The Star Trek effect

hardy24 · 2007-05-03 11:31:57

Okay, hear me out. Amongst star trek fans, theres a generally acknowlged rule, that the even numbered films will be good, and the odd numbered ones bad, and it does work out (according to imdb fan ratings the 5 even numbered are the 5 best.)

Now looking at 6 seasons of 24, I'm thinking maybe the reverse is holding true for seasons of 24, or atleast "compartively". By which I mean, and this is based on my personal opinions of the seasons,

Season 1 was better than Season 2
Season 3 was better than Season 4
Season 5 was better than Season 6.

I'd say that it doesn't work overall, so seasons 1,3 & 5 aren't all better than 2,4, & 6, but you see what i'm getting at.

J_A · 2007-05-03 13:26:11

now that's an interesting idea. I agree to a point, in that s1 and 3 were somewhat better than 2 and 4. I'm not sure what to think about 5 and 6 though. s6 i don't know everything about yet and w s5, you know what I think of that. so I'll keep my mouth shut until I've seen ep 624. also I didn't see anything wrong w s2 ( apart from the cougar story and the megan story and the madman in the bunker story... ok, I do )

hardy24 · 2007-05-03 15:14:54

Obviously it's not a perfect theory, and your right there wasn't all that much wrong with 2, it's just that 1 was better overall.

I haven't seen all of 6, but I think i've seen enough to judge that 5 was better. 6 has just taken a lot longer to get up to speed.

Steveb · 2007-05-15 16:37:10

Where 2 succeeds and 1 fails, is that with s2 they knew they were getting a full season and could plan accordingly, while s1 they only had 13 episodes originally so the early afternoon episodes feel a tad forced. However, I think 1 for scope and vision is amazing.

hardy24 · 2007-05-15 16:41:31

Steveb wrote:

Where 2 succeeds and 1 fails, is that with s2 they knew they were getting a full season and could plan accordingly, while s1 they only had 13 episodes originally so the early afternoon episodes feel a tad forced. However, I think 1 for scope and vision is amazing.

Taking that into account, they coped with it pretty well, and while in the links and perhaps the logic feel a little strained in the first episodes of the second half they recover well and you can defintely see the links between the beginning of the day and the end of the day. It had that feeling that one situation was building on top of another, not simply replacing it. I think only 2 and perhaps 5 to a smaller degree achieved that.

J_A · 2007-05-15 17:34:13

I have to admit that I never had the feeling that there was anything wrong with season1. if there was a "break" or something btw the first and the second half, it's something that has happened in each season up until 3 for sure and maybe later, too, I dunno. Haven't paid that close attention to the later seasons. but what I mean is for example that somewhere around ep 12 we'd lose one main baddie who'd be replaced by another, i.e. a kind of a mid-story break taht I just took to be one of the characteristics of 24 (and kept it in my fics, too, if I could).

Steveb · 2007-05-16 14:46:49

That's true enough, however with seasons two and three this shift was more seemless than with season one in which it felt slightly contrived. But I quite agree Dan, that the end of the day does bring things to a decent conclusion.

hardy24 · 2007-05-16 17:48:01

There is that slightly awkard moment in s1 where just after Jack has shot Gaines, cut to CTU, Tony & Nina: "A source a realible source in *unimportant country* has just told us ANOTHER hitman was hired to kill David Palmer"

Then they keep Jack in the longest CTU debriefing in history while they try to figure out the plot.

J_A · 2007-05-16 18:59:12

aah yeah maybe, that's possible. I'll give that some extra attention during the rewatch.

Matsui · 2007-05-26 13:29:54

The problem with popular theories like this is that they're entirely subjective, and frequently don't hold water in any event.

For example, Nemesis (Star Trek 10) is not considered a good movie.

For 24, I definitely thought season 2 was better than season 1 (I hated Teri's highly convenient amnesia, which was turned on and off as the writers felt like it, for example). Season 3 was off to a slow start, but picked up hugely once the virus broke out. Season 4 was more "stand-off-ish" but picked up along the way, it's greatest drawback being the need to reintroduce all the old characters. Season 5 was good, but suffered from the plot being strained at times (like Logan being a wimp and then suddenly - conveniently - being the mastermind behind everything). It had massive shock value with some of the characters they killed. It was heartbreaking to see several of them die, but it worked dramatically and served to further the plot.

However, season 6 does suffer massively from another recent Star Trek syndrome IMHO. Because like Enterprise and Voyager, it jumps left and right uncertain of where it's going. When Tony is killed in season 5, it's sad, but furthers the plot. When Milo is killed in season 6, I'm just left with the impression that it was done as an easy way to resolve the love/rivalry between Doyle and Milo for Nadia's affections - in short, a cop-out. It's the same with Jack's brother, Graem. Why did he try to kill Jack in season 5? We don't know. There seems to be no reason to go through the huge undertaking of framing Jack for Palmer's murder. Why was it necessary to frame Jack for it? Why did they need him exposed? There is no answer to that, beyond that the writers needed it to get Jack back in the game (or show, as the case may be).

And that's what really disappoints me this season. I accepted it all in seasons 4 and 5 in anticipation of an explanation. But there doesn't seem to be one. And by involving Jack's family this season for no particular reason other than shock value, I fear 24 has finally jumped the shark

Unless 24 gets much better plot in season 7, they really should consider making it the last season. The show wins a lot on its serialised format, but it also has one major disadvantage, because it means that each season is one, long story. That means all the episodes speak to a great plot... if it works. Unfortunately this season it didn't, and so the whole effort went down the drain. By the end you hardly care anymore because the show has already lost any and all credibility

hardy24 · 2007-05-26 15:20:48

Some good points Matsui, though oddly enough I agree completely with some of them, and disagree completely with others.

I take your point on Nemesis (10), that generally it's not considered by Trekkies as a great film, although I have to say myself I liked it, and if you go by IMDB's user ratings on the star trek films, it does do better than every single odd numbered film.

Teri's anmesia was the low point of series one, but every season of the show has had a low point, i think it's unfair to judge a series by it's lowest points.

Logan's twist in Season 5 was perhaps a little convenient for plot purposes, but I personally thought that Greg Itzin did a great job, and played it wonderfully, stealing every scene he was in after the twist and frankly raising the bar for Kiefer.

Totally agree on the differences between Tony and Milo's deaths.

I think pretty much everything with Jack's family was perhaps a mistake. I remember when I saw a clip of Jack confronting Graem before S6 started and before I knew they where actually brothers, and the scene looked so charged. When I saw it again, in context, it had lost something.

For me midseason 4 is still the worst the show has been, I don't think S6 has quite sunk that low, atleast not in my estimation, though that only because of some good episodes when they were needed the most.

smitten · 2007-05-26 19:39:13

Now I'm not nearly enough of a Trekkie to comment on the overall theory, but what I find about 24 is its interesting how everyone has a different opinion.

Matsui wrote:

For 24, I definitely thought season 2 was better than season 1 (I hated Teri's highly convenient amnesia, which was turned on and off as the writers felt like it, for example).

Unlike yourself and Dan, I loved the amnesia bit. The idea that these people, especially civilians, wander round from disaster to disaster like robocop, without ever having any kind of emotional breakdown, is ridiculous. Teri had just had enough. It led to some fantastic acting for her, and we got to know a lot more about Jack and Teri's marriage and their characters.

Matsui wrote:

It's the same with Jack's brother, Graem. Why did he try to kill Jack in season 5? We don't know.

No, but we can have fun guessing. Because Jack stood on his pet snail? Because Jack was better at surfing? Because Jack took Marilyn's virginity?

Matsui wrote:

There seems to be no reason to go through the huge undertaking of framing Jack for Palmer's murder. Why was it necessary to frame Jack for it? Why did they need him exposed? There is no answer to that, beyond that the writers needed it to get Jack back in the game (or show, as the case may be).

Agreed, that's one of the weakest points. They needed to kill Palmer because he somehow found out and was going to expose them. Now, if I'm a villain, and I'm thinking up heinous plots to assassinate ex-presidents, and I have to choose between a plot that involves Jack Bauer and a plot that doesn't involve Jack Bauer, I'm going for the plot that doesn't involve Jack Bauer. Not quite as weak as the reasoning behind Jack not making a simple copy of that damn recording, which my 8 year old son would have has the sense to do!

I think, if you really want a plot where it all ties up at the end, Harry Potter is the series for you. 24 is written in a different way. The writers don't plan ahead too much, they just make it up as they go along. 24 simply requires you to suspend your disbelief in a different way from other programmes.

hardy24 · 2007-05-26 20:28:14

smitten wrote:

Unlike yourself and Dan, I loved the amnesia bit. The idea that these people, especially civilians, wander round from disaster to disaster like robocop, without ever having any kind of emotional breakdown, is ridiculous. Teri had just had enough. It led to some fantastic acting for her, and we got to know a lot more about Jack and Teri's marriage and their characters.

I get your point about the "robocop" feeling the show can give out sometimes, although I think the amnesia was just way to covenient a device, it felt like the writers holding up a get out of jail free card and for a series which at the time was really building a great deal of pride on being as realitistic as possible and whatever else, it didn't feel right for the show and while I didn't hate it, it really didn't engage me.

smitten wrote:

I think, if you really want a plot where it all ties up at the end, Harry Potter is the series for you. 24 is written in a different way. The writers don't plan ahead too much, they just make it up as they go along. 24 simply requires you to suspend your disbelief in a different way from other programmes.

The writers have for a long time said they don't plan to much, but sometimes they do, and the show is better for it. The first six episodes of series one where planned out pretty much note for note before the pilot had been shot, and they are still some of my favourite episodes. Series Two had some forward planning to it. And Series Five had a definite direction and "mood", which they had decided upon before cameras rolled, and series five most certainly benefited. I'm willing to suspend belief, but I do that because a) we're promised a trade-off - suspend reality and the show will be better and you'll enjoy it more b) that when the time is right we believe some questions will be answered, we'll be shown for example why certain characters are doing what they do.

Over the course of the show, it's built up a "mythology" if you will, a series of events, which do have to be remembered, otherwise the events of the latest episode have no meaning, and I know I as a fan remember past events in the hope that they will be paid off in the future, like other events have been. Moments like George Mason giving his son in S2 the money Jack suspected him of stealing from a drug lord in the pilot episode. Mandy's returns in S2 and S4, not explaining who she was, but trusting eagled-eyed loyal viewers would know who she was and discovering that Saunders was presumed lost in Operation Nightfall.

Just the odd moment that suggest the writers know as much about the show as we do, and care as much about it.

24fans.com Forums

#1 2007-05-03 11:31:57

The Star Trek effect

#2 2007-05-03 13:26:11

Re: The Star Trek effect

#3 2007-05-03 15:14:54

Re: The Star Trek effect

#4 2007-05-15 16:37:10

Re: The Star Trek effect

#5 2007-05-15 16:41:31

Re: The Star Trek effect

#6 2007-05-15 17:34:13

Re: The Star Trek effect

#7 2007-05-16 14:46:49

Re: The Star Trek effect

#8 2007-05-16 17:48:01

Re: The Star Trek effect

#9 2007-05-16 18:59:12

Re: The Star Trek effect

#10 2007-05-26 13:29:54

Re: The Star Trek effect

#11 2007-05-26 15:20:48

Re: The Star Trek effect

#12 2007-05-26 19:39:13

Re: The Star Trek effect

#13 2007-05-26 20:28:14

Re: The Star Trek effect

Board footer