Should Olivia go all NSFW on us?


By now I’m sure that most of you will have seen the Anna Torv photoshoot with Esquire? From what I can gather the NSFW photos caused quite a stir within certain sections, as Torv revealed more than an eyeful for the adoring cameras.

You may also have noticed that we haven’t covered it on the blog. Until now that is..

Firstly, thanks to all of you who gave us the heads-up. We didn’t cover it on the blog before now because, honestly, I found it pretty irrelevant to Fringe.

What do you think? ..Relevant?:

Now, I’m not an advocate of summer wellies, but, you know..I think there’s a way to make this relevant to the show, as it touches on something inherent to Fringe: Perception. Today I want to focus on the way that fans see Olivia. For a while now a portion of the audience have been of the opinion that Olivia is “dull”, “boring”, “uninteresting”. People are perfectly entitled to their opinion, but personally, I’ve never agreed with this line of thinking. She may be subtle, but she’s certainly not boring.

With Anna Torv redefining her public image by doing the Esquire photoshoot, and therefore enabling people to see her in a more commercial light, I wonder: would a similar approach make Olivia universally interesting? I’m not suggesting that she should go all NSFW on us (the last I checked Fringe wasn’t Dollhouse, God rest its soul). But with Fringe getting a third season, I wonder whether the powers that be will be tempted to make the character more appealing to a specific demographic in a bid to increase ratings?

Personally, I would hate for this to happen – character evolution is a must, but not at the expense of authenticity. But what do you think? Do you find Olivia boring? Would you like to see her rock summer wellies and not much else from time to time? Or do you think that she’s just fine as she is? I guess the underlying question to all of this is: does Olivia need to change?

It may seem like a no-brainer question, but I’m interested to see the results. Feel free to cast your vote in the poll below.

Olivia: Does She Need to Change?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

(Told you I’d make it relevant-ish – where there’s a will, there’s a way ;) )

If you’re so inclined, you can find the Anna Torv’s photoshoot over at Esquire. But be careful, they’re not safe for work!

Comments

  1. Karo says

    Olivia is fine the way she is. I’d say they could lose the ponytail once in a while, to make her more attractive, without it being out of character. It worked well in season 1.

    Like: Thumb up 0

  2. LizW65 says

    Personally, I’m very happy that they have so far resisted the temptation to glamorize the character in an unrealistic way. Anna Torv is a lovely woman, but as Olivia she wears the minimum of makeup, doesn’t chase down bad guys in spike heels (a pet TV peeve of mine) and her clothing and hairstyle choices are for the most part functional. (Even wearing her hair down for much of Season One bothered me, as I kept expecting it to be grabbed, and I was relieved when she started wearing it in a tight bun in Season Two.)

    Actually, compared to many of the shows out there, I find the Fringe cast in general to be a lot more “normal” looking as opposed to fulfilling fannish fantasies. John Noble and Joshua Jackson, while far from bad-looking, don’t really fit the Hollywood pretty-boy mold any more than Torv plays up the glamor, the one-off supporting characters tend to be a bit dorky and odd-looking, and the costume choices often seem to be deliberately unflattering.

    Frankly, I find it all rather refreshing, and dare I say, even a bit edgy.

    Like: Thumb up 0

    • says

      Liz, I have to agree with pretty much everything you said! Although I don’t have a problem with her hair being down – I think she uses it to good effect when doing that lookey-over-the-shoulder-thing. :) (mostly employed last season).

      Like: Thumb up 0

  3. Xochitl says

    don’t dare to change olivia! she is perfect, I love the fact that you believe who she is by how she dresses, that she dones’t wear make up, the non-stylish shoes, I sincerely love they make her wear those shoes they fit on the character, and the hair, most people hate the ponytail but the thing is he hair gets in the way but she doesn’t necesarily have to cut it, she is real :) remember last seaso of x files? everybody went all armani on us, and it didn’t make sense, and as Roco said this is not dollohouse. If they make her more attactive it would loose credibility in her character.

    Like: Thumb up 0

  4. mlj102 says

    I was surprised to see you cover these pictures, after all; although, yes, you did manage to find a way to make it somewhat relevant. Very clever. (Speaking of clever: St. Patrick’s Day is coming up… I can’t wait to see what you’ve come up with to celebrate!)

    To answer your question, I submit an emphatic “no.” I discovered Fringe when I watched the Season 1 finale. After that, I started watching old episodes of Season 1 while also looking up old information online. I found all sorts of reviews, mostly positive, though I was surprised to see a lot of negative reactions towards Anna Torv and the character of Olivia. Personally, I never understood what people were talking about in those reviews, because Anna Torv and Olivia are one of the main highlights of Fringe for me. I think Anna Torv does an incredible job playing Olivia and I couldn’t imagine anyone else playing her.

    A lot of why I love Olivia is because she is simple and she avoids so many of the generalities of women characters on TV. I like that she is portrayed as a normal person, not some glamorized, unreal FBI agent. It makes it so I can relate to her. I like that she isn’t covered in make-up, she’s not extremely trendy or fashionable, yet she always looks very nice, and very beautiful. I like that she actually appears to have standards and values and doesn’t dress immodestly. I would absolutely hate it if they chose to change that aspect of Olivia. Trying to make her character “more appealing to a certain demographic” would be a huge mistake. It would be a cheap, desperate move, it is unnecessary, and it would be out of character for her.

    Does Olivia need to change? Sure. All characters need to continually develop as a show progresses. But changing her image in that way would definitely be the wrong kind of change. However they change her, they need to keep it in character with who she is. I love Olivia as a character — she is strong, yet vulnerable; beautiful, yet simple; rational, yet emotional. She is capable of being extremely determined for justice when necessary, but also very compassionate and sensitive towards others. She is willing to do whatever needs to be done to solve a case and bring closure. And despite how serious she can be, she is also capable of being lighthearted and making jokes. Those are the things about Olivia that I love and, while they can certainly build upon those things, those are also the things that need to remain a part of her character in order for her to be the same person and remain true to the character.

    Like: Thumb up 0

    • says

      To be honest I wasn’t going to cover them because I’m not big on what the actors do in their own time, but hopefully there are a few underlying questions in there that are interesting. Plus most people have seen these by now, so I wanted to bring a different slant to the table that we can perhaps refer back to next season if Olivia happens to undergo any changes image-wise.

      I pretty much agree with your thoughts on Olivia, which are very well said. Although, it’s perhaps interesting to consider how she was initially presented in the show. Her very first scene raised all types of questions as to what kind of person the writers wanted to convey in our minds (same goes for John). I often wonder whether John’s deception and subsequent death initiated the biggest change that we’ll ever see in Olivia?

      Their seeming lack of professionalism (which probably wasn’t the first time) doesn’t take anything away from what you’ve said, but that early image of Olivia seems to contrast markedly with the agent we know today. I guess things just got “real” for her from the storage facility onwards.

