24

[Danneskjold]

Well, Jack still didn't kill anybody, but he did torture his brother again which was fun. Also, there was a large reduction in the number of stupid sideplots, or at least the degree to which they presented themselves. Overall I would say that last episode was a success, especially when Jack was about to kill his brother and held a gun to his partner's head. Graem (Graham) was scared. Jack's dad is actually turning out to be a pretty decent villain. Morris got captured, no worries though, I'm sure he'll thwart the terrorists' plots with his never ending sarcasm.

[Judith]

Oh ya! My favorite Jack Bauer moment. First episode, second season. He needs to find a terrorist and he needs to do it through an organization that he used to work undercover in. So, in order to regain their trust he needs to show that he is loyal. To do this, he starts by interrogating the man who is a witness that will put the leader of the organization away. The man is a rapist/pedophile/murderer. As Jack interrogates him, you find out that he's going to walk free of charge. After hearing this, Jack kicks the man over, shoots him in the head, then yells at the leader of CTU (Counter Terrorist Unit) "I NEED A HACKSAW". Later as a present to show his loyalty to the leader of the organization, Jack gives a man a suitcase with the guy's head in it.

Well, I just got done with Season 2.

Okay, Jeff, I can see why you would consider that a favorite! I couldn't help laughing at that one. How did you like seeing Lake O featured in the opening and closing hours of Season 2?

One thing shocked and horrified me -- Jack shot a dog! Yeah, I know it attacked him, but that breaks the rules of entertainment. Dogs and kids don't get killed by violent death. He didn't even feel bad about it; just acted as if he'd shot off a door hinge or something. The dog wasn't a bad guy -- he just thought he was defending his misguided master. His death was a tragedy. :cry:

There were some aspects of the season that bordered on utilitarianism/collectivism/"selflessness"/"good of the many outweighs the good of the few/one" enough to bother me.

The most obvious was, of course, President Palmer's willingness to pardon in advance Nina Myer's murder of Jack in return for info about the nuke. No decent person would accept that deal. (It seemed pretty clear to me that the President wasn't in on Jack's little "understanding" with the commandos.)

The second was Jack's resolute insistence on taking the plane with the nuke even when Mason was obviously eager and willing to do it while both of them were still on the ground. It made for some moving moments, but they'd have been a lot more moving had there been no one else to do it and Mason only been present on the plane as a last-minute surprise.

The third was a cut-scene, one that the directors admitted was too harsh even for Jack, so I guess it "didn't really happen". Still, it left a bad taste in my mouth. Apparently, when Jack et al. went to the Warner house and Jack discovered that Kate was a hostage inside, originally he was going to inform the team that "the hostage is expendable; only the man is important, and we need him alive". Not at all heroic or individualist. Bleagh. I'm glad they decided to cut it.

Those minor nits picked, I'd say it was a delightful and compelling season, except that for the last two years in a row I really couldn't care less what happened to Jack's daughter and I hope she does graduate study abroad uneventfully for awhile now.

Surprising bit of information: the actor who plays President David Palmer says that he draws the character -- one he believes to have deep character and integrity -- from those aspects in himself, and from three statesmen whom he most admires. I'd say he succeeds beautifully; the Palmer character is one of the most admirable I've ever encountered on film. I was, however, shocked to find out who his three heroes are: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Colin Powell. Wow. I can't imagine a character more UNLIKE Carter and Clinton than David Palmer, and I can't say Colin Powell resembles him very much either. Too bad for the real-life characters that they didn't live up to the film character.

Judith

[Danneskjold]

Jack finally shot somebody.

Edited February 14, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Danneskjold]

That wasn't his friend.

[Judith]

I finally got around to watching Year Three of 24 over the weekend.

Well, well, well. Even David Palmer and Jack Bauer lose their integrity in this season.

