24fans.com Forums

international fansite dedicated to the TV show '24'

You are not logged in.

#1 2007-12-26 23:58:32

24nut
Member
From: London
Registered: 2007-04-14
Posts: 376
Website

What could have been...

So i know here that a lot of people think that the writers have made a few choice decisions that has altered the show, some say for the better, others say it will never obtain the greatness that season 1 had. As there is no sign of a "ceasefire" in hollywood, and im bored as no 24 will be airing in January, i was thinking that we could maybe discuss the points in which 24 changed and what you would have done differently or whether you feel it was a step in the right direction, now there is no point starting from season 1, as that season is the origin of 24 and everything changed from then onwards. I know this has been discussed before, but i wanted to hear everyones elses views on how 24 has changed over the course of 6 seasons.

How about discussing 4 hours at a time?

Season 2: 8:00am - 12:00pm


"Please, as someone who was once your friend, let me die in peace" - Jack Bauer [Season 7]

Offline

#2 2007-12-27 17:22:56

hardy24
Administrator
From: London
Registered: 2007-02-28
Posts: 981
Website

Re: What could have been...

A nice idea.

The first decision to discuss would be "should there have been a 2nd series?"

Trying to answer that question, ignoring the benefit of hindsight, is a very difficult one.

For me I think perhaps 24 is in fact something stuck in the wrong medium. Image "24 : Series One" was a successful film, ignoring that it was 18 hours long. Both the artistic and financial route a sequel or second series would have gone through would have been different. A sequel "film" to anything gets atleast a certain amount of time, which is to some extent flexible. Also it's easier for the producers to say "this isn't going right, lets stop development, and get going again when we can."

As a TV show, when Cochran, Surnow and co are offered a second series, ofcourse they can say no if they want, but if they say no, thats it, the show is dead for atleast 5 years or more, they can't say "come back to us in a year and we might have something for you.", it's now or never.

Now once a second series is officially a go, and you can't stop it, and you simply have to make it as good as you can. I think the mistake they made at this point was sacking Stephen Hopkins or atleast not renewing his contract.

For those of you who don't know Stephen Hopkins directed 13 episodes of the first series, including the first three, and the finale. He pretty much designed the look of the show, without him, no split screen etc. etc.

Jon Cassar, who replaced him, is a very nice guy, and by all accounts all the actors love him, and he gets the best out of them, but for three years his actual visual direction was very ordinary and he slowly let go the unique touches which Hopkins put in place, and even now Brad Turner the second resident director for s5 and s6 is alot better than him.

Final thing, Kim is just plain annoying from the word go for me. They tried hard to give her a decent storyline and to make her to point of view "outside" the world of CTU, but it just doesn't work. They should have down graded her character to a recurring guest star one, and only but her on screen when her story merited it.


put your hands in your pockets looked away : andsmiled.com : blog

Offline

#3 2007-12-27 17:59:05

24nut
Member
From: London
Registered: 2007-04-14
Posts: 376
Website

Re: What could have been...

Yea, that would be the first thing to discuss, as this was probably the biggest decision to be made about 24, whether to do just one season or not, but it proved to be too big to deny a second season, i agree, Hopkins shouldn't have been let go, i wont elaborate anymore, but you pretty much said it there dan, the finale that was directed by Hopkins was the best episode of 24 for me, the guy managed to get the emotion out of the show.


"Please, as someone who was once your friend, let me die in peace" - Jack Bauer [Season 7]

Offline

#4 2007-12-27 18:27:34

Steveb
Moderator
Registered: 2007-03-07
Posts: 319

Re: What could have been...

Now there are several strands of argument you can take up here, some which Dan has covered very nicely and others which I'll bring up now. Dan you brought up the question as to whether there should have been a second series, if we assume that a second season (which initially I dsiagreed with, by the way) was inevitable, then this brings up two key questions:

1. Was the ending of season one- in particular the death of Teri Bauer- a useful or necessary resolution with which to lay the foundations of the second series?

