Posted on 01/22/2007 1:30:58 PM PST by presidio9
When the ABCNews.com column assignment arrived mid-morning --"Is the TV show "24" going too far by depicting a nuclear attack in Los Angeles in its opening episode?"-- the drama went out of tonight's two-hour program. Or so I thought. As zero hour approached, I found myself assuming that the program really wouldn't actually depict a nuclear detonation near Los Angeles. I noted as the show unfolded that the script had the doomsday scenario putting the casualties of such an event at somewhere north of a hundred thousand, a remarkably low estimate, and that no mention was made of the catastrophic impact of radiation sickness or the second level but still devastating impact to surrounding infrastructure, the immediate refugee problem, or the collapse of the national economy. Given that the consequences of such a blast, I found myself doubting that the program would risk absurdity by depicting a post-nuclear attack America far more simple than anyone has a right to conceive.
But blow the nuke, the writers did, and apparently there are four more where that came from. How Jack and gang deals with the aftermath remains to be seen --martial law at least from Bakersfield to San Diego, and from the Pacific to Vegas, perhaps, and a Dow 1200? -- But the question put to me remains: Did the program "go too far?"
Given that there are easily, oh, 10 million people in the world who would stand up and cheer at the real version of Monday night's fictionalized attack, and at least a few tens of thousands trying hard to do a deed of at least proportionate scale given the weaponry available, it is silly to argue that "it" couldn't possibly happen. Of course it could happen. Eventually another nuke will go off, and it is not likely to be the obvious action of a state actor. So what is the "too far" in the question supposed to mean? It can only be that "24" is engaged in fear-mongering, and that is as stupid a charge as can be made.
Would the BBC have been going "too far" if in 1937 it had broadcast a radio drama depicting life in a Hitler-authorized death camp where hundreds of thousands of Jews were being executed in gas chambers, one of a string of such camps springing up across Europe?
Would a Paris newspaper have been going "too far" if it had run a short story in 1913 supposing trench warfare that would claim millions of casualties?
Had PBS run a drama proposing a Communist massacre of millions of Cambodians in 1973 or a Rawandan genocide of more than a half million Tutsis twenty years later, would those prophecies have been going "too far?"
The problem of the last century was a failure in the imagining of evil, a failure which was in some ways evil's accomplice. "It can't happen" often masked the very unfolding of the too-awful-to-occur event.
So now a few people are shuddering that "24" has gone and done it: Blown up Los Angeles and left the most productive part of the national economy crippled and hundreds of thousands dead. An event much more likely to occur in our lifetime than any catastrophe unleashed by global warming has been put on the table (and the LCD) and suddenly tongues are wagging about responsibility.
"Israel must be wiped off the map," Iranian President Ahmadinejad has declared, and he's been repeating the same basic message for a couple of years. No "too far" language regarding him from the critics of "24" I'll wager.
It isn't "only a television show," and appeals to the First Amendment are beside the point. The key question is whether the drama is a bit of absurd science fiction, or the projection of a not-so-distant future, not in its particulars, but in its awful core depiction.
Americans don't like to think of such an attack upon America. But prior to 9/11, they didn't like to think of airplanes crashing into skyscrapers and thousands dead in a moment and the government within hours of being decapitated.
Give the producers another fistful of Emmys and settle in to see how Jack handles post-nuclear America. "OK, I think we can agree that this is a big step up from the canister plot," Dave Barry wrote on his blog in real time after the blinding flash, a reference to the rather labored plot from last year, and an indication that even the veteran humorist who has been dining out on "24" for the past few years to the delight of a huge audience was taken aback. A shock to many, an upsetting nightmare for others.
A depiction of a happy ending for our enemies.
NOT UNLESS they proposed several large citys in America ALREADY containing suitcase nukes.. and "some" foreign "entity" blackmailing a spinless Congress into capitulation..
(as no doubt might ALREADY have happened)..
The American people ALREADY don't WANT to know the TRUTH...
Thats why they elect democrats and republicans..
Did the movie The Day After go too far?
Would a Paris newspaper have been going "too far" if it had run a short story in 1913 supposing trench warfare that would claim millions of casualties?