      Who would Olivia have been without her loss? Hmm..

      Like: Thumb up 0

      • Xochitl says

        “Who would Olivia have been without her loss?”

        I like that question better. with this in mind you just make me realize how little we know about the characters, yes we know some things, but you made a similar comment the other day about Peter, he remais a puzzle for us, at least for me and I found curious that they are so unknown to us. I also like to dwell a lot on what if’s and how previous storylines affect characters on the future.

        I don’t think they’ll ever touch that but it would be nice if at some point they’ll show us peter and olivia before. Just rambling. :)

        Like: Thumb up 0

        • says

          Xochitl – thank you for using that word: “puzzle”, that’s a perfect description for the characters, each one of them representing a tiny piece to the bigger picture.

          We don’t yet know where each of them fits into the game, but it sure is fun trying to figure out where they may belong.

          Like: Thumb up 0

      • mlj102 says

        Part of why Fringebloggers is my favorite Fringe website is because you bring a very unique perspective to everything and you do manage to approach things with a different slant than other sites. It’s refreshing and I enjoy the various topics that make me think, and seeing all the different opinions people have. So keep it up!

        I agree that the first time we saw Olivia, it showed her as a very different kind of person. (completely off topic, but I remember when I first saw that scene, I thought, “well, at least this won’t be one of those shows that does the whole “will they, won’t they” things between the characters, because they’ve already established that the main character is in a relationship.” Then they had to go and kill John… they definitely proved me wrong with that one!). And I agree that John’s death (and possible betrayal) certainly affected her and changed her. However, I also get the impression that, in many ways, she wasn’t really a different person from the person we know now.

        I don’t think Olivia was frivolous or unprofessional or less serious before the events of the Pilot. I think she was always sort of reserved and controlled. I think John was the exception… John was changing her. But after his death, she went back to how she was before (maybe even more to that extreme).

        There are a lot of things that support this. Olivia mentions many times that she’s not good with close relationships like the one she had with John. She’s just not used to interacting with people on that level. It’s also implied in the way that Olivia was the one telling John that they couldn’t keep sneaking around like they were. John was the one who insisted on keeping it a secret. That suggests that the nature of their relationship was initiated and maintained by John, and Olivia just went along with it, though she wasn’t completely comfortable with it. It’s also implied that Olivia has always been the serious, hardworking person we know her to be when Rachel tells Peter that Olivia isn’t the “weekend off” kind of person (do I get bonus points for mentioning Rachel in my comment?). Another example is one time when Charlie and Olivia are talking about her relationship with John, and Charlie tells her that he hadn’t seen her that happy in a long time. Again, it suggests that John brought out a different side of her. He made her a little more lighthearted, though she has always been the determined agent that she is now.

        Those are just some examples I thought of off the top of my head, but it seems that everything we have heard about what Olivia was like prior to the Pilot implies that Olivia was much as she is now: very disciplined, professional, and focused. I believe that those are the things about her that are central to who she is. Yes, those things can be changed to a certain extent, as shown by how she changed while in a relationship with John — love seems to have that sort of effect on people — but those things will always be a part of her. And while she certainly changed as a result of what happened with John, I don’t think she herself is much different from the person she always has been.

        Would she be a different person if John hadn’t died and apparently betrayed her? I think she would certainly be different, for many reasons. For one thing, she would, theoretically, still have the man she loves in her life. Also, if those things hadn’t happened to John, it’s unlikely she would be as involved in Fringe Division as she is. That burden and responsibility has certainly caused her to distance herself even more than normally. But I still think that the traits I have mentioned would still be at the core of who she is and would still be very evident in her character. I don’t think losing John caused her to become who she is now — it merely caused her to return to the person she has always been.

        Like: Thumb up 0

        • says

          Glad you enjoy the site mlj. A large part of what makes it fun for me is the community and the varied opinions, so thanks for taking the time out to share your thoughts!

          You make a very valid point – looking back at the evidence, it does seem as though John brought about a change in Olivia. She was finally able to see things a little differently and consequently life was probably a bit brighter for her during that time. I can buy the idea that losing John put her back to default mode, square one, and possibly square zero.

          I will always remember her conversation with Broyles in the Pilot, where she tells him that she just wants to go back to before, and he just looks at her sympathetically and says, “Dunham, I don’t think you can”. In many ways that’s ironic, since there’s no going back – not after what she experienced, yet as you mentioned, events in the Pilot also sent her crashing back to “reality”. Of course, we can also look at it in terms of Olivia not being able to get back the kind of joy that she ever so briefly experienced with John (although “Jacksonville” might suggest otherwise). It’s the duality of this show that I appreciate so much.

          Like: Thumb up 0

          • says

            Very good points!
            But it is ironic that we can’t (really) determine if Olivia has changed because we only know her in this rather extreme time of her life. I mean very bad things have happen and will happen to her – at the same time new people have come into her life who have become very close to her (if not family – as Walter throw that in), not because she wanted that but because there was a need for it situationwise.
            I’m getting the vibe that she wants to go backward and forward at the same time. On the one hand she feels the need to build the emotional wall around her again just to handle the situation emotionally (which I think is destined to fail), on the other hand Peter and other things (Fear -> ability, Walter and in some sense William Bell) are constantly beating against that wall. So Olivia became even more a workaholic which is apperantly the only thing she is doing at all, but this excaping is also destined to fail as there are always Walter and Peter around.
            Maybe this was also one of the reasons why she didn’t call Rachel in ‘What Lies Below’ – not worrying Rachel (and Ella) as the two of them are the only emotional refuge for her.

            I also agree with mlj about your site – the community also is a part of it.

            Like: Thumb up 0

        • Xochitl says

          “Would she be a different person if John hadn’t died and apparently betrayed her?”

          Again, i like to dwell a lot on what if’s, I think that jhon or not jhon she would have eventually ended at fringe division or related to it, she is o be the gatekeeper after all, walter and bell intended, or I think, this to happen.

          I still can’t personally say who is olivia, I mean I am still missing her before, before fringe division, I want to know more about her past, because again I still cannot understand the characters (which I find really frustrating), I understand the basics but sometimes I wish they would say more, of course that’s not the point of the show and it would probably ridiculous or bad in some way. Sometimes I can’t even understand why Peter stayed.

          By the way, since some are mentioning, Roco you are the best! you have managed to keep us busy during the lowatus and your reviews are always the best. You rock! :)

          Like: Thumb up 0

          • says

            Xochitl – you raise a very good point in that Olivia’s journey to becoming the “gate-keeper” is, in some ways, set in stone. We’ve seen evidence of this with the rather cyclical path that she’s taken, resulting in her meeting back up with both Bishop and Bell, the very men who “ripped open her consciousness”. There’s definitely an element of fate, or design, to the whole thing.

