Joshua Jackson at the 2008 San Diego Comic Convention in San Diego, Calif.

The show’s star, Joshua Jackson, returning to television for the first time since Dawson’s Creek, and co-creator/executive producer/writer J.J. Abrams spoke with MediaBlvd Magazine about the possibilities of fringe science.

MediaBlvd Magazine> Josh, can you talk about your decision to come back to TV? Were you purposely staying away for awhile and then decided to go back, or was it this project specifically that drew you back to TV?

Joshua Jackson> It was this project, specifically, that drew me back to TV. Frankly, it was the quality of the script, which is now our pilot, and the density of it. And, the fact that even while it was a totally satisfying story unto itself, you could see that the potential for a whole universe of other stories was built in there. It was also J.J. and his ability, with the group of people that he keeps around him, to tell these stories well, over a long period of time.  If I ever came back to television, it was my hope to be part of a group of people who had the track record of being able to keep shows at a high level of quality, over a long period of time. I think J.J. the best at that on TV right now. And, TV is exhausting. It takes a little while to recover. As much as possible, I try not to live my life by defining myself against something, so I wasn’t really too worried about coming back and being labeled as “Pacey,” or as that guy from Dawson’s Creek, because that’s really an actor’s job. If I get labeled as that, it’s probably because I’m not good enough to define myself as something else. So, I wasn’t purposely running from that, but I certainly wasn’t looking.

MediaBlvd>  J.J., what did you see in Josh that made him your Peter Bishop?

J.J. Abrams> I’ve known Josh a little bit, since back in the days of Dawson’s Creek. I was doing Felicity, so we were in that same universe. I’ve always been a fan, and loved his sense of humor, and also the gravity that I thought that he could bring to something, even something as soap operatic as the stuff he was doing on the WB. I felt that same way when I was working with Keri Russell. There are actors for whom you go, “Okay, they are really good. They elevate the material. They make it better.” As a director/writer/producer, all you ever want is to work with actors who make you look better, and who make the work you do seem as good as it can be, and even better than it is. I always felt that Josh had that ability. I’m thrilled to finally get a chance to work with him.

MediaBlvd> Are the writers sitting around and wondering how far to push this fringe science before it becomes unbelievable? Or, is that one of the nice things about this type of genre work, where you can tell something far-fetched, but still keep the audience believing it? 

J.J.> The truth is that, when we did the pilot for Lost, we had the monster appear at the end of the First Act. We did that very consciously because we wanted to say to the audience, “We’re jumping the shark now, and doing crazy stuff from the beginning. We’re not going to wait.” On Fringe, we very consciously did what is, in many ways, a preposterous, out there, far-fetched scientific story point, in order to say to the audience, “This is what you’re going to be getting on the show.” It may be more extreme in some cases, less so in others. As we’re writing scripts, some shows will deal with science very much as it exists. But, for the most part, the fun about it, for me, with movies and TV shows, especially in the genre of either horror or sci-fi, is that pushing of the envelope and going further than you might otherwise. The show will definitely be pushing the edge of the envelope, but I don’t think it’s going to be about that. I don’t think we’re going to be trying to top ourselves every week because then we’ll just be in a race against ourselves and then there’s no way to win. So, I feel like the key is to tell stories that are as compelling, as emotional, as funny, and certainly as weird and out there as possible, but not to try to have it be exploiting that aspect of the show. I would rather be delving into who these people are and what makes them tick than doing something just for shock value. 

MediaBlvd> Josh, do you have a head for science? Is it something that you have an interest in, or are you an actor because that’s not something that you’re good at?

Josh> I’m an actor because I’m not good at a lot of things. We all apply scientific knowledge, in one way or another, on a daily basis, but it’s been a long time since high school, and since I’ve found myself in lab. Some of the jargon is new to me, but I find the world of science interesting. It definitely piques my interest. In the popular science world, I guess I’m aware of it, but my chemistry set has been in the basement for a long time. 

MediaBlvd> J.J., do you view this show and its contemporary setting through the filter of anything that’s happening in American society at the moment?

J.J.> The reality is that we are in a time, whatever party is leading the country, where science is out of control. Having said that, maybe everything is out of control. The political aspect of the show wasn’t created to mirror the election. All I’ll say is, hope is a good thing. 

MediaBlvd> Josh, can you talk about working with John Noble and Anna Torv? What interested you about Peter’s relationships with their characters?

Josh> While there’s a lot of stuff going on with Peter Bishop, what I’m finding is a lot of the fun of playing him is the relationship, which boils down to being a translator more often than not, between Walter, who is brilliant, but sort of half-cracked, and Olivia, who is an intensely no-nonsense type person. She’s not the type of character that you would sit down and have a lyrical, philosophical conversation with. She’s very much a, “Just the facts, ma’am,” type of person. And then, you bring this other character, Peter, into that world, and he has to try to be the go-between. Initially, he’s the extremely reluctant go-between, who’s really only brought in by happenstance and then can’t get himself out. That’s an interesting dynamic because, ultimately, what that boils down to, in my mind, is a very typical dysfunctional family. You put in that dynamic -- something that’s relatable and understandable to everybody -- and you put it in this fantastically outrageous world of Fringe, and it makes for an interesting day’s work.