2. Was it right or plausible to bring back the main cast for a second season and for subsequent seasons- only really leaving them alone when they'd been killed off? (Kim Bauer being the key exception to this, although they do keep dragging her back now and then)

The first question ties in with the second; had Teri survived, Jack and his family have their happy ending and closure. To bring them back would have been unnecessary and therefore the credibility of a second season with the same cast (or at least Keifer, Elisha and Leslie) would have been nil. It would still have been possible to recall David Palmer, Tony Almeida, George Mason et al, but at the same time, the producers could have started afresh each time.

The problem this leaves is that audiences, and I apologise in advance for this, particularly American audiences don't like being taken out of their comfort zone. This is why so many shows fail, the viewers find it uncomfortable to watch either because it's too intelligent, too stupid, too off-the-wall, you get the point, but would introducing an entirely new cast into 24 have caused this problem? Would an entirely new cast and setting but a retention of the staple real-time formula be too much to keep the audience which had been built. Bear in mind as well, that the survival of 24 was as much (if not more) due to its international following than its homeland audience, so there was a lot at stake to get right.

If of course, they'd brought in a new cast would it have been possible for them not to become carbon copies of the season one group. One of the failings cited in the recent series of 24 is that they have been repetitive and not covered new ground. One of my personal issues, is that the turnover of characters has been so fast that none of the new arrivals gets the chance to evolve or develop. Think CTU from season 4 onwards. There are only 2 characters (Curtis Manning and Bill Buchanan) who appeared in all three seasons who hadn't appeared before. Of those Curtis was never really used to his full potential, while Bill was forever treated as a straight character who, even when he was given a wife in season 6 never really had the chance to stand out, in fact any time he looked like being some sort of threat, for example against Lynn McGill in season 5 he was taken out of the story for a few episodes before having an opportunity to do anything.

So, introducing a new cast every season would not necessarily have been a good idea for the simple reason that unfamiliarity breeds resentment. However, it's clear that a problem with the show is that killing off characters merely for the sake of it doesn't work and that giving them a chance to breath and grow instead, is possibly a better way of allowing the show to succeed.


"The water is unpalatable, to improve the taste we added Whiskey. By diligent effort I learned to like it." Winston Churchill

Offline

#5 2007-12-27 19:11:04

24nut
Member
From: London
Registered: 2007-04-14
Posts: 376
Website

Re: What could have been...

im glad we got some discussion going, didn't know if anyone would be inrested, lol

Regarding your first point there steve, I think that killing Teri was laying down the storyline for the mentality of Jack in the second series. We needed a grieving Jack, we knew that Kim wasn't dead even though Nina told Jack that she was, and the only other person close enough to do that to Jack was Teri, i think that the popularity of 24 was realised around mid season, as 24 was never meant to be 24 episodes in length and it was lengthened and geared towards making a second season a reality.

Last edited by 24nut (2007-12-27 19:12:14)


"Please, as someone who was once your friend, let me die in peace" - Jack Bauer [Season 7]

Offline

#6 2007-12-27 20:35:14

Steveb
Moderator
Registered: 2007-03-07
Posts: 319

Re: What could have been...

Actually, with 24 they didn't know whether or not it would make the full season with the concept being so unusual. Therefore, they wrote the mid-season point with a natural conclusion in case it wasn't picked up.

As for killing Teri, I agree it set out the stall for the second season, but if they hadn't I don't think they could have feasibly used the characters again- at least not in the way they did.


"The water is unpalatable, to improve the taste we added Whiskey. By diligent effort I learned to like it." Winston Churchill

Offline

#7 2007-12-28 00:23:53

24nut
Member
From: London
Registered: 2007-04-14
Posts: 376
Website

Re: What could have been...

So we are agreed that Teri dying was a needed concept for the show to bridge the gap between season 1 and 2, i agree though, without Teri dying it wouldn't have worked after that, if Kim had died, sure Jack would be devastated, but im sure Teri would have keepen him from total destruction, so i guess Teri had to be the one to die. As the character that we have known to be Jack after season 1, the hardened Jack as opposed to the beggining of season 1, wouldn't have become.


"Please, as someone who was once your friend, let me die in peace" - Jack Bauer [Season 7]

Offline

#8 2007-12-28 11:30:33

hardy24
Administrator
From: London
Registered: 2007-02-28
Posts: 981
Website

Re: What could have been...

I'm not sure if Teri dying was needed for the sake of Season 2, but I would agree that Teri dying was simply the right way to end Season 1.