            So perhaps the choices she makes are inconsequential – or maybe only certain choices are open to freewill (like getting involved with John), while other impulses are hard-coded into her DNA, in some cosmic fashion?

            I agree, Olivia’s past is one aspect that we are really lacking. Hopefully season 3 will give us more on the Olivia front!

            Peter staying is an interesting topic. I would say that he stayed because he still felt an attachment to his father, and because he saw what Olivia had lost by the end of the Pilot. There may also have been a desire to do something “good”, and an element of curiosity on his part. Hopefully we’ll explore more of these character motivations over the next 30+ episodes!

            Ah, you’re too kind. Thank you for taking the time to read and share your thoughts with us!

            Like: Thumb up 0

            • mlj102 says

              I agree that Olivia likely would have found herself in the midst of all the crazy Fringe science and the war with the other side no matter what happened with John, or anything else, simply because, as others have mentioned, that’s where she was intended to be. But I don’t think that makes her choices “inconsequential.” I am a firm believer that the choices we make, no matter how small, shape us and who we are. And, in turn, the type of person we are also influences the choices we make. So Olivia being the person she is influenced the choices she made and the way she reacted to various things that happened to her throughout her life. And since her responsibility as the gatekeeper is part of who she is, that (though she was unaware of it) influenced her choices and lead her to being where she is now: involved in all of these intense Fringe cases and the war with the other side. So, yes, you could say “fate” is a key factor, but I don’t think that means her choices are not also a factor and equally as essential.

              I also disagree with the idea that we don’t really know much about the characters. With any TV show, you typically are introduced to the characters without much background into who they are. As the show progresses, you come to see the type of person the character is and you gradually learn more about their past, as well. I think Fringe has done a really wonderful job with introducing and establishing the characters and developing them as the story moves forward. Yes, there are still mysteries about them, and certainly, there is more to learn about all of them, and I welcome any additional insight into the characters or times when we learn more about their past. But in the last season and a half, we have learned a great deal about each of the characters — particularly the three main ones — as we’ve seen them react to situations, seen them interact with one another, seen them outside of work (though that one is rare), heard others talk about them, etc. I don’t think we can dismiss all of that as nothing and claim that we really don’t know anything about who the characters are. I think if we were to really examine the things we have seen and learned about each character in the last 35 episodes, we would see that there’s actually a great deal that we know about them. Maybe Roco could do some sort of series of posts on each of the main characters and what we know about them. Though that would be quite extensive, I think it could also be rather fascinating and insightful.

              As for why Peter stayed, I think it was really a combination of a variety of factors, which Roco summarized very well. Certainly staying wasn’t the kind of thing Peter would normally do. Prior to coming to Fringe Division, he never really stayed around anywhere for a substantial amount of time, he never allowed himself to become attached to anyone or to become devoted to a certain cause. In fact, we’ve been debating how much Olivia changed from who she was when we first saw her, but if anything, I would suggest that Peter is the one who actually had a complete change of heart from who he was when we first met him to the person he is now. Everything we’ve seen about the person he was prior to the Pilot suggests that he was a criminal, constantly getting into trouble, who never cared about anyone but himself. But that has changed drastically. All because Olivia blackmailed him to come see Walter. It was really all downhill from there. There’s a quote from the Pilot where Peter says something along the lines of how what happened on the plane is just the beginning, which makes every part of him feel like he’s got to just get out of Boston. And yet despite all of his instincts and natural tendencies, he chose to stay. Why?

              First, I think it was out of concern for Olivia. I think there has always been a part of him that is concerned for her and has wanted to help and protect her. And as they have grown closer and strengthened their relationship, I think that has become a stronger, more influential factor in his choice to stay. And while other factors have come into play, I really think that was the main reason why he stayed at the very beginning. And that has continued to be a strong factor. In A New Day, when it appeared that Olivia was dead, he seemed pretty much ready to give up on it all, take Walter, and leave. As he said in The Arrival, “I wanted to help. I felt bad. I still feel bad about what happened to you.” One of his central motivations was that he wanted to help Olivia.

              But, as we saw in The Arrival, that desire to help Olivia ultimately wasn’t strong enough to keep him in Boston. He was ready to leave. But by the end of the episode, he had changed his mind and recommitted to stay. Why? This time, it was because of his need to explain what was happening — he had a personal investment and, as Roco said, there was an element of curiosity. He needed to be able to understand what was going on.

              And, as time went on, I think his decision to stay became reinforced by other things. Most noticeable, of course, was his growing attachment to his father. When Olivia first approached Peter, there was practically nothing that could convince him to approach Walter, let alone change his whole life, settle down, and work with Walter. But over time, that changed. So much so that, by the middle of Season 1, Peter cared about Walter and was actually scared to think that he might not have Walter in his life. And that has only become stronger in the last year. Another reason why Peter now stays is that I think he has developed a commitment to the cause they are working for. He does care about what they’re doing and being able to make a difference and prevent these terrible things from happening. We saw that in Fracture when Peter and Olivia went back to Iraq and Peter’s old colleague asked him if the possible death of innocent people was something that Peter now cared about, and he confirmed that he did care. Before, I don’t think Peter would have cared much for a bunch of people who he didn’t even know. But he has grown to the point where he does care. It is important to him.

              All of those things are reasons why I think Peter has stayed. But the question is, when the time comes that Peter learns truth, will those things be strong enough to again prompt him to stay despite the new developments? I don’t think so, simply because knowing the truth will directly involve and negate each of those factors. If Olivia has kept Walter’s secret, to a certain extent, he’s going to feel betrayed by her, which will diminish his desire to stay because he cares for her. Knowing the truth about his past will likely answer many of the questions he has about what is happening and why, which would cover the reason of him staying out of curiosity and the need to explain what is happening. Of course knowing what Walter did will have serious repercussions on their relationship, which will likely give him yet another reason to get far away from Walter. And, in the end, he could blame everything on the fact that, contrary to his nature, he did become invested in the cause, which would cause him to want to revert back to the way he was before, not caring about anyone or anything, and not ever staying in one place long enough to get to the point where he can be invested in anything. Also, it might make him question his loyalties and which “good” he should be working for.

              Like: Thumb up 0

              • says

                mlj,

                re: Olivia – I agree, when we flesh it out it’s more a case of fate and freewill. I’m pretty sure that both are as important as the other when it comes to Olivia’s journey.

                Excellent post btw.

                Like: Thumb up 0

              • Xochitl says

                I really like your insight, I think seeing everything written helps me to understand better, you are right, they have changed a lot during all the episodes and it’s there, I’m rewatching season 1 now, and like Rocco often says I think it’s my perception that is wrong, I always feel like there is something else they are not saying that makes me feel like that, like there are some many secrest walter is keeping, Peter never says anything about his past and Olivia is pretty closed off, so I get this feeling that I know squat about them, but again it has to be my perception.

