Talk:24 (TV series)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Merging

I know all this merging seems stupid. But these are fictional characters on a stupid TV show no-one's heard of and they're really unimportant. There's no information except plot summaries. So please consider merging the characters, even Jack Bauer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.253.178 (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Real time, or not real time. That...is the question

User:Alex.rosenheim has insisted on noting that the show is aired in "nearly" real time. His reasons for this is due to the fact that each "hour" of 24 time takes place withing 55 actual minutes, to allow for closing commercials and preview of the next episode. I can understand where he is coming from, but the fact is, the show is advertised as, and I quote "Events occur in real time." He has already reverted two editors, myself and Asyndeton. Considering he is close to breaking WP:3RR, and the differing opinions, I am bringing it to the talk page. For now, I shall revert it to saying it occurs in real time. I would appreciate Alex not putting back in his edits until an agreement or a compromise can be resolved. Anakinjmt (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What Alex doesn't realise is that events are happening during those closing commercials, and the preview for the next (also the recap at the beginning of the ep). We just don't see them. Just the same as we don't see the events during the commercial breaks during the show. Events of the show do occur in real time. Alex's assertions don't invalidate that. The only thing he can contest on is that each episode truly represents 1 hour of real time.Mmm commentaries (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The show each week ends with a dramatic countdown showing the last seconds of the hour depicted. The last image that the viewer sees (prior to the ending commercials and ending credits) is the fictional showtime clock fully completing the hour. In other words, if the events of the fictional show took place between, say 10 AM and 11 AM, the last image the viewer would see would be 11:00 AM. Now, say the broadcast of the show began at 9 PM exactly. The first image on the screen would be "10:00AM". The image on the screen showing "11:00 AM" would take place at 9:55 PM. This means that there is no unshown story during this time. There are at least five minutes of "fictional time" missing from every hour of real time. And, yes, the "fictional events" during the commercials seem to appear to correspond to the passage of "real time", so I have accounted for that. And just because the TV tells you that the events are in real time, does not negate our actual observations of the passage of time. The truth is the truth and this article is simply wrong by ignoring the truth.

And as for the 3 revision rule...that applies to 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. Each revert...so far has been on a separate day (or pretty close to that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.rosenheim (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, in reruns, it's done in real time. A&E recently aired season 5, and when it was 10:59 AM in the show, it was 2:59 PM on the East Coast (it aired at like 2:00 PM). And, I remember the season 3 premiere was really real time. It started like a minute or two early for that stupid Ford promo thing and then after the show, it finished the promo. It's only been within the last 2 seasons that it's really cheated things, and to me, that's 4 seasons over 2 that have aired in real time. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me also, once again, ask Alex to refrain from re-inserting his edits until consensus has been reached. The fact that 3 different editors, myself included, disagree with you should be taken into account. I appreciate you being bold, but this issue must be resolved before re-inserting edits. So, Alex, if you could please wait until a consensus has been established, that would be great. Thank you. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeated interviews and articles have noted the real time nature of the show. That some amount of technical production details impede a pure second to second correlation is irrelevant. The show is intended to be seen as 'real time', is written that way, produced that way, advertised and referenced as such by critics. It's done in real time. For you to make mathematical comparisons with the aid of a stopwatch is OR, and it's bizarre math-lawyering. We know the intent of the show, so unless you can provide real, credible sources who genuinely contend that the show isn't a real-time oriented thing, stop. Critics have mocked things like jack's 24 hour bladder, but that's a fault of the writing, not a proof of it's 'nearly'ness. Finally, 'nearly' is a weasel word in this situation, and should be avoided unless it can be quoted from the afore-mentioned sources. ThuranX (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think this was necessary, but how do you all define "real-time"? My definition is that every moment on the show corresponds exactly with every moment during the broadcast. If my real clock in my real family room shows that 12 minutes have passed, then the fake clock being broadcast should also show that 12 minutes have passed. This does not occur on 24. It is very close. But it is NOT a minute for minute, second for second match. It is NOT real-time. It is, in fact, nearly real-time. I will admit that "nearly" is subjective. If I was truly being objective, I would have used the completely accurate term "NOT in real-time". It is NOT IN REAL TIME. TV is not real. Movies are not real. I didn't use a stop-watch to track the show. I just looked at a clock. Have none of you looked at a clock? Why is a statement made in a voice-over by a fictional character with supporting back-up from the promotional material describing a fictional show more "proof" than actually observing the world around you?