I've always felt that between 1 and 2, there was a slight reworking of the framework of 24, done so to try and help the longevity of the show, to make it more "mainstream fare" if you like, but that might be over simplify. Someone somewhere seemed to sit down and write the "24 formula for repeated success", and certain elements of series 1 were taken as "must haves/includes", when actually the writers should have sit down and asked themselves "which characters have more story in them?" and everything else should have been a blank page.

I myself would have had Tony and George as the centre of story in Series 2. I think the big mistake they made was assuming that a character had to die for the audience to get that there story was over. And I would have simply picked the half dozen characters with interesting stories to tell, then repopulate the regular and recurring cast with characters from those stories.

Series 2 was the time for more experimentation, not less.


put your hands in your pockets looked away : andsmiled.com : blog

Offline

#9 2007-12-28 18:26:17

24nut
Member
From: London
Registered: 2007-04-14
Posts: 376
Website

Re: What could have been...

you raise an intresting point there dan, take George Mason, to make sure that his story was over they kill him, that is one decision that the writers have always got wrong, they can never just place characters in the background after a story, they shut that story down and move on, in a way it then prevents the characters from gaining any decent storylines later, putting characters on the back burner has never been their strong point.


"Please, as someone who was once your friend, let me die in peace" - Jack Bauer [Season 7]

Offline

#10 2007-12-28 19:20:06

hardy24
Administrator
From: London
Registered: 2007-02-28
Posts: 981
Website

Re: What could have been...

I'm moving outside the area of discussion really, but the character of Milo is an example of where they got it right (sort of), he just disappeared because his story was over. Then when he had more story to offer he came back. Ofcourse then there blood sugar spiked and they killed him off.


put your hands in your pockets looked away : andsmiled.com : blog

Offline

#11 2007-12-28 20:54:18

24nut
Member
From: London
Registered: 2007-04-14
Posts: 376
Website

Re: What could have been...

another example of where they actually held on to a character is mandy.


"Please, as someone who was once your friend, let me die in peace" - Jack Bauer [Season 7]

Offline

#12 2007-12-29 12:38:08

J_A
Administrator
From: CTU Zurich
Registered: 2007-03-05
Posts: 1,436
Website

Re: What could have been...

ok, so I've read all your interesting contributions and I must say, a lot of good points have been raised.  I will put down my thoughts to this too. forgive me the repetition, but as you know, I haven't been here last week wink

now, teri's death, I too, agree it was the right and the only way to end season 1. apart from the points made, it also showed the show wasn't afraid to kill off main characters - but then, as has also been mentioned - led everyone to believe that that blood lust (which culminated in season 5) was the right way and the only way to leave characters alone. you all know how I feel about certain things, and this was in my opinion truly the biggest mistake they have made. assuming that only if you kill someone off their story is over. now, for some characters, their deaths surely made sense and were taken up in later episodes (david palmer, for example), or made a necessary and logical conclusion to previous storylines (nina myers, one of the best and most necessary deaths on the show, imo.), some were pure shock value and completely unnecessary (and you know who I'm talking about). I personally think that george mason, for example, died a good death, and that brought something to the show - and still, imho, george had more story left in him. sherry palmer, on the other hand, died a relatively unexpected death, though the possibility of this ending has somewhat been planted as a general feeling throughout the third season.

one thing that I really like(d) about 24 was the fact that characters (at least in the beginning) had a chance to develop, that throughout the course of one season, you'd start in one place, end up in another, and between the seasons, things would happen and characters would grow and change and start in a different place in the next season. I liked that idea because it also made the show different from, say CSI where you seem to be in the same place, like a rat in a running wheel of some sorts, having new stories of the same pattern. but then, what happened to 24, is just what someone above mentioned, is that the stories began to have the same pattern after all, the newly introduced characters began to have a short shelf life in which they didn't have the time to become deeper, and the show began to revolve around the same few core characters who seemed to be the only ones having that development and between-the-seasons-storylines that made them different.