                All the reason you enlisted about Peter staying are right too, again is just my wrong perception and one tiny detail, I am a shipper and somehow I have stopped myself from thinking that Peter only stayed for Olivia, mainly after A new day in the old town, i forgot to put Walter in the equation, and because as they never say anything about Peter’s past I think I don’t understand him and it feels somehow odd for him to stay, despite his curiosity after the arrival, I didn’t want to be biased by my shippinnes and as again I can’t seem to get Peter I was in dobut of my own asessment, but I see the not ship reason I got them right.

                Like: Thumb up 0

    • P says

      Just want to say I totally agree with your view. Ann Torv is refreshing among all the glamorous tv show actresses. I love her natural beauty. I think she is a great role model for young girls out there. I really hope the show doesn’t change her wardrobe or change her character to fit certain demographic.

      Like: Thumb up 0

  5. says

    Roco, now we know the reason why you were kinky yesterday ;)

    As I find Anna Torv to be a naturally attractive women (and have myself announced to be officially jeaulous of Mark Valley ;) ) I wouldn’t bother to see more of here – so to speak – if it would work with the character and the situation which she would be in. But as the character only allowes such in the private life and with the show not giving us much from the private lifes of the characters, there just doesn’t seem to be a chance to do such.
    I think the ponytail e.g. is a nice storytelling tool, so the viewer – even the not so analyzing ones – understands in which situations she opens up or not.
    Going for a character change I think we already have a slow and absolutely fitting change in that department. The way she opens up to be become willing and protect her universe (in that one included: Fear of others and fear of failure) and her getting to love her job even more then before she got caught up in the Fringe Division, definitly indicates such a change of an inner mindset.

    Like: Thumb up 0

    • says

      LOL Stefan! :P

      To be honest, I don’t find the photos that great. *ducks* I’m not even sure what the concept is meant to be. Compare it to this shoot she did last year. But that’s all I’ll say about that. ;)

      Interesting that you raised Olivia’s private life – you’re right, the show doesn’t focus much on that side of things. Although I wonder whether she is becoming more aware of her image now that she’s falling in lurve with Peter? That shot of her checking herself in the mirror before their date was a nice glimpse into her world.

      Like: Thumb up 0

      • says

        I think the conept of this whole thing was ‘let Anna Torv strip’ – actually I think most men don’t need anything more… (and I count myself into that group).

        Like: Thumb up 0

  6. Karo says

    As much as we all love Olivia the way she is, television is a “visual” media and let’s be honest, producers try to cast attractive leads all the time.

    I think it’s possible that they will try to use Torv assets (see Pilot, Dreamscape, The transformation) again in the futur, let’s just hope they will keep it true to the character.

    Like: Thumb up 0

    • Elaine says

      This is my thought as well. Roco, like you, I can’t quite wrap my head around the concept of the Esquire photos, so, I find the partial, teasing nudity a little odd. Sure, Torv looks great, but other than her being partially nude…I’m not grasping the concept behind the clothing or the poses that were chosen.

      That said, I think Olivia is just fine the way she is. They’ve utilized Torv’s assests before as mentioned, and I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t again. Some quiet moment of reflection…sort of like the shot of Juliet from Lost during ‘One of Them’ bare back sitting in bed. It wasn’t gratuitous or misplaced. It was actually very sexy.

      Like: Thumb up 0

  7. JS says

    Well, I guess technically there are other Olivia’s out there… At least ONE of them has got to be a party girl! :P

    As to OUR Olivia…. NEVER CHANGE. Ok, she can change, as long as it makes sense; maybe a similar character development to Aeryn’s from ‘Farscape’. That said, I do trust these writers, so I’m not worried!

    Like: Thumb up 0

  8. FringeFan2009 says

    I’m not sure that if there was a change perceived in the Olivia character, that it is truly a change per say. It could be that they are just revealing another side of Olivia. Everyone has there public persona and a private one. I just hope that it does remain true to the character. I too love Olivia because she is a believable character and not some over-the-top beauty queen.

    In reference to the Esquire photos. I really don’t think that their a big deal. Another viewpoint is that Anna Torv is Australian. I know people that have lived in Australia before and they said that they were shocked by people with beautiful bodies walking around naked on the beach all day. I think that Americans view female nudity in too much of a conservative manner, whereas if a man were walking around naked, nobody would care. When it comes down to it, we all don’t look all that different naked.

    Like: Thumb up 0

    • FringeFan2009 says

      Sorry, in reference to paragraph 2, sentence 4…if a man was walking around “half naked”.

      Like: Thumb up 0

  9. bdp says

    I agree with mostly everyone else that has posted so far. Olivia definitely should not make this drastic change that comes off as completely out of character just to try and boost ratings. I think I agree with FringeFan2009 in the sense that I don’t think the “changes” we’ve recently seen in Olivia are changes at all. I think it’s just her becoming more comfortable with having people close to her again (i.e. Peter). So she’s simply showing a more relaxed side of herself.

    Along the same lines I feel like the whole, straight laced style of Olivia is a big part of her appeal. Like Anna Torv has said in recent interviews, while watching you can’t help but think “how much more can Olivia take until she just snaps?” The question of how she can constantly keep up with the abuse, both emotional and physical, that her job requires and never really break is what makes the character so memorable to watch. That “what would she be like if she just kicked back once in a while?” question is a fun one to think about but you don’t want the writers to just throw Olivia into a situation where she does just that when it doesn’t fit with any of the show.

    Like: Thumb up 0

  10. Page 48 says

    I’m not sure what AT’s objective was with the Esquire shoot. Mortgage arrears shouldn’t be an issue for someone in her position so why stoop for the easy money? We already know she’s easy on the eyes, so there’s nothing to be learned in these (pretty darn silly) photos that we aren’t already keenly aware of. It’s not porn, it’s not fashion, and I doubt that it’s art, so what exactly is it? Did she lose a bet?

    Olivia herself is just fine as she is. She can be ready for work in 5 minutes or less if Broyles calls her in the middle of the night and who wouldn’t find that kind of low maintenance in an already good looking woman very appealing?

    There is one simple change Olivia could make to spice it up, though. Personally, I think she could really rock the whole “chicks wearing ball caps” look.

    Like: Thumb up 1

  11. FlashWriter says

    I’ve been sitting here not really knowing how to put any of this down, not wanting to look like a prude, not wanting to post a full-on criticism of Anna Torv (because it’s not), and not even knowing if this is the right forum to discuss this.

    But I’m going to anyway, so on with the show.

    First off, what Anna Torv does outside of her work on Fringe is her own business as long as she shows up for work on time, knows her lines, and doesn’t need three hours of makeup to fix the ravages of her time off work. She seems like a great person, intelligent and personable as well as being very easy on the eyes.