Had PBS run a drama proposing a Communist massacre of millions of Cambodians in 1973 or a Rwandan genocide of more than a half million Tutsis twenty years later, would those prophecies have been going "too far?"
The problem of the last century was a failure in the imagining of evil, a failure which was in some ways evil's accomplice. "It can't happen" often masked the very unfolding of the too-awful-to-occur event.
Maybe, but "too far" is a subjective call. If such scenarios had been broadcast people probably would have said that they did go too far. That's the nature of unbelievable evil. It goes beyond what people could have imagined beforehand.
I don't think the show did go too far, because it's been playing with something like this happening this time Jack Bauer didn't stop what's been about to happen time and time again in the previous seasons.
But what about other questions in the same philosophic spirit? Do the global climate change movies An Inconvenient Truth or The Day After Tomorrow "go too far?" What about nuclear war dramas like The War Game or War Games or The Day After? Or movies like Red Dawn?
FWIW, nobody said this was going too far at the time, but in retrospect ...
This guys is a moron. 24 didn't go far enough.
Go Jack Bauer. Hopefully this new season will show (and has so far) what a Democratic government will do to hurt this country.
Oh, and also, this idiot needs to watch "Jericho", if he thinks 24 is going too far.
That was a 'film' produced by libs, they were just getting revved up. Notice how they ignore Lenord Nemoy's global cooling predictions of the 80's?
Suitcase nukes were designed to take out key bridges, and infrastucture to slow down an invasion, not take out a city.
The writer obviously has no clue what he was talking about.
>>The writer went too far. LA the "most productive part of our economy"? Don't make me laugh
Just think of the reality, nothing in Bakersfield County, L.A. County, Orange County, or Ventura County would work because of the EMP surge. All those multimillion dollar cars rendered useless. All the planes falling from the sky, all those millions of registered voters, illegal aliens, Al-Qaeda terrorists, etc killed by the pressure wave as it ripped through Southern CA.
No, 24 did not over do it. Not even close.
So the Chinese MRE's were just a big hint?
It really showed the libs for what lilly livers they really are. President Obama gave them the person who could activate the bomb w/o any negotiations whatsoever. He and the lib dad came across as baffoons which is what they are really mad about.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Did anyone ask the Islamic terrorists, who planned and hit the World Trade Center, if they went to far?
The nuclear attack, when it happens, will happen on Manhattan Island, for many reasons.
The 'other way' is far more entertaining... but it's ultimately sleep depriving.
Compressing 1 Hr into 40 minutes is just too much fun.
The only thing that saved me was the fact that Blockbuster limits you to three DVDs at a time. However a 12 episode marathon starting at about 10pm is a bit brutal, but it's not like your going to sleep well afterwards either.
One at a time is a much healthier option.
Makes sense, why take out your allies, ie, LA, Hollywood, left coast.
I watched the first season in one weekend on a bet.
I realize this is an exercise in altered reality (just fiction) but the plutonium also effects the molecular construction of the explosives surrounding the "grapefruit". If the resulting explosion is asymmetrical, you get a room in a building with plutonium pollution in it but nothing like a nuclear explosion. The only thing in a 40 year old suitcase bomb that would be useful is the plutonium and even it might need to be re-machined.
My point is why create hysteria in the folks over something with less probability than a cure for cancer when you have an opportunity to show them the real threat?
Clancy is on record saying that his book was basically ignored and prevented a logical continuation of the series. Of course, so did Clear and Present Danger. It should be noted that Clancy was not featured on the poster for the movie.
If I recall correctly he sold the rights to his movies as a bundle ... several at one time. I don't know which is the last of the movies previously sold, but I think he will have more editorial input into them in the future. I heard that he was not happy with the last 2 films.
This also gives me a chance to recall that Fred Thompson played the ADM in Hunt for Red October. I am taking every chance I can get to mention Fred Thompson. Did I mention Fred Thompson should come back out of political retirement and run for prez in '08. I'm hoping he is just waiting for the other jokers to make the buffoons of themselves that I expect they will - and he can step in somewhat late and restore order from the coming chaos.
Fred Thompson. (Sorry, had to get one more out...)
No. Next insipid question from the dhimmis...
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.