I'm glad someone brought up bill buchanan. he is really a somewhat sad example of what started off as an interesting character and had lots of potential to begin with, but somehow became locked in this role of CTU director that somehow hasn't grown. I still like bill, and season 4 was interesting due to the conflict between him and tony, and the almost-romance with michelle, but in the following two seasons, I really felt like his story hadn't really been used to the extent it could have been. which is the reason I was 80%, if not more, sure that he would get killed off by the end of season 6 and I'm 40% surprised he is back in season 7. I hope they realize the man has potential and use it instead of killing him off just to satisfy their shock-value-blood-lust-blinded minds. (the reason I'm only 40% surprised is of course, that only he and chloe are the ones left from earlier seasons capable of being there for jack after all these coffins have been filled with character leftovers).

I'm still somewhat angry at the writers for trying to make bill and karen the new tony and michelle - cheap repetitions of shots and storylines and even quotes - when they never really got that intensity and emotion going. I wondered and still do, what the fact meant that bill and karen got a kind of a happy ending (being left alive) when tony and michelle didn't. but then on the other hand, who knows. tony and michelle survived season 4, too... and something's telling me bill and karen will be divorced in season 7. another unsurprising development, I'd say. will karen get blown up? we'll see.

now, you knew I'd mention tony and here we go.
tony's death. necessary? stupid? completely-utterly-over-the-top-pointless? tony's resurrection. necessary? stupid? completely-utterly-over-the-top-pointless? you know, whereas killing him was certainly the biggest mistake the writers have ever made, resurrecting him was even dumber. the credibility of the show is long gone, in my book. and I'm not just saying this about his death cause I'm a tony fan, but simply because his death was so forced and it eventually made little sense in the course of the story. I mean, yes, they knew from the start that (and I quote Carlos) "This would be his last season." so they wanted him dead. but then that mistake comes in again - that for a season to be someone's last, they had to die. look at season 5. michelle dies, tony should have died with her. he didn't. they leave him in the nowhere for 11 episodes, bring him back for 2 and kill him at the end of 13. no mention of him before or after (except the "you're responsible for the deaths of david palmer, tony almeida and michelle dessler. they were friends of mine" phrase), no respect for a character who had helped define the show together with jack, but you know how I feel about that, so I'll shut up. the point is, they could have just let it be. they didn't. they had to kill him - and then saw it was a mistake and now we have ghosts walking around. in the end, tony will just turn out to be an apparition that jack is imagining while he's actually lying in a hospital in a coma. that's where the credibility has gone. I wouldn't put it past them at this point. oh well. sorry. i began to rant again.

but back on topic again, what could have been : what would have been if tony hadn't died? was his story really over? after michelle's death, there was everywhere to go with his character, I think. so here's another example of a character killed without his story having been squeezed out to the last. I suppose that's what they realized now that they're bringing him back. except I'm really not sure if bringing him back is the right thing to do. I swear if tony really turns out to be a bad guy and not working some scheme in the background while actually being a good guy or something, i won't watch another minute of season 7. I won't watch them kill him again. but I've already said that.

to finish off, dan, I think you're right when saying that what they should have done between s1 and 2 was think about what characters had more story in them instead of writing down a 24 formula - but then, would people have thought that the 2nd season was the same series? the change of baddies towards ep 12, a remnant of the "will we be picked up for ep 13?" question) is one example of that, but I like it - cause it gives you the chance to change things if baddie 1 doesn't really work - but it's a pity that they never really managed to find a baddie of the same format as a Gaines or a Nina or a Saunders. I think Bierko was an attempt to - at least visually - approach Gaines, but it didn't really work.

one other thing that works well for any series dealing with sensitive information and trust is having a mole somewhere. and that is one element that has been overused, imo. we had it in each season and from what it looks like, we will also have it in season 7 ("someone inside the FBI *had* to tip him off.")

there, now my laundry is waiting so I'll leave but I'll certainly come back soon and maybe even add to all this wink.


tony.jpg

"Yeah, I didn't wanna believe Tony Almeida was a terrorist either, but at some point we just have to deal with the facts. Not with what we want to believe is true."

You need to start living in the real world! Because every second you help the government you're spittin' on Teri's grave!

Offline

#13 2007-12-29 23:21:31

hardy24
Administrator
From: London
Registered: 2007-02-28
Posts: 981
Website

Re: What could have been...

Some good points J_A. Infact so many I don't actually know which ones to address.