    With that said, I still have a problem. There seems to be something really wonky about that shoot.

    Maybe it’s just my mindset right now, but every morning on my way to work, cruising down Pacific Coast Highway, I hear news stories about the rise in alcohol abuse among teenage girls and most notably among coeds. I hear about the rise in female drug addiction. I hear about the growth of female food disorders and on and on and on. At the red light at the Carbon Canyon intersection I have a thought, “Something’s very wrong here.”

    And from somewhere in the back of my mind I hear a line from “Mrs. Robinson”:

    “Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?
    …Joltin’ Joe has left and gone away…”

    Like it or not, whether it makes any logical sense or not, the actor who plays a central character in any long running TV series is inevitably identified (linked, associated) with that character (reference Leonard Nimoy’s, “I am NOT Spock”!).

    Olivia Dunham is just that kind of a character. Intelligent. Driven. Respected not for her obvious assets, but for who she is, what she’s trying to do, what she stands for. Olivia–and by this subconscious link Anna Torv–has doubtless become a role model for many, many impressionable girls. It just goes with the territory. And, more’s the pity, it’s just this kind of link that actors just don’t seem to see and what many claim is not their responsibility.

    I beg to differ.

    What type of message does that kind of shoot send? As has already been mentioned, it’s not art, the shoot seems to have no real purpose except to show as much of Torv’s bod as can possibly be shown and still not call it porno. It’s easy money. It displays the same kind of myopia that many actors and many people in the public eye seem to get.

    I think the shoot was a good business decision (“Money, money money. Always sunny in the rich man’s world.”) By the same token, however, I think it was irresponsible—something one does only because one can. I think it sent the wrong message to Anna Torv’s younger fans.

    But then, “business” seems not to have any social responsibility does it? Aside, of course, to make that profit.

    Yeah, …Joltin’ Joe has left and gone away. Too bad. Too, too bad.

    Like: Thumb up 0

    • says

      Flash – a nicely articulated and well considered post with many valid points, I feel. I’m also glad you started out with: “what Anna Torv does outside of her work on Fringe is her own business”, as that needs to be said.

      Like: Thumb up 0

    • says

      Uhm, sorry but did you just compare a bunch of semi-nude pictures with alcohilism and drug abuse?
      This may be the euro-liberal guy speaking out of me, but you have to count in that Anna Torv is an Australian and that most of the Industrialized Countries are way more liberal then most of the US. So I think Anna Torv had after doing Fringe for so long and playing a so tied up character concernig clothing maybe the need to show that she is still a liberal person and not only that maybe even a sexual being – and so to repair her image she showed some (and as far as I’m concern – not even very much). I think she wanted to repair her image – and didn’t do it for the money.
      But there’s also another thing: Her body other than some American actresses has flaws. And everybody who lookes at those pictures recognizes them (many over here think that this is exactly why she is so beautifull). She is not a plastic Hollywood-Barbie. These pictures do not send the message out: ‘Do everything for money, Girls!’ but ‘Even if your body has flaws, be proud of it!’.
      On a German webiste when the news about these pictures were posted there was no negative or even a bit negative comment about these. It was quite the opposite as people were excited (even the females) that a women with a non-perfect body can be so satisfied with it in a culture of mostly plastic beauty (meaning Hollywood not the US).

      But I have to say that I write this from a country were a nearly uncensored ‘Sex and the City’ can be broadcasted at 8:15 p.m. without it being any kind of a scandal. I’m wirting this from a country where it is absolute O.K. to show violence and the human body in it’s completeness on TV as soon as 6 p.m. Heck, in one of our neighbour countries Cannabis is legal for everybody over 18. And alcohol is mostly legal over 16 in Europe. I felt the need to put this in so that you understand were I’m coming from.

      I don’t understand why skin is automatically a bad thing for society. I think it is way more pervert to ban everything visually erotic or sexual from the TV screen (or other media) then to celebrate it openly as something good and freeing for the human soul.

      Gotta say: I’m sorry for this post being off-topic but I wasn’t able to hold myself back.

      Like: Thumb up 0

      • mlj102 says

        “Uhm, sorry but did you just compare a bunch of semi-nude pictures with alcohilism and drug abuse?”

        I think FlashWriter was simply making the point that Anna Torv, and all celebrities who star in TV shows, movies, etc., are generally considered as role models, and participating in things such as a photo shoot of this nature doesn’t necessarily provide the best example for the fans who keep track of those stars.

        As you clearly pointed out, everyone has different standards of what they feel is acceptable and what isn’t. And that’s a matter of opinion, which everyone is entitled to. Personally, I was rather disappointed to see that Anna Torv had participated in a photo shoot like this because I feel it sends the wrong kind of message. And, consequently, I lost a bit of respect for her after this. Don’t get me wrong — I understand that everyone has different standards. And, as Roco and FlashWriter said, what Anna Torv does, really is her own business. But she is someone who is in the spotlight, so sometimes what she does will affect those who watch her and may cause people to change their opinion of her. I still think she’s a good person, a great actress, etc., I just wasn’t expecting something like this from her, so it surprised me and was rather disappointing. I just don’t believe that “everything visually erotic or sexual” is “good and freeing for the human soul.” I think a person can still show confidence in themselves and in their body without having to show it off in this manner. But that’s my opinion.

        My point is that, while you and probably many others have no problem with things of this nature, there are also some that do feel personally against things like this. Because of that, it is disappointing to see someone you think highly of participating in it. I’m not saying you have to agree with me, I’m just trying to explain my point of view, and possibly the point of view of others who didn’t like the photo shoot. It’s all about opinion and perspective.

        There — perspective. We’re back on topic…

        Like: Thumb up 0

        • says

          I didn’t mean to attack anyone and I respect most opinions others have (the political extreme being the ones I don’t) but I didn’t see the connection.
          I also get that such photoshoots may make people loose a bit respect for Anna Torv – even if I don’t get why they are bad.
          The Question is what made Anna Torv do such a photoshoot. For all other comments I just can’t see her doing it only for the money…

          “I just don’t believe that ‘everything visually erotic or sexual’ is ‘good and freeing for the human soul.’ I think a person can still show confidence in themselves and in their body without having to show it off in this manner.” – You got me wrong on that one. I ment that I would rather choose the second then the first. And I agree with you that a person can show confindence without exposing themselves – even if I don’t see these photos as so exposing.

          Another thing I don’t see is were it is bad or wrong to do such a shooting if the person in front of the camera is not forced to do it. An answer to that question would help me a lot… ;)

          Like: Thumb up 0

          • mlj102 says

            “I didn’t mean to attack anyone and I respect most opinions others have”

            I didn’t view your comment as attacking — just completely opposite of my opinion, and I felt there was a lot in what you said that I wanted to address.