MediaBlvd> J.J., you have a really great track record with your leading ladies, like Keri Russell, Jennifer Garner and Evangeline Lilly. How did you find Anna Torv? 

J.J.> Our incredibly talented casting director showed us a video audition that Anna did for a movie. We were trying to see as many people as we could and I saw this audition of hers. It’s just that feeling that you have, where you just immediately know that’s the person.  I wish there was some really cool, clever technique that we use to do it, but the truth is, whether it’s Keri Russell walking through the door, or Jennifer Garner, who I’d gotten to work with on Felicity, and who my wife was insistent was going to be a star, or Evangeline Lilly, who I got a video of her auditioning, or now Anna, it’s simply the fact that when you see the right person, the first thing you’re concerned about is, “Oh my God, can we actually get her? Is she really available?” It’s no longer about giving her the part, it’s just that we have to make this work. When I saw Anna, I just knew that she had a quality that was unique. She’s smart and beautiful, but not in a way that felt like she was phony. She seemed tough and sophisticated. I just felt like she was the right one.

J.J. Abrams at the 2008 San Diego Comic Convention in San Diego, Calif.

Josh> It would have been inappropriate in the pilot because it’s awkward, hitting on a woman when her boyfriend is dying in front of her eyes. 

J.J.> Now, the odds are so much better. There’s, no doubt, going to be a slow burn relationship that develops between the two of them. I don’t think it will happen exactly as you might think, but there obviously will be a dynamic there that we will play up. It just needs to be done right. There’s a lot going on in their lives, on the show, that are more urgent issues, but over time, there’s definitely going to be a relationship between the Peter and Olivia characters. 

MediaBlvd> J.J., is there a point you want to make about corporations with this show? 

J.J.> The show doesn’t quite hit on the corporate conspiracy aspect, as the pilot might suggest, but there definitely is an ambiguous role that is played by Blair Brown. She works for a company that is much more important. There is a relationship between her boss, who we have yet to meet, and Walter, John Noble’s character. Their back story, and how they ended up where they are, are things that are much more about the characters than about a cliched, cynical look at corporate culture. Having said that, I don’t trust corporate culture at all. 

MediaBlvd> Who is playing her boss and how soon might we see him?

J.J.> I can’t tell you that yet, but I can tell you that you will definitely meet him. He’ll definitely be a featured part of the show. We want to make sure that when you meet him, it’s something you’re hungry for, as opposed to something that you’re just experiencing. By the end of the first season, you’ll meet William Bell.

MediaBlvd> Since it shows up in Lost and Cloverfield, along with Fringe, where does this theme of the distrust of corporate culture stem from?

J.J.> I feel like there are so many entities that are powerful and far-reaching. The descriptors of many large corporations could be applied to countries. When you have such a large presence, it’s hard to look at those companies and not at least ask the kind of questions, at least dramatically, that make that institution interesting. So, while it’d be easy to not ask those questions and to not scrutinize, to me there have been a few instances where I’ve looked at things that certain corporations have done, and I just can’t stop myself from thinking, “Okay, wait a minute, what’s the real agenda there? What’s really going on?” It’s just a very real thing that we are all surrounded by. As much as we are surrounded by geography and the political world, we’re surrounded by a corporate world. It’s hard to believe that there isn’t some kind of interesting, compelling intrigue happening behind the doors of those corporate headquarters. That’s an intriguing idea. Having said that, it’s also been over-played and done a million times, so if you don’t have something interesting to say about a corporate culture conspiracy, you probably should say nothing. But, for whatever reason, that is interesting to me.

MediaBlvd> J.J., how do you feel Fringe compares to your other shows, such as Lost and Alias, and what kind of expectations do  you have for it, in comparison?

J.J.> My expectations are irrelevant because I never really know what to expect. You can never guess or assume what anyone is going to think. I can say that it’s one of those shows that, if I had nothing to do with it and saw it coming out, I’d want to kill myself. I’d be so miserable because it is so a show that I’d want to watch. That doesn’t mean that anyone else will. That doesn’t mean that it’s good or bad. It just means it is so the kind of show that I am excited to see. In terms of the other series, I don’t know how to compare them. Fringe is a very different show. But, I would say that one of the experiments that we’re doing on Fringe is writing the show so that it is not as overtly serialized as Alias and Lost are and were. What that will mean, I’m not sure. Because I’m so drawn to over-arcing and long-term stories, there will still be the mythology, the evolution of characters, the revelations of their story, and what The Pattern means and what they’re doing and how they connect to that. There’s all that stuff happening. But, we’re doing it in a way that is much less week-to-week installments of that story, which then requires you to re-set things every time you do an episode that is a mythology episode. I hope it will be something you can watch without feeling like you’re not in the club, if you’ve missed an episode.             

