It's only one week in and already people on the interweb are speculating about Fringe's future and offering advice on how to save it. For goodness sake, US viewers have only just watched episode one! It just shows you how much pressure there is in US telly to get things right straight away. I guess having JJ Abrams' name attached to it doesn't help, and certainly adds to expectation. Lest we forget, the X-Filesy thriller will trnamit on Sky1 later this month and what I've seen of the pilot (ok, all of it), I didn't think it was that bad. It wasn't brilliant, but it was big, fun and full of those weird, jerky effects so beloved of big-budget TV these days. Maybe a bit humourless, but it was ok. Is ok good enough though for such a big-budget, high-profile series. Anyway, read on and see what people have been saying...
Over on SFGate, someone has written a whole article on what tweaks are needed to make it a better show.
The article argues that if 24 and Dollhouse can shut down production for a few weeks to iron out script problems, Fringe really should have done the same.
It also says that it should mend some of the casting mistakes, which is a little bit harsh on Anna Torv, on her big small-screen debut. "In the pilot, she's saddled with an albatross of a romantic angle, and it leads to all kinds of scenes that undermine her effectiveness. In [this] Tuesday's episode, her performance gives viewers less confidence that she's fit for the dramatic heft," said the writer.
He also has a go at the casting of John Noble as mad scientist Walter Bishop, and Joshua Jackson as his son.
He also goes on to suggest that they should ditch the romance: "Unfortunately, it's too late to snip this part out of the pilot. But having FBI agent Dunham fall for her partner, John Scott (Mark Valley), was painful to watch (a prolonged dream sequence of sorts was the nadir of the pilot) and weakened Torv's character. For a series that owes so much to The X-Files you'd think the prolonged separation of Mulder and Scully would have been a good example."
This romance - yes, they are a bit of mismatched couple - is pretty integral to the story, so I'm surprised that he's had a go at this.
Finally, Mr SF Writer says: "Lastly, there's the bubble graphics, put on the screen like floats in Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. But by having these stylishly cool, technologically hip words floating over the screen, it might give viewers the notion that you invested in that eye-catching element at the expense of real substance in the casting and writing arenas."
I actually quite liked this graphics - they were something a little bit different to what we normally see.
It's difficult to ask your opinions when so many people in this country haven't seen it yet, but if you have seen us let us know what you think.

Oh I'll have a go, although it has been a while since I saw the pilot :)
I think the internets are a buzz, because Fox is notorious for axing new shows 2 episodes in.
I do agree with your Fringe was not bad... not fantastic but not bad either. What the author of this article forgets it was a pilot that lasted for 90 minutes, the episodes from now on will be on average 45 minutes. If they keep up the pace and momentum, which should be a bit easier and more convenient for all of us ADD viewers I do not see a reason why people would not tune in.
The whole romantic angle - well that LSD induced/reunited with her lover scene was painful to watch, but the whole romance angle is the thing that jump starts the story.
And for the record Anna Torv or Joshua Jackson are nowhere near as bad as he makes them to be. The doctor is a bit spacey though :) And I love the cow :)
In my opinion Fringe makes for solid telly - its thrilling, new and exciting. There are some dull bits, but hey even X files had some dull bits. Even Lost had dull bits.
And I liked the graphics too - what can I say I'm simple technology challenged blond girl, it looked cool to me :)