            “Another thing I don’t see is were it is bad or wrong to do such a shooting if the person in front of the camera is not forced to do it. An answer to that question would help me a lot…”

            Interesting question. Here are some of my personal thoughts on the subject:

            Just because you can do something and you feel comfortable doing it, doesn’t necessarily make it right, or something you should do.

            Also, as FlashWriter has pointed out, as a relatively famous celebrity, Anna Torv (and other Hollywood stars) has a certain responsibility to be a good leader and role model. People who don’t agree with these types of photo shoots would consider it to be presenting a bad example and neglecting that responsibility. I think that famous people who are in the spotlight of thousands of people have the responsibility to live as people that parents wouldn’t mind their children looking up to. Yes, Anna Torv can do what she wants, but when it is something that becomes very public, that act kind of steps beyond personal discretion and ultimately neglects that responsibility. I think it is important for celebrities to realize how many people watch what they do, and to make their choices accordingly.

            “The Question is what made Anna Torv do such a photoshoot.”

            I don’t think anyone can say why Anna Torv decided to do that photo shoot. I think it’s somewhat unfair to say it was just because of money. We don’t know for sure what her motivations were. But whatever her reasons, it does seem like she didn’t really consider how those who watch her would react to such a photo shoot, or if she did, she didn’t care. Which is a bit of a let down.

            Like: Thumb up 0

            • says

              ‘I didn’t view your comment as attacking — just completely opposite of my opinion, and I felt there was a lot in what you said that I wanted to address.’ – wasn’t meant to mean that. It was just as you mentioned respect to others opinion I feld compelled to say that I do too.
              ‘Just because you can do something and you feel comfortable doing it, doesn’t necessarily make it right, or something you should do.’ – yes, in extreme cases like murder. But if Anna would go to the beach and wear a bikini, one would even see more then in such photoshoots – but in this situation nobody would complain. So I don’t know where the problem to somebody would be.

              I don’t know if you are one of those who feels offended or disturbed bye such pictures, but I think the number of those is relatively small if you consider how much she shows (mostly back and belly) and that Fringe is probably not adressed to such people (if you consider statements in Fringe regarding religion and the church as an institution). Also Esquire as far as I saw it is a men’s magazine. People who would be offended by such wouldn’t buy it. And if a son or a daughter found it at home not Esquire or Anna would be the guilty ones but momy or daddy who stored it wrong. Concerning for the internet I think there are programms that can block websites – and as none of the big Fringe sites I know off reported of this by showing all these pictures the chances of a child stumbling over it are fairly small.
              Any adult who lives in a liberal society has probably realized that there are some things that he or she doesn’t like or want to see but they will pop up in front of his or her eyes. And if such people wanna raise there children in such views they have to take the actions needed. I think stars should not live up to the most conservative views in a country but to a good average (if you don’t want to have a certain image).
              Or too make a long text short: Don’t consider the minority but what the majority wants, because you will – in the process of living – heart somebodies feelings and these people know in what society they live and have to have respect that the majority of people accepts something they don’t.

              Yes we can’t say why she did that shooting. I think taking everything I know of her in consideration that she didn’t do it for the money – but had a reason for it.

              Now I may sounded rude but it wasn’t meant to sound like that.

              Like: Thumb up 0

              • mlj102 says

                “Or too make a long text short: Don’t consider the minority but what the majority wants, because you will – in the process of living – heart somebodies feelings and these people know in what society they live and have to have respect that the majority of people accepts something they don’t.”

                I understand what you’re saying — or at least I think I do. You’re right that the majority wins. If it’s a choice between disappointing the majority or disappointing the minority, you’re going to go with disappointing the minority so that you’re left with the largest amount of support as possible. Yes, the minority group will have to put up with whatever the majority considers as acceptable, but that doesn’t mean that the minority is going to respond well to it.

                Furthermore, your whole argument (as you clarified, I’m speaking of the logic type argument, not the fighting argument) is assuming that the choice you are given is a choice between pleasing your majority while disappointing your minority, or disappointing your majority while pleasing your minority. That wasn’t the case with this particular instance. Whether Anna Torv did the photo shoot or not, the majority (those who don’t mind those kinds of pictures) would be indifferent. She didn’t have to “hurt” anyone. If she hadn’t done the photo shoot, the majority wouldn’t know any different and they wouldn’t think any different of her. And the minority also would have continued to be supportive of her and think the same of her. But by choosing to do the photo shoot, the majority will continue to support her, but the minority is disappointed.

                Do you get what I’m saying? There was never a concern about hurting or disappointing the majority: If she hadn’t done it, her support would have remained the same. But by doing it, the minority has been disappointed and feels differently. So by choosing to do this photo shoot, it didn’t serve any purpose other than to offend the minority of her fans. The majority didn’t really gain anything from it, and she didn’t really gain anything, either. By that line of reasoning, it was a rather poor choice on her part.

                I acknowledge your opinion of the matter and your point that Anna Torv is free to make her own choices, and clearly many people have no problem with the type of pictures that were taken of her. But there are some who are disappointed in that decision, and dislike the nature of the pictures.

                Like you, I don’t mean to sound rude or judgmental. I’m simply expressing an opposite point of view and sharing my own personal opinion on the matter. So hopefully that’s how it came across.

                Like: Thumb up 0

                • says

                  Ok, I got your point (or at least I think I do) but I have to say, the pictures did something for me and maybe also for other people that weren’t disappointed.
                  I have to say before I list why they did something for me that the news suprised me too. So her comes the list:
                  1) Anna has a stunningly beautiful body – and doesn’t seem to have a problem showing it.
                  2) Anna could have restored here pre-Fringe image – because (as far as I heard) she was nude before in movies, just hat those were Australian.
                  3) The pictures itself aren’t vulgar or show too much of anything – even if they lack a sense of art or theming.

                  So what I wanna say is that while you were probably disappointed it did the exact opposite for some other people like me.

                  mlj you never sound rude – and I hope that I don’t either ;)

                  Like: Thumb up 0

                  • mlj102 says

                    “mlj you never sound rude – and I hope that I don’t either”

                    I’m glad that nothing I said came across as rude — I realize that it’s common to sound rude when you’re simply trying to make a point, so I’m glad I didn’t make that mistake. You didn’t sound rude, either. It has been interesting to discuss this with you and to hear your opinion and your perspective of the whole thing. Thanks for sharing!

                    Like: Thumb up 0

      • FlashWriter says

        Stefan, what you said really wasn’t off topic and needs to be said and you make valid points–points that should be considered in any discussion of this type. Just to clarify what I was getting to, though. It really wasn’t about the pictures at all. It was a comment on Anna’s DECISION to do the shoot—not the shoot itself. It goes back to what I was thinking about “there being something wrong, here.” And I think there is. First off, let me make it clear that I’m NOT linking nudity with drug abuse or alcoholism. With that piece of business out of the way, let us continue.