MediaBlvd> If Fringe won’t be as serialized as Lost and Alias, do you envision it more like the The X-Files, where maybe 10 out of 20 episodes in a season have to do with one particular backstory and the others have nothing to do with it, or do you see it more like Lost, where there’s a number of different mythologies that are introduced every episode  and that you plan to revisit, at some point?

J.J.> I’m such a fan of, not just The X-Files, but The Twilight Zone is one of my favorite shows of all time. I love the original Nightstalker. That was great! The X-Files did so well because they could do creepy stuff, Twilight Zone style. They would do a number of shows that had nothing to do with the overall storytelling and mythology, and then they would jump in and do one. That is definitely closer to the model we’re following. I would even say that it’s closer to E.R., where you have these ongoing relationships and storylines and yet, week-to-week, when the door bursts open, you’re faced with the insane urgent situation-of-the-week. A show I loved, when it was on, was The Practice.  That’s another show that dealt with the interpersonal relationship stuff well. I am so interested in those relationships. When I look back at doing Felicity, and I’m sure Josh felt this way on Dawson’s Creek as well, the problem with those shows is that there’s nothing to interrupt the relationship story. So, while there are things here and there that you come up with, there was no franchise that would distract the main characters from their emotional storyline. A show like E.R. is a good example of a show where, if these characters were not doctors and they were just hanging out, you would go through their emotional stories in a few episodes. But, because of what’s happening every week on those shows, there’s stuff they have to deal with and there are fires to put out. So, The X-Files is definitely a good model, but E.R. is one that feels more in line with the rhythm of what we’re doing. 

MediaBlvd> Fringe is done in such a cinematic fashion that it’s more of a movie type atmosphere.  Do you like this direction for dramatic shows?  Do you think more shows should incorporate that into their style?

J.J.> I do. I feel like the standard for what TV looks like changes all the time. There’s certainly a cinematic quality to much of what you see on TV. In fact, when you watch some movies now, they’ve gone to a much more rough, documentary style, like the Bourne films, for example. It’s funny how television has taken on a very cinematic look, with more sophisticated lighting and camera moves, while a lot of movies have gone to a rougher place. The line is so blurred now that it’s hard to know. If you just want to look at something in a vacuum, I don’t know if you’d be able to say, “That definitely is a TV show. That’s definitely a movie.”

MediaBlvd> When you look at the current television landscape, and you think about what shows like Lost, Heroes and Battlestar Galactica have done, and what Fringe could potentially do, do you consider this to be the golden age of sci-fi?

J.J.> Lost was always a sci-fi show that was secretly a sci-fi show, and something like Battlestar Galactica is obviously much more overtly science fiction. The weird thing about Fringe is that, although you can say it’s science fiction, a lot of what we’re talking about is stuff that is at least in the realm of possibility, even though we’re definitely pushing it. Some of the stuff that we’re talking about now is not as much sci-fi, like when Star Trek came out and they had their communicators. That was a cool dream, and now we all have pocket communicators. So, when we’re working on an episode, like the one we did where they think they’ve cracked invisibility, you just would never, in a million years, think that is actually possible, but it is happening every day. We may be living in the golden age of sci-fi for the TV, but I think it’s partially because we’re living in an incredibly advanced, almost uncontrollably so, period of scientific achievement. It’s pushing that comfortable, almost quaint version of what sci-fi is to a very different place, and that’s where Fringe lives.

MediaBlvd> With some of the new shows out there coming from overseas, and cost cutting going on at the networks, do you think it’s a tougher climate out there right now, for writers with new ideas?

J.J.> I think it is a particularly difficult time. Fringe was not based on a format from another country, or something that was imported. I feel beyond feeling lucky that we got a show like that on the air. It’s good to see that the limited phenomenon of importing these foreign shows is probably just a fad.  It’s nice to see an anomaly to that, although all the actors are imported. 

MediaBlvd> What advice would you give to a young writer that wants to get the kind of show runner clout that you have? 

J.J.> I feel like it is at least 51% luck that people have been able to view any of what I’ve done. I would say the great news about writing and being a show runner is that it’s free to write. You don’t need equipment. You don’t need permission. For anyone who wants to run a show, it literally is just about exercising that muscle. Write as much as you can. It’s been said that if you write a great a script and throw it off the Brooklyn Bridge, someone will find it and make it because people are desperate for good material. Having said that, I’ve read a lot of stuff that is far better than what I write that has not gotten on the air. We’ve all seen stuff that is generally perceived as garbage that gets on all the time. There are no rules, but I think really the key is writing as much as you can. When you write it, you’ve got your leverage. You’ve basically created your own momentum. At that point, if someone wants to make that script that you’ve written and you want to be a show runner, you need to say, “This is what my involvement is going to be.” But really, the only real, practical answer, if you want to be a show runner, is to write the pilot that is something you want to make. That just goes back to what it is that you want to see. Don’t write what you think they want to see, or what you believe, or what you’re told is selling. Write the show that you desperately want to see. That is the closest you can get to certainty that it will appeal to a lot of people.