessive,” said Julie Langlois, author of the study. “They consider the cars to be an extension of themselves and they become extremely aggressive if they are honked at or cut off.” Speed was directly related to the stereotype – during testing, some participants caught the car within five minutes, while others caught the car in 12 minutes and were much less dangerous on the road. Langlois’ says that cars are often a vehicle by which character traits are expressed and this overly risky behavior for this particular male stereotype is an issue of public safety.