For the sake over the overall thread I think I will ignore tony.

I do feel as if series 2 onwards was constructed with a "formula", which is a shame, the reason it didn't start to become clear until mid third season is that part of the formula read "unexpected". And I guess it should be said that the formula did produce some good TV in series 2 and 3. But from the moment the formula was written, the show we fell in love with in series 1 died, 2 onwards was simply another show, masquerading as 24.

I really long for the feeling I had while watching the first hours of series 1.

I'm starting to sound a bit sad, so i'll stop.


put your hands in your pockets looked away : andsmiled.com : blog

Offline

#14 2007-12-30 00:12:50

J_A
Administrator
From: CTU Zurich
Registered: 2007-03-05
Posts: 1,436
Website

Re: What could have been...

hardy24 wrote:

I really long for the feeling I had while watching the first hours of series 1.
I'm starting to sound a bit sad, so i'll stop.

that's ok, I think. it's the end of the year and we're all sentimental wink

Some good points J_A. Infact so many I don't actually know which ones to address.

yes, I knew that would happen. in fact, I was scared when I hit the submit button and saw how long the post had become... but I'm glad you took the time to read it anyway wink

For the sake over the overall thread I think I will ignore tony.

that's fine. we have discussed that at length earlier smile.

I do feel as if series 2 onwards was constructed with a "formula", which is a shame, the reason it didn't start to become clear until mid third season is that part of the formula read "unexpected". And I guess it should be said that the formula did produce some good TV in series 2 and 3. But from the moment the formula was written, the show we fell in love with in series 1 died, 2 onwards was simply another show, masquerading as 24.

I don't necessarily think that formula was a bad thing in the beginning. but you're right, what it lost was unpredictability. the moment we became able to predict twists and storylines was the moment it should have been revamped or stopped. it's not that the storylines were totally lame and boring all the time, and you all know I loved the first three series with all my heart, but it's the repetitions that bug me. and it's admittedly become harder to be innovative and new with 4, 5, 6 or 7 years of doing a show. so maybe the real question here is,

what if jack bauer had died in season 2?

I think with that, they would have created something like a james bond series, where you had someone new take the lead every time. and as has been suggested, tony and george would have, could have done it for season 2 or tony in season 3. my point being, was it necessary to actually become victim to the trap of one lead guy makes the show? and the 24 = jack bauer idea which has  equally been bugging me from the moment people started putting it that way.

of course, I do realize that if that had been the case, they would have been even keener on killing characters they didn't think they needed and tony and michelle might not even have lived as long as they did.

the other question is,

could 24 have remained an ensemble show like for example Friends has?

if it had, it would also have done away with the focus on jack and might have given us a different feeling of the show, so that the phrase 24=jack bauer would never have come up in the first place.

which leads me to the third and final question of the night:

was the biggest mistake of 24 to focus on Jack Bauer as Superman?


and I will leave that hanging in the air unanswered wink


tony.jpg

"Yeah, I didn't wanna believe Tony Almeida was a terrorist either, but at some point we just have to deal with the facts. Not with what we want to believe is true."

You need to start living in the real world! Because every second you help the government you're spittin' on Teri's grave!

Offline

#15 2007-12-30 11:35:06

hardy24
Administrator
From: London
Registered: 2007-02-28
Posts: 981
Website

Re: What could have been...

jack_addict wrote:

what if jack bauer had died in season 2?

Yeah, maybe, although I think the big problem with the show is that because of the real time format, it makes people think that a story has to be wrapped up in those 24 episodes. Essentially terminating any real on going plot elements dead, and meaning it all has to be magiciked out of thin air come the start of the new season. So I think perhaps the question should be ....

should they have dropped the real time format for the second series?

... to simply concentrate on character, good story. To give a more subtle arc to these things instead of bombarding the audience with it at certain points.

was it necessary to actually become victim to the trap of one lead guy makes the show? and the 24 = jack bauer idea which has  equally been bugging me from the moment people started putting it that way.