Unbelievable. Who in hell wrote this season? The absolute worst of it was the senseless, cold-blooded murder (no other words for it) of Ryan Chappelle. Palmer was "unwilling to negotiate with terrorists" at the beginning of the season by releasing a prisoner from jail, but he was willing to murder a federal agent at the behest of a terrorist? Bauer was willing to do it with his own hands without batting an eyelash? No one really questioned it? Chappelle himself didn't even resist? Are these people all crazy? WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!!!! I don't care if the future of the entire planet was at stake; that action was completely, totally unacceptable.

And then, the pure-as-the-driven-snow Palmer starts being willing to bribe people, play dirty politics, etc. Not consistent with the former character. Bauer was downright boring for the rest of the season. To understand the ending, one had to watch the cut scenes. Too many recycled plot tactics. The only truly interesting character was Chase Edmunds. And, of course, Chase's baby, who had that great "Yeah? What are YOU looking at?" face. As someone else said here, worth watching for continuity purposes, but otherwise a waste of time.

Judith

[jordanz]

This _used_ to be my favorite show. This season has be atrocious, though. Bauer isn't even on the screen very much anymore. The writers have run out of ideas, apparently, and now just recycle stuff they've done before.

[Bidinotto]

Well, Seasons 4 and 5 were superb. And this season, which started to sound "P.C.," suddenly turned around TONIGHT.

The 4/9/07 episode was gangbusters, one of the best ever: numerous twists and surprises, Jack acting as if he was channeling Indiana Jones on steroids, non-stop action, and a thorough repudiation of any liberal nonsense that the characters had previously mouthed.

Wherever you thought Season 6 was headed, this one turned it all around.

Jack is BACK.

[John Dailey]

Judith:

~ I also had a prob (and, throughout the series to S-5, the ONLY one I had!) with 'that' scene re JB's (er, Bauer, not Bond) decision to execute his supervisor. I'd say however, that THAT is what makes this series worthwhile. YOU would absolutely NOT do it, regardless who (say a 'significant other' e-v-e-n, never mind any anonymous 'masses' of innocents) was being saved via such extortion; in this case, I'd Think Twice about castigating other conscience-ridden types (fictional or non-) who've decided to try to 'live with doing it.'

~ Clearly, the writers are trying to raise thought-provoking questions about 'moral ambiguity' at times (and, this is certainly one) even in crisis-situations. They tried this in THE SHIELD's 1st episode re it's ending and the actor, on some talk-show used that very phrase about what his show was stressing (but, for me, that ending left NO 'ambiguity'; he killed an inspector for a purely CYA reason.) I'd say 24's doing a good job of touching on this: "How far is TOO far? How can you tell BEFORE you get there?"

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Judith (addendum):

~ Really, I don't think it's such an easy 'no-brainer' set of alternatives to decide about...unless one sees 'the masses' as no more than such (in which case, why should merely *1* be considered more worthwhile?). Think about that last clause...and my parenthized question. --- I really don't know what *I*d do, especially if my daughter was involved.

~ Couldn't keep up with S-6 on TV, so, still awaiting it on DVD. Thanx for the info, Bob, re the turnaround of the apparent PC.

LLAP

J:D

Edited May 18, 2007 by John Dailey

[Judith]

~ Really, I don't think it's such an easy 'no-brainer' set of alternatives to decide about...unless one sees 'the masses' as no more than such (in which case, why should merely *1* be considered more worthwhile?). Think about that last clause...and my parenthized question. --- I really don't know what *I*d do, especially if my daughter was involved.

Someone -- was it Rand quoting Dostoyevsky? -- posed the question: What if you and everyone else in the history of the entire world could be sublimely happy forever, but the cost was knowing that somewhere, one small boy was being hideously tortured forever as the cost? Is that right? Would you accept?

Would you torture the boy?

If you were the boy, would you consider it immoral to refuse to be tortured?

I think you know how Rand would answer, and my answer is the same.

Judith

[Brant Gaede]

~ Really, I don't think it's such an easy 'no-brainer' set of alternatives to decide about...unless one sees 'the masses' as no more than such (in which case, why should merely *1* be considered more worthwhile?). Think about that last clause...and my parenthized question. --- I really don't know what *I*d do, especially if my daughter was involved.