        What I was saying is that there is an unwritten clause in the “stardom” contract (and who would argue that AT is not a star?), a clause that seems to be all but overlooked whenever the “business” requires it—and that is a sensitivity to your fans. Now, it’s impossible to draw a line from being a fan of a specific actor, to a specific action of a specific fan. But I believe that it is a data point in that vast sea of data which the human brain processes to make a decision of whatever sort. It’s a question of influence, maybe even a question of leadership. When we’re talking fans numbered in seven figures, I maintain that an actor’s influence is real and that leadership is palpable even if it remains in the background like morning fog at rush hour.

        It was a comment on what I see and hear going on around me. It is a theory that I cannot verify by any experiment. I see what’s going on with our political and financial leaders and wonder how it effects the next generation of leaders. I see “stars” doing all manner of irresponsible things and wonder what effect it has on the many people who love them. I wonder. I really do wonder.

        (BTW, I don’t know what imperfection you see in Anna Torv’s bod, but it sure looks pretty damn good to me!)

        Like: Thumb up 0

        • says

          Ups, I think I got you all wrong as I thought you were out to make an argument (in the logic sence as a ‘set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence known as the conclusion.’ (took that one from Wikipedia) not in the ‘we scream at each other’ meaning) and saying that stars who make such photos would cause ethics and morality to decay. I guess that is the philosophy student in me making an argument (again in the logic sense) out of everything… ;)
          I get your point with the data stuff concerning others decision.
          By now, I understand that you were generaly complaining that the world is not what it should be or that society is going the wrong way.
          To this whole business thing I can only say: Numbers and ethics never go well.

          What I meant with Anna not looking perfect is that she doesn’t fit the ideal of Hollywood (90-60-90, clear skin etc.). Naturally she is still looking stunningly beautifull outside such criteria – as it appears to be a real woman and not plastic.
          The thought just comes to me that they casted her really good as she looks like a normal woman.

          Like: Thumb up 0

  12. degnirf says

    I agree with you Stefan, I don’t see any thing wrong with these pics at all. I don’t really see how anyone can find it disappointing that Torv did a tasteful barely revealing photoshoot, and I don’t see how that makes her the slightest bit irresponsible; its her body, her decision, and there’s nothing even slightly vulgar about it.

    Of course everyone is entitled to be occasionally judgemental, i do it myself….

    Like: Thumb up 0

  13. says

    alright, I cab say one thing about anna torv. She is Australian, and therefore doesn’t have the same hang-ups as we do about “boobs”. For example, if you wanted to visit Sydney and go to the beach, you’d be surprised because the beach is topless.

    So, to an Australian actress there is nothing wrong because she sees it all the time, and growing up where girls are let onto the same beaches as women, it just doesn’t seem as far out. Especially when you consider her mother went topless when she took little Anna to the beach.

    Also (having graduated with BS in Architecture), the photo shoot they did for the DVD collection has beautiful shots of Anna Torv, especially the one on the inside back cover. Other promotional shots have Torv looking very beautiful, but they can’t address that, because she plays an FBI agent.

    Like: Thumb up 0

    • Page 48 says

      It’s not the idea that AT may sometimes go bra-less that cheapens her brand. It’s that she negotiated a fee with Esquire to do it publicly. That exchange of money separates her from the topless cuties on the beach in Sydney who I like to think run topless out of the goodness of their hearts.

      Like: Thumb up 0

    • mlj102 says

      I agree with you about your point that Anna Torv has no problem with the nature of the photo shoot. It’s all a matter of opinion, culture, and the way someone is raised. But she also had to have known that some people — including some of her fans — would have a problem with it. Yet she still went ahead and did it. That’s the frustrating thing about it. The photo shoot was unnecessary and only caused those against it to be disappointed by her choice to go along with it.

      “Other promotional shots have Torv looking very beautiful, but they can’t address that, because she plays an FBI agent.”

      I’m not sure what you’re saying here, but it sounds like you’re claiming that they can’t show off Anna’s beauty because she plays a modest FBI Agent. If that’s the case, I have to say I disagree. I think they can (and do) still portray a very beautiful person even without revealing a lot of skin, or using a lot of makeup, etc. They just as well could have done this photo shoot with her wearing legitimate clothes, and she still would have looked just as beautiful and no one would have had a problem with it.

      Like: Thumb up 0

  14. jkyarr says

    I haven’t read all the comments above, but I’ve got to speak out to dispel some of (what I think are) the misconceptions of Olivia’s character. I watched the pilot episode as it aired and one of the first INTENTIONAL impressions Fringe decided to make was letting us watch John and Olivia get their frak on. Olivia IS a very understated, practical, utilitarian FBI agent. She is also VERY sexy. It may not be what she chooses to highlight or give much thought to in her day to day activities, especially since John died. But nonetheless, she is a bombshell in disguise! As much of “one of the guys” Olivia has become, I think you’re just plain stupid if you’ve forgotten one incredibly appealing woman still exists in the midst of the respectable professional yet dramatically tragic character.

    Now the connection that I don’t understand here is how dependent yall seem on Anna Torv’s career activities to define your impression of Olivia Dunham. A voice in my mind shouted one giant HELL YES! when I saw the Esquire shoot. The words “thunder from down under” came to mind in a suggestive context.

    Olivia Dunham did not come to mind. Olivia most certainly wouldn’t participate in such a photo shoot. Is that supposed to mean that for the sake of the integrity of the show she’s involved in Anna shouldn’t do anything Olivia wouldn’t? Is that really what this fan base is advocating? If so, yall have lost your minds! Maybe the fanbase needs to get out of the MMO universe they live in and get some fresh air… Test to see if they burn to ash in direct sunlight? Step into the multiverse where people go out of doors and engage in face to face human interaction. Maybe take a trip to Vancouver and try to catch a glimpse of Anna off the set?

    Is this because I didn’t report back on this forum about the special features / behind the scenes footage on the season 1 blu rays that I won here? Is it my fault yall can’t step out of seeing Anna as Olivia? Oh cruel world, what have I done?

    Like: Thumb up 0

    • says

      What I will write now is not supposed to sound rude but it probably will, so I excuse myself before that.

      Don’t you think it is a little bit ignorrant to comment on posts if you haven’t actually read the whole conversation?
      Said that I wanna make a quick rundown what has been posted before:
      The question was if Olivia (the character!) should also go a bit more NSFW on us in the show. Most of as said no, at least not if it isn’t justified with a reason (in the show). mlj and Roco did some character discussion on Olivia. Then Flash came around and made his ‘something-is-going-wrong-in-the-world’-speech which I misunderstood as trying to make a point – we cleared that up but mlj and myself got in a typical ‘the conservative’ vs. ‘the liberal’ conversation which we cleared up understanding each others points. Some people here are dissapointed what Anna did.