Just because it is close to being right, does not make an article right. Shouldn't this website contain accurate information. No one has disputed that one hour of story is presented in 55 minutes of real time. The only support is that a few websites use the phrase "real-time" without providing a definition of "real-time". These are simple words and simple concepts. No advanced math or calculations are required. The show itself is the source!!! It is documented every time the show is broadcast. If that is not enough....I give up!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.rosenheim (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the definition of real time? Click on that link to find out. I'm not denying that the show isn't quite real time. It's very, very close. But it is original research for you to make that observation, go "Oh, 24 is not in real time" and then put that in. If there is a cite stating that the show is not real time, then you have something solid to fall back on, but at the moment, you are trying to state in the article that the show is not in real time based on your observations, which clearly falls under WP:OR. And you cannot expect the clock on the show to line up by the second to the clock on your wall. For one thing, the clocks are most likely set at different times; within a minute or two of each other, sure, but not exactly. Also, what if your clock is running fast, or running slow? Those are all things to take into account, and again, is why you cannot use that argument. The show itself is a source, because they state "Events occur in real time." You need a verifiable source stating that the show is not really in real time. And, unless others support you in this, it looks like this will be a case of WP:SNOWBALL. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a section from the moment the show comes back from adverts to the moment the show goes back to adverts, the difference in the times indicated at those moments is the length of that section. Problems start to come about when you try to take into account adverts and how it's been shown in different areas, which the makers of the show can't possibly adjust for. So I think the article should stick with the general explanation of the real time aspect, with a tag that obviously reruns and broadcasts in international markets don't necessarily stick to this. --Hardy24 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont mean to be a spoilsport, but does it really matter if it is an exact match? The show is known as "real time". great. so there you go, events occur in real time. who really cares if its 5 minutes out, just shut up and enjoy the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark wounds (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

objective proof that it is not real time

I'm going to put it quite specifically that the series started in real time and at some point, especially in season notable in season five, that it isn't in real time. For example, in the episode where Jack encounters Peter Weller's character, Christopher Henderson, for the first time Jack gets knocked out and then within seconds the frame the viewer sees is changed, Jack's position in the scene has changed and Christopher Henderson is popping a smelling salt tablet under Jack's nose, which is something that he could not have been able to do if the series was being shown in real time. If it was in real time we would be seeing Henderson move Jack's body, locate the tablet, pull it out, position it under Jack's face, and then pop it. We only saw Henderson knock out Jack and then see Henderson revive Jack. We saw nothing in between and there was no commercial breaks. These are objective facts. The episodes are not guaranteed or purposed to run in real-time.

I'll also point out that there have been episodes, I cannot recall which or what season, where they end an episode at the end of an hour and the characters are at one setting in Los Angeles and at the beginning of the next episode the characters have arrived at CTU hq. That the time stamps for arrival at hq and the setting that is far from hq are nearly identical despite the geographical disparity proves that the season is not guaranteed or purposed to run in real-time. Someone make the changes accordingly. I would but I lack the specific citations at hand and any changes I make will be reverted by some revert-happy fool. I'm a fan of the show; I know that it is not set to run in real-time. --Blue Spider (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the points you raised are just continuity errors which every TV show has. The basic premise of the show IS that it runs in real-time - that an hour-long episode depicts the events that happen over the course of one hour in the show's world, in chronological order. You might like to add the mistakes you've found to the IMDB which I think has an area for that sort of thing. I think it would only cause unnecessary confusion if it was added to this Wikipedia article. --ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What you're discussing isn't supported by citations for the changesyoyu want to make. The show absolutely IS 'purported' to be in real time. We've had this discussion before, esp. regarding the commercial breaks and the compensations the production company makes to account for them, but the intent is to show real-time style storytelling as effectively as television allows. The consensus of editors here is for the article to reflect that, and I'm pretty sure we've got citations for it. Your examples to the contrary are