That does bug me 2, although not as much as when I read somone describing the meat of the show was "jack torturing people". People seem to be obsessed with Jack being this one man army single handedly defending america from the geneva convention oh and terrorists. He started out as an "everyman", a father and husband trying to protect his family who just happened to be a government agent. How did he become superman meets james bond?

the other question is,

could 24 have remained an ensemble show like for example Friends has?

if it had, it would also have done away with the focus on jack and might have given us a different feeling of the show, so that the phrase 24=jack bauer would never have come up in the first place.

Maybe, I did like the direction the show was going in mid series 3, cast wise, when everyone got what screentime they deserved and the amount of time that actually meant each character got was fluid from week to week.

I think to have a truly "ensemble" show, it would have become a bit like some of the modern Star Trek shows have been a regular cast of 6 actors all of whom seem to come out alive of every mission, but if a guest star goes on a mission, you know he ain't coming back alive.

which leads me to the third and final question of the night:

was the biggest mistake of 24 to focus on Jack Bauer as Superman?


and I will leave that hanging in the air unanswered wink

Well it was a mistake, and it's certainly up there in the top 5, not sure it's quite number 1.


put your hands in your pockets looked away : andsmiled.com : blog

Offline

#16 2007-12-30 12:44:57

J_A
Administrator
From: CTU Zurich
Registered: 2007-03-05
Posts: 1,436
Website

Re: What could have been...

hardy24 wrote:

So I think perhaps the question should be ....

should they have dropped the real time format for the second series?

... to simply concentrate on character, good story. To give a more subtle arc to these things instead of bombarding the audience with it at certain points.

that is an interesting idea. although if that had been the case, it wouldn't have really been 24, would it? maybe one way out would have been not to wrap up the story within the 24h, but take it over 2 seasons. there would have been positives and negatives to that. a positive side, of course, is the fact that by not having to prevent huge terrorist attacks within an impossible time frame, the credibility factor might have increased (although, whether two days instead of one make such a huge difference, I don't know); the reason I'm saying that is because that is the comment I often got from others when talking about 24, that it's simply impossible to do all that in 24 hours. also, by keeping the real time format, yet giving it more time, they could have done things like travelling, which they can't do in 24hours. but on the other hand, stretching a story over 2 seasons might also bore the audience because things were not wrapped up, because they had to wait throughout the break between the seasons for a story to continue etc. I do like the real time format myself because it adds to the rush, to the feeling that you're running out of time, and imho, it did work in the early seasons. it worked until they started tweaking it and making impossible things happen in 4 minutes, then admitting to the fact that they're not taking the real time that seriously anymore.

I read somone describing the meat of the show was "jack torturing people".

ouch. I'd say that's one of the big problems with the show. instead of critically looking at torture, they used it as an all or nothing means to solve all your problems, getting rougher and harder until they had to start apologizing for it

People seem to be obsessed with Jack being this one man army single handedly defending america from the geneva convention oh and terrorists.

so nicely put that it doesn't need any further comments from me

He started out as an "everyman", a father and husband trying to protect his family who just happened to be a government agent. How did he become superman meets james bond?

exactly. they started out with the usual formula, a normal person like you and me put in an extraordinary situation and having to come to terms with it. i think what happened is that with everything they've put him through, it was impossible for him not to change, not to harden, which is good on the one hand, because you can really see the character development over the years, yet on the other hand, the problem with it is the well known question: how many lives does jack bauer have? every other person would have died at least twenty times by now wink

regular cast of 6 actors all of whom seem to come out alive of every mission, but if a guest star goes on a mission, you know he ain't coming back alive.

true. which, in our case would have lessened the thrill of the show by undermining its unpredictability


tony.jpg

"Yeah, I didn't wanna believe Tony Almeida was a terrorist either, but at some point we just have to deal with the facts. Not with what we want to believe is true."

You need to start living in the real world! Because every second you help the government you're spittin' on Teri's grave!

Offline

#17 2008-01-01 23:30:02

24nut
Member
From: London
Registered: 2007-04-14
Posts: 376
Website

Re: What could have been...

Shall we continue with the events of the next 4 hours, also feel free anyone to move the discussion ahead when we have all contributed.

