Posted on 01/11/2007 10:03:27 AM PST by OXENinFLA
I a little upset with Rush. Of course, he saw the 1st 8 episodes. And he technically didn't TELL us what would actually happen.
But when you already know what is going to happen, and you tell everybody that "they won't believe" stuff, or "wait for the last 10 minutes, it will shock you", that's really spoiling things for everybody.
When Jack was holding the gun on Curtis,we all KNEW Curtis was going to be killed. Why? Because we were all told by Rush, and also by several people on this thread who do read spoilers, that we should be prepared for something really bad that would upset us.
That kind of takes away the shock of the moment. I'm betting the 24 people are a little sorry they let Rush have the stuff ahead of time, they work hard to really shock us but how can they shock us if people are going to spoil it by telling us we'll be shocked?
Another thing that people don't realise are spoilers -- if you already KNOW what is going to happen, you shouldn't tell people they are wrong if they guess what's going to happen next and they are wrong. We could argue over whether people should guess or not, but if someone guesses something, probably others are also thinking it, and the show probably was set up to make us think it. So then we are surprised later.
But if a person who we all know KNOWS exactly what is going to happen tells us the guess is wrong, then we know that's not going to happen. Knowing that something the show was alluding to is NOT going to happen is as much of a spoiler as knowing what IS going to happen.
Like I said, this is just stuff a lot of people don't think of when they think "spoilers", it's not a criticism of anybody, just a friendly reminder. I'm sure everybody watching this, especially those who have been intimitely involved, will understand that we all just want to make this as enjoyable for everybody as possible, and will take this to heart, and not take it as an attack and react harshly.
You all have seen a lot of "NO SPOILER" banners posted by many of the regulars here -- again, they aren't yelling at people (at least not those who are first-time offenders), they are all just trying to make sure everybody remembers, no spoilers please.
I think it's been great so far except of course for Drudge which caused a couple people to actually say "Nuke", and for those people who, thinking they were simply being kind to us and "preparing us for the worst", actually spoiled the end of the show -- if the producers were worried about their audience being too shocked, the producers would have let us know ahead of time (like Rowling did in the HP runnup), but they didn't because they WANTED us to expect the bomb would be stopped, so we'd be shocked when it wasn't -- but we couldn't be shocked because we were told by Rush and others that we WOULD be shocked.
I will say this though -- for those who didn't remember Rush saying "4 things", I think AFTER Curtis got killed some people figured THAT was the "shocking thing" and weren't ready for the Nuke.
GREAT captures.
Sutherland just gets better and better, doesn't he?
OK, great show. I now realise my earlier question about why Curtis was so quick to give up Jack has been answered.
Curtis hated Assad so much that he was willing to sacrifice his best friend's life in order to get to kill Assad. Remember, Curtis had his gun out at the beginning of the show, in case he had to force Jack to do what they needed him to do to get Assad.
In that sense, Curtis gave into the "one man" deception that the democrats are stuck in with Bin Laden, the idea that there is this one person who, if we just killed them, would make everything better. For democrats, it's Bin Laden, for Curtis it was Assad, but the facts are that there are whole organizations of terrorists, and killing one man isn't going to help.
I don't understand why the strike force going in to get the nuke didn't throw a flash-bang into the place before entering? Maybe because the firefight was already going.
I didn't understand at all why the President "formalized" the arrangement with Assad and had to do a pardon. Assad was already WORKING WITH US, without any pardon, for his own selfish reason of wanting to bring his organization into the political process. It seemed that the only purpose for "formalizing" a deal was to get Curtis mad enough to go off the deep end.
BTW, the "Curtis" killing is actually a relatively common plot line, although I don't remember it being used on 24 before. Usually it's combined with the escape of the real bad guy. 2 good guys capture bad guy, but one good guy wants to kill bad guy, and while other good guy fights to keep good guy from "ruining his life" by killing bad guy, good guy is killed and bad guy escapes. Later bad guy is killed by the other good guy, but in a way that is completely righteous and also satisfying.
yeah me too
who's gonna say "all teams move in...all teams...move in" now?
Another common plot twist, when they don't want to kill a good guy, is that two good guys capture bad guy, one good guy wants to kill bad guy, other good guy talks him out of it, they turn around to walk away, bad guy gets gun, is ready to shoot good guy, and the OTHER good guy pops him dead.
Lethal Weapon used that at least once, maybe twice. Well, the 2nd time the second good guy simply assassinates the guy, but it was the most satisfying act of deliberate criminal activity I can remember in a movie.
I wonder if that is why so many good law-and-order people are so bent on pardoning the border control guys that shot an unarmed man in the back.
My Dad was stationed at Sandia Base in NM-we used to see those kinds of films, and on some weekends, we'd have to practice evacuating out to the desert with food in big metal chests..
Oh, and my least favorite, "It's safe to drink water out of the toilet tank as it will not have nuclear fallout in it." Anything to do with drinking out of a toilet sounded like the worst possible consequence of a nuclear attack to me.
I agree on the President's acting ability. I missed the part how he got that job anyway. How did he get elected... other than being Palmer 1's brother?
Also, I hate the Sandra Palmer story.........she is soooooooooo annoying!!!
Some of the actors they have this year are mediocre to say the least. The two bumbling guys fighting over Chloe in the midst of all the chaos just doesn't make sense to me.
I guess Rick Shroeder is showing up eventually.
Exactly right. I thought last night's show was EXCELLENT, although since someone had warned that something terrible, a tear-jerking event, would happen in the last few minutes, I was bracing myself. Hate to see the regulars get killed off...
Is Audrey still alive?
24 thinking outside the box, showing possible scenarios of the future.
It was actually a shocking sight to see all those terrorists being released from prison.
I think the writers have tried so hard to make the show ~not~ about overt party politics (the very fact people have to dig and guess about party affiliation on this thread should prove that) that we should respect them for that and not dig and obsess on party. This show is about wanting ~America~ to be successful, no matter who the party in power is, not some cheap 'gotcha' statement about party politics. We want this president to make the right decisions, not so his party wins, but so America wins. And that is how it should be.
I think they do a good job of giving some focus on the type of political issues and debates that are pertinent, and letting the chips fall where they may based on those decisions. The politics may be 'tinny' as was stated earlier, but any more depth would only piss people off and sidetrack all the knee jerk reactionaries. The politics they do include have been only enough to get the plot needs to be, no more, no less.
Some of these images are too dark on my computer. Is there a way to adjust brightness??
Chloe and Rick would make an interesting couple. Then she could dump that guy.
And we were not in a handbasket before?
It's always Hell in a handbasket on 24, that's why we need Jack ;~)
When I read the letters to the editor of my local paper, I've been coming to the conclusion that you can't reason with libs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.