your own Original Research, not cited facts, and even if you did find citations, the only articles I've seen on it are 'gotcha' type bloggings, fan writings, and grudges. You'd have to really search for a reliable source on the matter. ThuranX (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsuspecting women in a relationship with one of the antagonists recurring plot device?

It seems to be a pattern, though I'm not sure about season 2-4 (haven't seen them yet) In season 1, Elizabeth Nash broke the plan in a nervous breakdown or so, and in season 6 Lisa Miller could not hold back her feeling against the Russian spy - both times the plan failed, with an attack from the lady to the bad guy. Can this be included in the recurring plot devices? Not sure if it applies to other seasons, but just wanted to put it out there from the three seasons I've seen so far.
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Season 7

NPR was interviewing regarding the writer's strike yesterday, and they said that 24 season 7 will not air until 2009, that the filming will resume and the season be finished to preserve the actor's contracts, but that the season won't air till 2009. If someone can find a good online source, that would rock. ThuranX (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already seen official trailers, seems an odd one to hold off for upwards of nine months. Would need a source, and I'd be interested in reading it.Londo06 16:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to source [1] now added. Sad we'll have to wait another 12 months... The Seventh Taylor (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hyoscine-pentothal

• Hyoscine-pentothal seems to be as noteworthy as many other fictional drugs which have Wikipedia pages. In particular, the difference from real pentothal and hyoscine needs to be pointed out, so people do not get into error. Anthony Appleyard 19:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Pre season 4?

If it appeared in season 4, then what was the drug in season 3 when Tony had Richards inject some type of drug into her neck, and she tries to commit suicide on the needle by puncturing her artery. If I remember correctly, Tony asks how much more she wants to take, she says this is about it, so I infer, what she is taking is refering to pain. It appeared to have a similiar effect to Behrooz as Nina, which says that it is hyoscine-pentothal.--Lan Di (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Chuck

Was this drug used in the TV series Chuck? Albmont (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Include this section or not?

• This fictional drug is an important feature of the series, and needs more mention than one short sentence tucked into other matter. And to avoid confusion and misinformation the difference from real hyoscine and pentothal needs to be clearly explained. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but it doesn't exactly warrant 3-4 paragraphs. It really played a minor role in the series. And the fact it mentions it is "fictional" drug, shows it's different to the real two drugs. By my count, it was used on Sarah Gavin, Audrey Raines, Henderson, and Graem Bauer. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, our aim is to present 24 articles from a real world perspective, and to evaluate certain plot elements, and figure out how notable they are. Hyoscine penothal played, a relatively minor role in the series, and fits best into the Torture plot element. A full, 4 paragraph, cut and paste move from the original article is completely unnecessary here, and looks untidy. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was watching Season 5 and looked up the drug to see what it's effects were, and there was just a redirect from the search to the 24 series page. I searched the page and found nothing. If there is a redirect from hyoscine-pentothal to the page, there should at least be a reference to it saying that it is a fictional drug used in the series during interrogations so that those who search it aren't left answer-less.174.111.243.141 (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Hyoscine-pentothal

Someone merged the Hyoscine-pentothal with this one and it was left in a bit of a mess (multiple reflists, etc). I have had to do serveral edit to tidy it up. ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Template:In-progress TV show"

Is there an equivalent template that can re-add that message that's supposed to say "This show is on a seasonal break or has not finished its broadcast run" like it did before? It's under the subheading for season 7. --Addict 2006 02:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Commercial breaks on the DVD version

• The article says "The real time of the show continues to roll during the commercials throughout the show, emphasizing the reality of the 24 hours of the season which the characters work.". But what are the commercial time-gaps filled with in the DVD version? Keeping the advertisements from the TV version would result in those advertisements becoming out-of-date as time passed with the DVD sitting in someone's drawer and being played from time to time. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not quite sure what your point was with regards to the article? On DVD, there's nothing to replace the adverts so each episode runs for about 40 minutes.ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Episode count?

The table of characters with info on which seasons they were in etc has an "episode count" column. Kiefer/Jack has aparantly appeared in 168 episodes? The last time I checked 24 x 6 = 144! season 7 hasn't aired yet so why are those episodes counted?

I know it's highly unlikely but Jack may not appear in some of the episodes! 217.33.134.118 (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(The above moved here by Mangojuice^talk after being inappropriately placed at WT:3RR.)

Took aspects from "Air Force One"?

Im pretty sure those aspects such as the 25th amendemant and the plane have been used in others movies and they are real so I doubt the writers even thought of the movie when they added those parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.241.191 (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To do

There are some things wrong with this article that need to be changed for it to become a good or featured article:

• The part on the counter terrorism unit (CTU) needs to be put back (revert of vandalism)
• The following passages should be trimmed: the introduction, Recurring plot devices and Plot synopsis.

- Kameyama 10:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The CTU part is already back in? ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it's already back in. I restored the section. And I've uploaded 2 new images, so they are NFCC compliant now. This article still needs work for it to become a GA. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 15:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Practiced\Practised

Sorry, in the Recurring plot devices section I accidentally changed Defense to the UK English spelling (defence) which was incorrect on a US English page. But I also changed Practiced to Practised which is correct in this context in US English:

"...his skills are being practiced" is incorrect
"...he practises his skills" is incorrect
"...his skills are being practised" is correct
"...he practices his skills" is correct

I know it doesn't really matter but I thought I'd mention it here to be on the safe side. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both practices and practiced are correct in US English. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I noticed he added his UK-touch to Defence, so I changed both. Tool2Die4 (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Recurring plot devices

This section is chock-full of original research in the absence of citations, and I've tagged as such. Tool2Die4 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be easy enough to reference with {{cite episode}}, but yes, chockers full of OR. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

TBD

Under 'DVD releases' it says that the date for the 'Season One: Special Edition' is 'TBD'. What does this mean? Fenrisulfr talk 17:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"To be determined" I believe. ie. it has not been announced yet. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Set in the future

Is it worth mentioning that the show is currently set pretty far into the future? It must be like 2018 or something by the time the next season starts, and it is unusual for a tv show like this to be set in the future too, might be worth pointing out. JayKeaton (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a good citation for it, feel free to add it. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 21:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so it isn't set in the future? I thought it was pretty well known that the series jump for like years at a time in between. Are we talking about the same show? JayKeaton (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I get what you mean, but when there is no defined start date for the series, I would imagine it would be pretty difficult to define the current year the show inhabits.Mmm commentaries (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

According to a 24 Wikia article, Season 1 is set on Super Tuesday in 2002 (there are no citations to verify this though). I don't understand the US Presidency campaign process, but i understand that Super Tuesday is held early in the year. The gaps between shows are 18 Months (S1-S2), 3 years (S2-S3), 18 months (S3-S4), 18 months (S4-S5), 20 months (S5-S6) and 3½ years (S6-Redemption). I cannot find a source for the final interval, but others are correct. Based on the events in Redemption, the gap between Redemption and Season 7 will presumably be negligible. If everything i have listed is correct (and there's questions about a number of them), that would set Season 7 sometime in 2015, or approximately 13 years after Season 1. Having said all that, let's bear in mind that it's a fictional show, and we shouldn't take it too seriously ;-) Julianhall (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That Wikia isn't a reliable source. We'd need far better sources than that to include the idea. ThuranX (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh i understand that. Like i said in my previous post, "there are no citations to verify". Julianhall (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

24 - "real time" illusion

I think it should be mentioned in the article that it is only a well-crafted illusion that events are happening in real time. There are frequent instances where the events depicted cannot plausibly have occurred in the time frame permitted. The most obvious of these deal with travel to and from places. Although commercial breaks are used to mask many of the discontintuities - and do so quite effectively - more often than not the travel implied simply could not have taken place in the space of a commercial break. After all, consider how far you could travel over the course of a two- or three- minute commercial break. But the same "time-compression" is common during the action as well. For instance, several times people have boarded a plane and then you almost immediately see the plane taking off when just taxiing from a ramp area to the runway generally takes five to ten minutes. Also, you frequently see someone entering a tall building and then immediately exiting a stairwell at a high floor number or even onto the roof.

RealityQuest (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what you are saying would not be hard to find a source for, 24 is a very much talked about show in television websites. JayKeaton (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what JayKeaton said, I also think this information would come under WP:FANCRUFT. It's intricate detail that is really more suited to a fansite than an encyclopedia. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Finding a source is not hard at all. For instance, 24 writer Michael Loceff explicitly admitted it in a Slate interview with James Surowiecki (http://www.slate.com/id/2134395/). But what's the point of even trying to add this information to the page if it is going to be immediately undone with nothing more than the comment, "rubbish"?

As for the "intricate detail" argument, I don't think I agree - at least not if things are going to be 50-50 on the point. If the page is going to strongly state that events are, indeed, in real time then I think that is misleading. RealityQuest (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

New section

A character list for people less familiar with the show would help (i.e. with clear indications of actors and not just season summaries and character names). Nandor1 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• We do have a Minor characters in 24 page, a Minor CTU agents in 24 page, and a List of 24 characters page. Steve Crossin (contact) 13:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening Graph needs trim

That opening paragraph is in serious need of a trim. Way too much info is being crammed in there, like some fan was afraid that was all anyone would ever read and therefore decided to get the biggest bang for the buck. An opening should only be 2, 3 graphs max. Most of the info in this one should be moved to other sections. 24.24.244.132 (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Feature Film

If plans for the feature film were put on hold, as the article currently assets, then what is this Fox announcement about? See The Digital Bits "My Two Cents" 9/5/08. Reportedly the movie has been renamed from 24: Exile to 24: Redemption and it's due for release on DVD on November 25, 2008. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What "Redemption" is is the TV movie set to air in November. Due to the writer's strike costing 24's seventh season to air during the '07-'08 season, FOX (and the fans and cast and crew) didn't like the idea of going two years before getting a season a la The Sopranos. So they decided to take the feature film idea and make it a TV movie as a prequel to season seven, to sort of answer where Jack goes after Day 6 and how he ends up where he is in Day 7. Now whether or not the feature film still happens I believe is currently unknown. Anakinjmt (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Empire Magazine?

"In 2008, according to Empire magazine, 24 was ranked as the sixth greatest television show of all-time, trailing only behind The Simpsons, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, The Sopranos, The West Wing, and Lost, respectively.[50]"

Because I have no account, I'm not going to alter the actual page, but come on... who cares what empire magazine said about 24? Not to mention all of the other shows listed as "greatest television shows of all time" are from the last ten years. Talk about a bias.

That paragraph should probably be taken out.

Thanks

--70.194.241.5 (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of how notable Empire Magazine is in the UK. If it's "just another magazine", I think the content should be removed. But if the mag is highly regarded and respected as a source of film critique, the content should remain. I can't determine which it is. And when you say "bias", aren't all rankings fundamentally biased since they're matters of opinion? Blue Danube (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't read it but it's pretty much the UK's most well known and probably most resepcted movies magazine. -86.162.169.214 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Recurring plot devices - Frequent Change of President of the United States

This section is getting cluttered. Maybe re-formatting it into a table with headers for name, seasons in office, reason for leaving office, and special notes would be more appropriate. Any opinions? Julianhall (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)