Season 2: 12:00pm to 4:00pm

Last edited by 24nut (2008-01-01 23:30:22)


"Please, as someone who was once your friend, let me die in peace" - Jack Bauer [Season 7]

Offline

#18 2008-01-02 10:48:37

J_A
Administrator
From: CTU Zurich
Registered: 2007-03-05
Posts: 1,436
Website

Re: What could have been...

i don't really feel like we've been discussing this by hour, and imho, we have done enough ep by ep discussing in the past. i think what we need is putting the whole thing in a larger context now like we have been in the past few posts smile


tony.jpg

"Yeah, I didn't wanna believe Tony Almeida was a terrorist either, but at some point we just have to deal with the facts. Not with what we want to believe is true."

You need to start living in the real world! Because every second you help the government you're spittin' on Teri's grave!

Offline

#19 2008-01-02 14:25:34

hardy24
Administrator
From: London
Registered: 2007-02-28
Posts: 981
Website

Re: What could have been...

I think really what 24nut means is for us to perhaps all have a quick scan through the episodes four at a time then come back to the thread with any points of discussion which you think maybe of interest.

The one i've got from those 4 episodes is Nina Myers, these episodes are the first proper episodes we see her as full blown villian, in the final two episodes of series 1 she wasn't fully revealed to all the characters as a villian.

Do people think she was under used?, would you have handled Nina as a villian differently?, even introduced her back into the plot differently?. I think perhaps how the writers handled nina could be a good example of how they eventually handled bringing back any well known character.


put your hands in your pockets looked away : andsmiled.com : blog

Offline

#20 2008-01-02 16:37:51

J_A
Administrator
From: CTU Zurich
Registered: 2007-03-05
Posts: 1,436
Website

Re: What could have been...

hardy24 wrote:

I think really what 24nut means is for us to perhaps all have a quick scan through the episodes four at a time then come back to the thread with any points of discussion which you think maybe of interest.

well, I understand that smile. my problem is solely that I never really remember just what exactly happened when - but like michelle would say, "but that's my problem" wink. i suppose i'll leave it to the rest of you to bring up things that I'll then discuss big_smile

nina - good point. it was a great moment, when jack first saw her and then the scene where he's looking at her through the security camera and she's looking at the camera and kinda looking back at him. I feel really that this kind of stuff has gone forgotten and lost in later seasons, or at least to a point, because the plots got more and more complex, in the bigger, better, more vain - when maybe stripping it down but developing characters and their inner lives might have been more interesting. but that's just the woman in me speaking I suppose wink


tony.jpg

"Yeah, I didn't wanna believe Tony Almeida was a terrorist either, but at some point we just have to deal with the facts. Not with what we want to believe is true."

You need to start living in the real world! Because every second you help the government you're spittin' on Teri's grave!

Offline

#21 2008-01-02 19:19:10

24nut
Member
From: London
Registered: 2007-04-14
Posts: 376
Website

Re: What could have been...

good point there with Nina, the impact that the scene had on the viewers was great, she really was a villain, the acting was great from Sarah and Kiefer. It was the showdown that we were waiting for. This as dan said was a good way of bringing the character back, and Nina didn't feel like they were just bought back for the hell of it.

I think that the character wasn't underused and no alternative storylines are popping into my head at the moment, but i think that they handled the character well, they didn't drag the storyline out for long amounts of time, they didn't have gaps where she just dissapeared (between seasons 2 and 3, she did). For example there have been a couple of bad attempts at handling a characters storyline, such as President Logan and Vladimir Bierko. So i personally think that the writers handled themselves very well at the beggining of Season 2, especially with the way Nina was reintroduced.

Something else that really jumps out at you in the beggining is that Mason looks really at home as head of CTU, something that got lost along the way, CTU became incredibly formal and faceless, when i say faceless, it just doesn't seem human anymore, where as Season 1, 2 and maybe 3 had a feel of a place that was worked in and didn't feel over the top.

Last edited by 24nut (2008-01-02 19:29:45)


"Please, as someone who was once your friend, let me die in peace" - Jack Bauer [Season 7]

Offline

#22 2008-01-02 22:33:44

Steveb
Moderator
Registered: 2007-03-07
Posts: 319

Re: What could have been...

My one gripe with Nina, is it was never really her and Jack alone for a great amount of time. There were always other people involved, which meant the chemistry between the two couldn't be developed to its full potential. Obviously, a plot argument would be that Jack would have killed her without any supervision, but it's an easy problem to get around.