      WE NEVER SAID ANNA SHOULD ONLY BEHAVE AS OLIVIA WOULD!
      If you understood it like that you got it completely wrong, probably because you didn’t read it all!

      Is this because I didn’t report back on this forum about the special features / behind the scenes footage on the season 1 blu rays that I won here? Is it my fault yall can’t step out of seeing Anna as Olivia? Oh cruel world, what have I done? – It is impressive how much you think you can do.

      ‘Thunder from down under’ – can somebody ask Anna if we can call here that, I love it!

      To your point of Olivia still being a sexy woman (again the characte not Anna portraying her!) sure she is but she is hiding it. AND if you SAW ‘Jacksonville’ COMPLETELY you could have noticed that the writers (and the discussion afterwards in the fandom) are aware of Olivia being female.

      Like: Thumb up 0

    • says

      jkyarr – I’m struggling to understand your point. Are you saying that people who may have a different view point from you all fit into one neat and tidy category?

      From what I can see you’ve used the old tactic of demeaning fellow posters as a way to force your point of view. I very much doubt you know anything about the personal lives of the people you seem to be attacking, so why make generalizations? The “fanbase” has a right to air their opinions on the ‘arts’ and entertainment – be sure to challenge if you don’t agree but let’s not put people in a box.

      I realise this is a potentially combustive topic, which is why I gave the post context, rather than just posting pictures of AT with her kit off. For the most part the discussions have been firm but fair, so hopefully we can continue in that vein. It’s normally good to have your views, but this one confuses me. :/

      Like: Thumb up 0

  15. says

    mlj02: Sorry, what I meant by “pedestrian” was purely a neutral word. I meant AT in “the context of” her character on ‘Fringe’ vs. the AT “in the context of” the photos taken, not by Esquire Magazine, but taken in a very tasteful way by the photographer brought in by the ‘Fringe’ people (Gary or Garv ?).

    I do not think much of the ‘Esquire’ photos. They seem rather amateur.

    I see Olivia, and thus Anna Torv, as a very beautiful woman. When she poses for cast shots, either w/Peter, w/Walter + Peter, or w/ the whole group, I think those are the most ‘beautiful’ shots of her.

    In fact, one shot of AT as OD I would use the term “striking”, and that came in a group shot of the entire cast at the inside-of-the DVD’s cover. AT is standing as a very strong female who dominates the photo shoot. Her hair is parted, though off-center and given slightly more volume. She is wearing, as are all the cast members, blue, in her case it’s an overcoat just slightly, I do mean slightly, darker than the blue suit she is wearing underneath. Her legs are slightly out. The line, formed by using the line of stitching to the right of her buttons, gives an elongation to her form. She looks like she means business!

    AT has already appeared on the show a few times in her bra and underwear before stepping into the tank of water.

    Am I liberal? No, I am not. I fall firmly in the conservative realm.

    Like: Thumb up 0

  16. FlashWriter says

    This is what I really enjoy about “Fringe” and this site: it forces me to think about subjects and ideas that I don’t normally take the time to consider. Was it Samuel Johnson who once said, “I don’t know what I think until I write it down”? Well, whoever said it, it sure applies to me. So, let me think about some of the points that people have made in this thread. I’d like to put a frame around my disappointment.

    Again, what I wrote honestly wasn’t about the pictures. I think the pictures are footnotes to the whole issue. And, for me, the actual, specific issue is so nebulous it’s like trying to pin down the smoke monster in “Lost”. (Heck, I’m a “Lost” newbie and I don’t even know what side of the good/bad fence it’s really on.) It’s nowhere and everywhere at once. It’s tangled up in the posts I’ve already made.

    I think the phrase that Page 48 wrote helped me to focus and put my thinking into a context that comes pretty close, mainly that the DECISION to pose “Cheapens the brand.” Yeah. If we’re talking about nothing else, we’re talking about a commercial brand known as Anna Torv©. She’s got a salesman called an agent who is trying to sell her IMAGE (i.e. her BRAND) all the time.

    Maybe it comes from some place in the back of my mind where I honestly like her, the person (as much as you can like anybody by watching their appearances on the talk show circuit). I want her to succeed in this town, and I know you can do it without cheapening your brand.

    I think it’s about which golf course you want to play on. Either her brand can say, “Hi, I’m Anna Torv. Actor. And I can play the crap out of this character. Gimme that script and I’ll see you on the set tomorrow.”

    Or the brand can say, “Hi, I’m Anna Torv. I think I’m a pretty good actor, and I think I can play this character, but if I don’t do such a hot job, maybe the fact that I’m sexy as hell will cover my screw-ups.”

    I guess I really wanted her brand to say the former and maybe it’s the source of my disappointment. It’s a brand decision every actress in this town has to make, and it’s a real shame that so many of them choose the latter because they think it will somehow widen their customer base.

    Nonetheless, there are female actors around here that cover the “A” list through the “Z” list—actors who play the hottest, up-front, face sucking nude scenes in film—who still play on course 1 and make an extremely good living there.

    Anna Torv© didn’t need to make the decision to do that Esquire shoot. She’s a good actor. She’s making great money. She’s been noticed. But in her decision, she knew exactly what she was saying to Mr. Casting Director and also knew what she was saying to her fans who where hoping for a more journeyman image (no matter where she hails from, she absolutely knew the message she was sending). My opinion is that she hurt her brand image and I worry that this kind of decision could loop around and bite her in the arse in so many subtle ways.

    Or, it can actually do what her agent probably told her it would do, “Sweetie. Honey. Look. You’ll be bigger than ever. You’ll get all kinds of parts that you wouldn’t get otherwise. You’ll be far, far more saleable. You’re goin’ to the top, baby! Like a rocket. To the top!! Now here, sign this…”

    I hope that’s the way it works for her. I want her to succeed—not just because I want “Fringe” to succeed, but because I want Anna Torv to succeed. Like I said, I like her. I’m an Anna Torv fan—just a fan—who’s in the bleachers waving my “AT Rocks!!” flag.

    Like: Thumb up 0

    • FringeFan2009 says

      Hi Flash Writer, I like your point. Of course, it is a lot of thinking…I don’t know, maybe she just got tired of everyone seeing her as a straight laced FBI agent and just wanted people to see that she was sexy too. It seems that actors always get tired of being type casted. It may have been effort to diversify her roles or even to help promote her new project “The Pacific” where she actually plays a movie star. I don’t know, it’s really difficult to pinpoint a true motivation for people sometimes. But ultimately, I totally agree with your statement
      “I hope that’s the way it works for her. I want her to succeed—not just because I want “Fringe” to succeed, but because I want Anna Torv to succeed. Like I said, I like her. I’m an Anna Torv fan—just a fan—who’s in the bleachers waving my “AT Rocks!!” flag.”

      Like: Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>