Someone -- was it Rand quoting Dostoyevsky? -- posed the question: What if you and everyone else in the history of the entire world could be sublimely happy forever, but the cost was knowing that somewhere, one small boy was being hideously tortured forever as the cost? Is that right? Would you accept?

Would you torture the boy?

If you were the boy, would you consider it immoral to refuse to be tortured?

I think you know how Rand would answer, and my answer is the same.

Judith

I doubt if Rand would accept the questions' premises--any of them.

--Brant

[John Dailey]

Judith:

~ As much as I admire, nay, near revere (uh, not as a 'saint', MSK; let's not get into that) Rand, indeed, as much as I defend her views (including re female CiC's, which I suspect you'd disagree with, Judith) apart from what's considered implications of her philosophy, I have to stress that in any personal-crisis situation I'd not be asking myself "What 'would' Roark, Galt, Bond, or even Rand, Jefferson or Truman do, in trying to answer the question "What should *I* do?"

--- You apparently know what you'd do in such a 'lifeboat' situation, regardless any significant others. I admit I don't. Let's leave it at that...but for remembering what Rand also said about 'lifeboat' situations.

LLAP

J:D

Edited May 21, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Addendum:

~ One can choose to not accept a question's premises, academically... until an extortionist gives one a 'forced choice.' They do do that, you know.

LLAP

J:D

Edited May 21, 2007 by John Dailey

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

You just esentially described thje story of Jesus Christ.

Rand is on record saying that certain situations fall outside of morality. Whatever is done under those circumstances cannot be judged morally.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Judith,

Interestingly, there is a science fiction story, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas (or something like that) by Ursula LeGuin that is built around the very question you pose. I agree with you, there's no moral dilemma here. It is immoral to torture the boy and it is moral for the boy to refuse to be tortured.

Edit-

I don't want to give the impression from the above post that I am against torture for terrorists. The bad guys should be leaned on to get information. However, in all those cases a legal retroactive review should be conducted to prevent systematic abuse.

Jim

Edited May 21, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Judith]

Interestingly, there is a science fiction story, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas (or something like that) by Ursula LeGuin that is built around the very question you pose. I agree with you, there's no moral dilemma here. It is immoral to torture the boy and it is moral for the boy to refuse to be tortured.

Edit-

I don't want to give the impression from the above post that I am against torture for terrorists. The bad guys should be leaned on to get information. However, in all those cases a legal retroactive review should be conducted to prevent systematic abuse.

Thanks to Robert Bidinotto's website, which linked to an Atlantic Monthly article, I FINALLY have an answer to my long-standing question of why people still use torture instead of simply injecting people full of drugs. Apparently drugs don't work. Thanks, Robert!

That being the case, I'm with you, Jim, about its use, although I'm not too enthusiastic about excessive reviews tying the hands of our guys in the field. We see our soldiers afraid to defend themselves in Iraq and dying because of it. Admittedly this case is different, and not a situation where instantaneous judgement is required, but I'd think that a set of guidelines and cross-checks could ensure a decent system. Sadism doesn't get results, according to the article.

Judith

[John Dailey]

~ Well, I guess that article settles why Jack rarely used drugs as 'truth-serums.'

~ I hope we can also agree that Torturer-Jack's not a sadist. Even if he is, he's one of the most polite ones that ever existed...even in fiction; ever notice how often he says, obviously sincerely, "Thank you"?

~ Jack's THE MAN! (Even if he does decide something in a way I might not; at least he commits to a decision and acts on it, unilaterally, and never passes-the-buck for a CYA purpose.)

LLAP

J:D

[galtgulch]

"24" is enjoyable if you like plot twists and turns every five minutes. I know there are those who would prefer to wait to get the DVD so they can watch several episodes at once.

I like the occasional heroics of Jack Bauer especially when he defies those in authority.

I knew all would end well and that even the last episode would end in an anticlimax as it did.

I wish there were DVDs of The Practice which I could watch over and over with enough time in between to forget what happened.

Looking forward to early dementia.

galt