Definitely agree with you about CTU becoming faceless. I think another word is, perhaps, redundant. In the latter seasons CTU has become almost a parody of itself- even when it's put in jeopardy, it can't conjour up anywhere near the same emotions that the bombing did in s2 or that the revelation of a traitor in the ranks created in season one.


"The water is unpalatable, to improve the taste we added Whiskey. By diligent effort I learned to like it." Winston Churchill

Offline

#23 2008-01-02 23:40:25

hardy24
Administrator
From: London
Registered: 2007-02-28
Posts: 981
Website

Re: What could have been...

Hmm, not totally sure I agree with you on Jack and Nina didn't have any real "time alone", although come to think of it, I was disappointed that Nina holding Jack at gunpoint wasn't played for more, if you look at that scene and take just the dialogue between themselves I feel sure there could have been more between the final cliffhanger moment which ended one episode and the moment Jack starts to walk away from Nina and tells her "i'm already dead".

I also didn't like how easy Jack just moved on after that situation had resolved itself, apart from the infamous whisper in Nina's ear (I still really want to know what he said) he simply walks away and brushes it off as some minor annoyance, as if he got stuck in a traffic jam on the way to work.

As for the "faceless" CTU, well that defintely started in series 4 when they redesigned CTU and it changed from being what could realistically be a government office to the bride of the u.s.s enterprise. Still, thats what happens when your new set designer gets his visual cues from Thunderbirds.


put your hands in your pockets looked away : andsmiled.com : blog

Offline

#24 2008-01-03 02:36:33

Steveb
Moderator
Registered: 2007-03-07
Posts: 319

Re: What could have been...

I think you've probably put it more eloquently than I have Dan. In retrospect with season 2, we begin with jack as a shell of his former self for the sole reason that his wife had been murdered by a person he intimately trusted. And yet, aside from the "venice" speech, Nina's betrayal of Jack is never really focussed on without it seeming very gung ho- the moment Jack can't bring himself to kill her and probably even the infamous whisper being examples of that.

I wanted to see more of the rawness of the two characters who we know have had more than a platonic relationship, who we know have betrayed the other's trust at least once, and yet I don't think it was fully realised. It seems there was definite shift in dynamic in the second season towards the story being against the real time clock rather than embracing it as they did in the first season, and I think it's probably this that caused the Jack/Nina conflict not to be taken to it's truest potential.

Here's an interesting side thought btw: If you really want to examine the way the show has altered consider the number and ferocity of the actual cliffhangers from season to season- and by cliffhangers I mean significant endings to episodes such as, for example, Mason finding out he's going to die, in comparison to episode endings, for example, s1 when Jack and Mason see the helicopter flying over their heads.


"The water is unpalatable, to improve the taste we added Whiskey. By diligent effort I learned to like it." Winston Churchill

Offline

#25 2008-01-03 11:51:07

hardy24
Administrator
From: London
Registered: 2007-02-28
Posts: 981
Website

Re: What could have been...

Yes, your right about the cliffhangers, the final scenes in series 1 where all in very different places, very different things. Even in series 1 episode 1, the second to last scene was mandy blowing up the plane, a great potential cliffhanger, but instead they do something different, and go back to CTU for one final scene where Jack is hoping everything is under control and maybe he can spare a few hours to go look for kim, but then Tony gives him word of the plane explosion and Jack has to dispense more orders.

Often the cliffhangers were quite open ended and was almost something to make you ponder "what does that mean?, why did that happen? etc etc" than a the more traditional which are aimed solely at making sure you tune in next week.

Your also absolutely right about chasing the clock in series two instead of embracing it in series one, and this ties into cliffhanger thing a bit I think, as the best example that in the early episodes they were really going for "real time" was the cliffhanger to episode 3 and the opening of episode 4, which feet so neatly together, you feel as if no time has passed at all. It's more like an ad break than an episode break, even with the boys dragging Kim away, they look to have gotten 15 - 20 seconds further down the alley.

That was defintely lost by series 4, and sometimes I get the impression new guest directors aren't that well schooled on "the 24 look", when they all should be told to watch the first 6 episodes of series 1 as research.


put your hands in your pockets looked away : andsmiled.com : blog

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB