1242 replies to this topic

[Sebastian90012]

I think that one thing that really, for me, made season 2 worthwhile was that it finally conveyed what I wanted to see in Season 1.

That is, a feeling of a tapestry of events - like a Paul Thomas Anderson film or the like - there were so many stories going on, all linked together, and occuring at the same time, but there was just so much going on.

But I think this was partly because the overlying question seemed to be "who is evil". Thus, in season 1, every scene had to be from the point-of-view of one of the five main cast members, or focus on an established bad guy. Season 2 had so many concurrent storylines, often taking place within the same building (like the bunker, or at CTU) and even when they were annoying, there was so much to watch that it felt much more like we were watching the events of one day.

Sadly, I don't see it happening this season, because at the moment it seems we have just three storylines: the action at New/Mexico, the exposition at CTU and the "political intrigue" at Palmer's.

[dzhim]

I personally consider that a big plus for this season. The wedding storyline and the entire Warner family annoyed the hell out of me last year, especially early in the season. Kim's storyline didn't bother me too much when it was broadcast, but her scenes were less than enthralling when I was re-watching the season on DVD.

This season seems a lot tighter in that respect, in part because the Singer family drama was kept fairly brief and usually involved characters who were actually interesting anyway. Palmer's storyline has dragged, but even that has been infused with interesting moments on occasion. Now that Dr. Anne is out of the way, hopefully they'll move on to better things and bring Palmer's story back to the level it was at early in Season 2.

[Benji]

I see what Sebastian means, and I like that aspect of the show as well, but ultimately it fell apart last year. There were just too many balls in the air at once and TPTB dropped most of them. I think there is still a sense of a lot going on at once this year, and although it doesn't have the same sort of almost-epic feel, it feels more achievable and rewarding for me. Sure, it was fun when little characters got to do fun things last year, like Lynne meeting with an informant who turned out to be Sherry, but I still have no idea what the fucking fuck that was about.

[Elliot]

I would've been more supportive of last season's many open ends if the major work to close them wasn't limited to the last hour. TPTB put themselves in a spot where there was much juggling to be done, a higher-maintenance situation than is the case this year (so far) and was the case in S1. The first third of this season has been a bit more uneven than the first third of S1, but both have featured two central storylines (with the promise of eventual convergence) that have been allowed to contain effective pacing and associated tension, with WTF revelations spotted here and there to help keep things hopping.

Edited by Elliot, Jan 4, 2004 @ 3:10 PM.

[Benji]

Plotting wise, season 3 so far is, IMHO, what we were all promised season 2 would be. A coherent storyline with slow, steady buildup. They attempted this with the Warners in season 2 but that didn't work on a self contained basis because they were boring and nothing they did before Kate was kidnapped really mattered. I think watching Ramon kill guards and Hector make some terrorism-related calls has been a much better way to maintain viewer interest in characters when they aren't at the forefront.

I also really like that we have two major antagonists so far, as opposed to last season's almost Villain of the Week approach. Much more effective and interesting. Last year we had about 10 new villains introduced in the last two epihours alone. Whether you let it go at the time or not, there's no one who really gave a damn about Kingsley or Max or that dude in the cafe.

[Elliot]

Ramón is a particularly good example of effective character development, IMHO. There's been a general evil-waltzes-with-good undertone throughout the series, but the strategy of having Ramón and Jack metaphorically joined at the hip as reluctant partners for at least the first third of the season is brilliant. Part of what made Gaines such an interesting character for me was his direct interaction with Jack. With Ramón, they took that same intimacy between Jack and a nemesis and bumped it up several notches.

Benji, I'm blanking about your "cafe" reference. Help?!?

Edited by Elliot, Jan 4, 2004 @ 10:29 PM.

[Sebastian90012]

Elliott, in the last couple of hours (haven't got the DVDs yet so couldn't be sure when) after we met Max and Kingsley, there was another guy dining at a cafe somewhere who was also phoned. We never got to know him or anything, he just seemed to show the audience that there was a wide-ranging conspiracy.

[Elliot]

Huh. Thanks, Sebastian90012; I'll look out for him when I get to that point in my journey through the DVDs. Either these villians-of-the-moment do run together even more than I thought, or I'm getting old, or both.

[dzhim]

Thanks, fwmom. I had thought that our only knowledge of Trepkos was that one phone call Max made from the yacht. I didn't realize we met him a bit earlier. That clears up the villain hierarchy just a bit in my mind, and although it's still terrible, irresponsible writing having all those loose bad guys for no reason, it's not quite as bad as I had thought it was.

Alexander Trepkos... what a great name, and I half hope to see his return just so it won't be squandered. It's not one of those generic TV names like Ted Wilson or John Baker or something.

[Elliot]

Speaking of names, what is behind TPTB's fascination with the name "Kingsley"?

[trippyhop]

I totally remember when people were speculating that there was a connection between Maureen Kingsley and Peter Kingsley. I wonder who the Day Three Kingsley will be.

[Elliot]

Can't imagine, but what would a season of 24 be without a Kingsley? Oddly, the previous Kingsleys couldn't realistically have been more different from each other than they were.

Edited by Elliot, Jan 5, 2004 @ 10:53 PM.

[Elliot]

At this point, I'd have to say that somebody high up the 24 food chain made a conscious decision to emulate S1, at least relative to the deployment of villains from a time perspective. One can point to the Salazars' presence carrying the early episodes much in the way that Gaines did two years ago (does anyone else really miss Gaines as I do?). Then, about ten or eleven episodes into S1, Andre Drazen was introduced. This year, we have Nina and Amador coming at around the same time. I believe at least one of the two, probably both, will have major roles in upcoming hours and take us through the bulk of the second half of the season.

[Gustave]

That's a good point, Elliot, about the distribution of different bad guys throughout the season being a return to the methods of season one. I think you're onto something.

For me, though, the difference between season one and this season is that season one had a central mystery running through it that needed to be solved: why was someone targeting Kiefer and Palmer? First there was Mandy and she turned out to be working for Gaines. Just when they got ahold of Gaines, they realized that Gaines was only fronting for Drazen and then once they knew about Drazen they had to extrapolate that he wanted revenge on Kiefer and Palmer for mowing down Drazen's family. In other words, the villain switcheroo that was going on in season one was like the peeling of an onion. Each villain brought them closer to the essense of the mystery. This season, the villains are switching but it's more episodic. There's no central mystery to all of this, it's just "oh, wow, it's Nina!" And Nina isn't behind the Salazars, she's just the one who got the virus. It's like a game of "Keep Away" as opposed to "Hide and Seek."

Edited by Gustave, Jan 17, 2004 @ 11:44 PM.

[Elliot]

Gustave, your "peeling of an onion" metaphor for S1 is excellent. I do believe that approach forced a sense of focus that hasn't been present since. And that, in turn, leads me to wonder whether the series has been hamstrung by the recurring non-CTU characters in particular...including Nina, fascinating as she is. I could have lived with no Nina this year, the elimination of Sherry after S1, the death of Palmer after S2, etc. It seems to me that the only way this series can flourish long-term (and I believe Kiefer Sutherland recognizes this, based on quotes about his own character) is by continually changing the settings and the players. In a serialized drama such as 24, the story has to carry the day.

The continued strong presence of Nina, Sherry, David, Kim (let's not count her as a CTU character for the sake of argument!), Los Angeles and eventually Jack-as-action-hero ultimately amount to constraints on the fluidity and direction of the series. Granted, people do seem to demand to see the returns of Nina and Sherry (and Mandy, even!), but after a short while, appearances by those characters simply revisit old ground and will spell D-O-O-M for 24. I'm enjoying S3 a great deal, but perhaps the product could have been even better had the writers had the freedom to write a story without baggage. Perhaps next season Jack can be bumped to an administrative position and appear in a supporting role (if he's still alive), or maybe the action can take place elsewhere and forego CTU and the Bauer/Palmer families altogether in favor of another context, with a total of only 1-3 recurring characters. In any case, the show needs to remain fresh and challenging to be successful, and treading on familiar ground seems to me to be exactly the wrong way to go. I think TPTB can get away with it for this season but no longer than that.

Edited by Elliot, Jan 18, 2004 @ 12:58 AM.

[trippyhop]

I agree with Elliot wholeheartedly, but on the other hand, I am a big fan of this cast (or at least the majority of the main players). I never thought I'd say this, but I am all up for a whole new story/whole new 24-verse for next season, but with possibly the same actors in whole new roles. This was voiced earlier, but I'm finally beginning to see that logic. How about seeing Kiefer or Elisha as the villain? PJJ as the heroine? How cool would that be?

[pleonasm]

I never thought I'd say this, but I am all up for a whole new story/whole new 24-verse for next season, but with possibly the same actors in whole new roles.

This wouldn't work for me. It might have after season one, when it was suggested by alot of the online posters. But after 3 seasons, we have an established universe and I doubt the public at large is willing to jump at an opportunity to revisit the '24' verse with actors in new roles.

I think for a season 4 to succeed its need a massive infusion of new acting & writing talent.

Assuming Kiefer's survives the day, I would look at dropping all the regulars but Bauer and perhaps Chase. This doesen't preclude the odd guest appearance from Kim, Palmer, & company, but they need to removed from the main plotlines. It probably should have happened this year. Would the Season 3 storyline been any better or worse if Kim Bauer was in college and called her dad in the the season opener ala Kate Warner?

As well, I would drop the CTU LA setting and developing a more international look and feel to the series. This would include multiple settings and hopefully multiple 'A' plots which would converge at some point.

And new writers... people willing to make better use of the 'real time' format. As Sutherland has noted, the format is the star of the series and it needs to be much better utilized.

Edited by pleonasm, Jan 18, 2004 @ 4:31 PM.

[dzhim]

pleonasm, I agree 100%. While the writers may be telling a story in realtime, they aren't telling a story that would be any weaker if it wasn't told in realtime.

One of the easiest uses of the realtime format is the chase. These are scenes that are presented (more or less) in realtime in the vast majority of movies and TV shows, because it's simply more exciting that way. From time to time 24 has used them quite effectively, including, as someone mentioned upthread, the somewhat unorthodox chase scene in S1 when Jack takes the stairs to race Ted Cofell (in the elevator) to the parking garage.

Even the overall conflict of each season has been a variation of the chase format. It's a race to find the bad guys before something bad happens to Jack's family or to Palmer. It's a race to find the B-O-M-B before it blows up, and then a race to find the Cypress source recordings before the country goes to war. It's a race to find the V-I-R-U-S before it's released into the public, and then a similar race for the V-I-R-U-S on a grander scale.

So I think from a macro standpoint, the show and the format still work. But looking at individual episodes, it sometimes doesn't feel that anyone is really racing towards anything.

One thing that I really like from some other action shows is the "opening gambit." For the two or three minutes before the first commercial break, we're thrust into an exciting scene that somehow leads into the rest of the episode. The last time an episode of 24 has started off with an exciting scene was the season premiere. Usually episodes end on exciting moments, and the next week the show picks up on one of the other storylines. I'd really like to see an episode get off to a running start like that; perhaps literally starting with someone running. Not only would that set the pace for the rest of the episode, but it might help the writers remember that the the whole show is a race against time and that people should actually be racing.

Edited because I, use way, too many, commas,.

Edited by dzhim, Jan 18, 2004 @ 8:05 PM.

[Elliot]

One thing that I really like from some other action shows is the "opening gambit." For the two or three minutes before the first commercial break, we're thrust into an exciting scene that somehow leads into the rest of the episode. The last time an episode of 24 has started off with an exciting scene was the season premiere. Usually episodes end on exciting moments, and the next week the show picks up on one of the other storylines.

The most effective use of this as a tone-setting technique that I can recall on 24 was Mandy's descent at the beginning of S1. I think that given the competing storylines, it'd be hard to do this during the middle of the season, particularly at the points when TPTB don't seem to consider a single storyline dominant (we might, but they don't!). Events like the plane crash and the nuclear blast lend themselves to it...it might have been fun if last season we'd seen nothing but news reports and panic from, say, 11:00-11:05 PM. I'm sure there's a forthcoming mid-season disaster, so maybe we'll see it then.

I'm not sure having the same actors in different roles (would the actors even go for that?) would work on a large scale. I could theoretically see one person, maybe Leslie Hope, making a brief appearance as something like an overseas agent during a crisis planning session, which would allow for a few low-key moments for us watching Jack (assuming he's still alive) trying to concentrate.

[Buffy_Anne]

I'm a latecomer to the game - I didn't start watching until epihour 3 of season 2. I am proud to say I got my roomie cracked out on 24 this season and he bought the season 1 DVD. I was resisting watching it - I thought it was too much effort to do. But I started with one disc on Sunday, and here I am 6 days later, blown away. I don't think I've ever seen such a well-crafted, coherent, mostly cohesive serial show on TV. Now I get what all the fuss was about. I was semi-spoiled (knowing Nina was the mole, that she killed Teri, and the amnesia plotline) but I was shocked and surprised on an hourly basis. Why aren't more people watching this show?

[vangoren]

is it me or is the most recent cisco commercial trying to imitate the feel of 24?

[Elliot]

Why aren't more people watching this show?

I've been asking myself this question for about 24 months. I think the answer lies at least partly in why so many people are watching shows like Jim, which are more comfortable, less demanding, less complicated, and so on.

Also, at least some of the success of Law and Order and CSI lie in their accessibility for the casual, sometime viewer (I believe the X-Files ran into a bit of trouble when it focused more intensely on its conspiracy storyline -- i.e., a serialized approach). 24 asks alot from its viewership, which is particularly satisfying for those of us who are willing to make the investment, but not so good from a ratings maximization standpoint in 2004. People in general seem to prefer their shows wrapped in nice 30- or 60-minute packages, and often bland. 24 suffers for that.

That's the best I can figure, anyway.

[Benji]

Yeah, the only reason I can see for the midway turnoff that has been documented is viewers feeling totally confused and overwhelmed by it all after attempting to give it a shot. The same thing happened to me when I tried to get into The X-Files. I recognized it was good and tried to watch it, but by the second or third commercial break, I'd find something else I understood.

[gallimaufry]

I'm not sure if there were any moments when Jack and Tony were together. It seemed like they were always in company where it would be difficult to risk being exposed. I'm just curious as to whether the actors knew.

The more I think about it, the more I think they must have. One, because it's Kiefer and I suspect that something like this would have his say-so. But also if they were filming episodes 1-2, I assume they'd be prepping episodes 3-4, so they'd be writing episodes 5-6 and breaking episodes 7-8. The writers must have known while the episode was being filmed, I'd think. And I can't see them not communicating with Kiefer on the scripts. If Sarah Clarke demanded to know her arc...

[Benji]

Don't get me wrong, I like surprises and twists but that was simply cheating (by camera) - much worse than the decision to make Nina the bad girl in season one because that seemed to have been a late addition to the story - and not planed out from the start.

No way, IMHO. The Nina twist opened huge doors for the series and brought brilliant moments, but that was an outright cheat that was not even considered for the first 2/3 of season 1. I'm absolutely positive that Jack going undercover was planned from the first episode of season 3. TPTB had promised a while back that there would never again be a CTU mole, for instance, so the Gael switcheroo makes total sense. There's other things like Jack's knowledge that someone from CTU would coordinate the plane in episode 6 that make no sense without the twist. Nina's twist clarified nothing that came before and really didn't fit much with anything. Also, Tony and Jack were never alone in a scene together ever period this season. Ditto for Tony/Gael and Jack/Gael.