-
24 - Jack's Back!
After a Soprano-ish break of 2 years, 24 finally returns. 4 hours into S8, it appears Jack has his mojo back after indisputibly jumping the shark in S7. I like that some of the reveals have already been unmasked, perhaps in an effort to make the show easier for casual viewers to jump in. Whatever the reason, it's nice to have a few answers so early on instead of being left in the lurch.
I will say, I don't know where they found Annie Wershing to play Agent Walker, but she is quite the hottie :ihih:
-
And I like how after we all vowed to never watch this shark-jumping crapfest of a show again after S6, we all came crawling back :)
And yeah, I liked the first 4 hrs too...
-
My wife and I talked about getting back on the 24 saddle, but decided against it. The last season we watched was so wretched, that we couldn't bring ourselves to do it.
Jack Bauer is dead in our eyes. And from the reviews, it doesn't appear that this season is going to be any better.
-
Thank God Jack's back! Now we can watch something that is realistic for a change!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kex
And I like how after we all vowed to never watch this shark-jumping crapfest of a show again after S6, we all came crawling back
Was it S6? It's been so bad for so long, I couldn't remember which season started the downward spiral. Perhaps my standards have lowered? While I pine for the innovative excitement of S1 and S2 (and, to a lesser degree, S3), everything else on TV is so horrifically bad (True Beauty anyone?) that 24 looks stellar by comparison. Whatever the reason, both the missus and I agreed to start TiVo'ing it again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beefy
Jack Bauer is dead in our eyes. And from the reviews, it doesn't appear that this season is going to be any better.
Do you honestly trust the reviewers on anything? If that were the case, we'd all be rockin' Bose in our homes!
Hey, I agree it got bad. In fact, I remember being astonished as y'all kept talking about the last couple of season long after I'd moved on to whatever was on Discovery. The more I think about it, I'm convinced I didn't even watch one episode of last season. When Jack went after Audrey, I was done.
This season has started out pretty good. Was it as good as when Jack took out President Palmer's assassin in the S3(?) premiere? Well, that's like asking if the rest of the beer is as good as the first sip that hits your lips. Of course not, but it's still refreshing.
Pop open a bottle of 24 and take a swig. You may find a case full of empties lying about before you know it :).
-
We're also only 4 hrs in...S6 started off decent enough, then came water skis, ramp, etc...
But yeah, so far it's waaaaaay better than I expected.
Screw the reviews. I'll judge for myself. Few reviewers have the balls to write when they enjoy something mainstream that's been blasted previously anyway.
Good analogy by Speedy...this ain't breakin' new ground, but if it kills a few hrs this winter without making my eyes roll, mission accomplished.
-
I'm still stuck in the season where the President was almost killed. Then he went into a coma. Then he came out of a coma. Then something else happened. And the poison gas killed people.....all in 3 hours of "real time".
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbeef
I'm still stuck in the season where the President was almost killed. Then he went into a coma. Then he came out of a coma. Then something else happened. And the poison gas killed people.....all in 3 hours of "real time".
See, I've completely mentally blocked that...it wasn't that hard...it's even therapeutic.
-
Well, enjoy your little fantasy drama. I'm going to go watch my favorite show rooted in reality. LOST.
-
I hope this isn't another big tease like Day 6, which started with a bang (literally) and wound up muffing just about every promising story angle as the season progressed.
This time around, I was drawn in by the promos indicating that this season's heavy villain would be none other than Tony Almeida. Kewl! Jack having to match wits with a villain who's every bit his equal ... sounds like a great season, right?
S P O I L E R A L E R T!!!!!!
But, NO by the end of the third hour, we find out that Tony's actually working undercover to try and foil the terrorist plot! Yes, it's true he did turn and do a lot of bad things, but just for today, he's going back to his old self. Oy!
And having Bill and Chloe along for the ride? This is really stretching the bounds of disbelief suspension, even by 24 standards. I mean, I love having them back and all, but the way they got weaved into the plot borders on ridiculous.
I guess my expectations were somewhat different than where we are after the 4th hour. I was reading that this season would have no CTU (true, but now all the moles and leaks are coming from the FBI, and Bill and Chloe are back), a more personal story, and no White House subplot. I think the White House subplot with a female Senator getting sworn in as President was driven more by the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton than anything -- remember that these episodes were originally written before the writer's strike back in mid-2007 when Hillary was leading in the polls. Fortunately, the White House subplots seem a lot better tied together with the Jack Bauer story arc this time around.
There are enough items to sustain my initial interest (I did watch the 24: Redemption prequel movie, so the African subplot at least has some context), but I'm afraid that some all-too-familiar elements are creeping into the story arc. Hopefully, the extra time off due to the writer's strike has given the writers some time to clean up any loose story threads, and allow them to have a few more completed scripts in the can before they have to start improvising again by season's end (Day Six, I read that they only had 8 episodes written by the time that season's premiere went on the air, and were in a mad rush the rest of the season to keep ahead of the production schedule).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
I hope this isn't another big tease like Day 6, which started with a bang (literally) and wound up muffing just about every promising story angle as the season progressed.
This time around, I was drawn in by the promos indicating that this season's heavy villain would be none other than Tony Almeida. Kewl! Jack having to match wits with a villain who's every bit his equal ... sounds like a great season, right?
S P O I L E R A L E R T!!!!!!
But, NO by the end of the third hour, we find out that Tony's actually working undercover to try and foil the terrorist plot! Yes, it's true he did turn and do a lot of bad things, but just for today, he's going back to his old self. Oy!
And having Bill and Chloe along for the ride? This is really stretching the bounds of disbelief suspension, even by 24 standards. I mean, I love having them back and all, but the way they got weaved into the plot borders on ridiculous.
I guess my expectations were somewhat different than where we are after the 4th hour. I was reading that this season would have no CTU (true, but now all the moles and leaks are coming from the FBI, and Bill and Chloe are back), a more personal story, and no White House subplot. I think the White House subplot with a female Senator getting sworn in as President was driven more by the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton than anything -- remember that these episodes were originally written before the writer's strike back in mid-2007 when Hillary was leading in the polls. Fortunately, the White House subplots seem a lot better tied together with the Jack Bauer story arc this time around.
There are enough items to sustain my initial interest (I did watch the 24: Redemption prequel movie, so the African subplot at least has some context), but I'm afraid that some all-too-familiar elements are creeping into the story arc. Hopefully, the extra time off due to the writer's strike has given the writers some time to clean up any loose story threads, and allow them to have a few more completed scripts in the can before they have to start improvising again by season's end (Day Six, I read that they only had 8 episodes written by the time that season's premiere went on the air, and were in a mad rush the rest of the season to keep ahead of the production schedule).
Meh, it was fairly predictable and bit of a letdown I guess, but oddly enough I was hoping for Tony to redeem himself anyway. He's probably been my favorite character since day 1 so I'm curious to see where this season goes. I suspect he's playing the gang and really is a bad guy...double agent or something. Time will tell.
For me the show is as much about the characters as it is the plot - and Tony, Chloe, Jack are all as good as it gets...the new bad guy dude looks kinda bad ass so there's potential.
Hey, if this was S6, the brutality would have been cranked up to "11" by now, and Jack would have hooked up jumper cables to a car battery and Tony's nuts to extract the info. Why go to such extremes when a good ol' fashioned one handed-choke hold will do...:cornut:
-
Some observations
I watched the last three hours (for the first hour on Sunday, I couldn't get the kids in bed on time). Also, I didn't watch the pre-season Africa episode with Jack doing the great-white-hope thing, but I'm going to guess that there's a whole lot more in there that ties these plot lines together, so I may be off on some of this. Anyhow, these are some of my observations/questions:
- On the question of torture, there seems to be a whole lot of philosophising about that this time. It's almost as if the writers are trying to apologize for it, knowing that it's no longer cool & hip to be hooking up car battery jumper cables to a guy's nuts, to borrow Kex's example.
- Sangala seems to bear a lot of resemblance to the Congo and our checkered (real) history there. Of course the natural connection is with Rwanda, especially since Colonel Dubaku was in the movie about it, but from what's been said of Sangala, it makes it sound a lot more like the Congo, especially considering the economic interest that Sangala has.
- God please, don't let the writers get Jack to bump fuzzies with Rene Walker. This season is still hanging by a thin thread with the public and the reviewers so we really don't need another tear-jerking Audrey drama.
- Janeane Garofalo as the FBI's Chloe (Janis Gold)? That's rich. When I saw that I thought for sure that Chloe was gone, but it looks like she'll be locking bits & bytes with someone who's equally smart & nerdy.
- James Morrison sure is looking tan and "pretty." Sorry, but the frenchie look doesn't exactly make him look as tough as the Bill Buchanan he's supposed to sound like.
- The plot-line about the president's son being tied to the whole Sangala affair is a little bit of shark-jumping, if you ask me. Sorry, but that muddies waters that should not have been muddied - it reminds me too much of the whole Sherry Palmer tie-in. I also think these writers are borrowing too much from previous seasons, showing perhaps that they don't know what to write anymore.
- My guess is that Tony won't have the balls to kill his boss, David Emerson, who "saved him" when no one else cared.
- It looks like Kim Bauer will be back. Not a good move - the girl can't act to save her life, even if she's pretty to look at. Let's hope this time someone kills her off.
- I also think we'll see more of Senator Blaine Mayer. Just a hunch, but I think the whole torture moralizing is going to continue, and that will probably involve him.
- The way they'll break Sangalan PM Matobo out of the safe room is straight out of Panic Room. You'd think they would make these rooms more secure by now. And seriously, how long does it take the FBI or Secret Service to get to his place? I know DC has bad traffic, but it also has security forces around every corner.
- Here's a nice plot scenario for finishing this season: Bill, Chloe, Jack and Tony form an underground group of illuminati who keep the world balanced, who are continuously hunted down by the FBI, the Chinese, the Corporate Interests, and the bad dictators around the world. Ah, you laugh, but seriously, that would make for a few more seasons and chance to finally deviate from the tired Jack-saves-the-US-president's-a$$-each-season plot-line.
Well I sure hope this season keeps up the pace because I'm making a lot of sacrifices to watch it. We're currently switching off on who gets the TV room (aka the new Plasma & surround sound) and who gets the CRT in the bedroom - the latter also gets to put the kids to bed which is never an easy task and seldom succeeds before 9pm. It turns out that 24 will be on at the same time as The %$#^$@ Bachelor on Mondays.
-
So Clint, I'm a little confused, does this mean you're happy it runs against The Bachelor or you are quitely pining for your chance to date the single dad on that show? Laguna is only 5 minutes from Newport you know.
I agree the story arc of the President's son is lame. Her hubby (First Man? First Husband? What do you call the husband of a female pres??) is already seriously annoying me. He can go ahead and die in the next hour or two. Really. It's OK.
As for Kim coming back, I have no problems with that at all. She's had what? 3 or 4 years to hone her craft? Maybe she's can act now. Then again, maybe most of the male viewers, including your humble scribe, could care less. Put her in a perilous situation, perhaps kidnapped and held captive in, oh...say...a trampoline factory, and I'll think she's worthy of an Emmy.
Yes, I'm that shallow.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
I watched the last three hours (for the first hour on Sunday, I couldn't get the kids in bed on time). Also, I didn't watch the pre-season Africa episode with Jack doing the great-white-hope thing, but I'm going to guess that there's a whole lot more in there that ties these plot lines together, so I may be off on some of this. Anyhow, these are some of my observations/questions:
The prequel movie is available on DVD, and it includes a documentary about child soldiers in Africa. Watching it helps with understanding some of the plot lines in Day Seven, particularly the Sangala plot, why Jack is testifying before the Senate, and the story arc with President Taylor's son's murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
- On the question of torture, there seems to be a whole lot of philosophising about that this time. It's almost as if the writers are trying to apologize for it, knowing that it's no longer cool & hip to be hooking up car battery jumper cables to a guy's nuts, to borrow Kex's example.
I always thought the writers broke out the torture scenes when they had some extra screen time they needed to fill in. I read that this season, they already had 20 episodes completed by November, which is very different from Day Six in which only 8 episodes were done by the season premiere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
- The plot-line about the president's son being tied to the whole Sangala affair is a little bit of shark-jumping, if you ask me. Sorry, but that muddies waters that should not have been muddied - it reminds me too much of the whole Sherry Palmer tie-in. I also think these writers are borrowing too much from previous seasons, showing perhaps that they don't know what to write anymore.
That plot thread comes from the prequel movie. President Taylor's son was not involved in the Sangala goings. A friend of his worked for the brokerage whose defense contractor client was transferring money and weapons to Colonel Juma, and when he discovered what was going on, he tried to pass the info onto Taylor's son. But, he was discovered and tortured before he could do that, (presumably he implicated the President's son under torture, even though he had no idea what was going on). The prequel basically ended with President Taylor getting sworn in, and a lot of whispering by the Secret Service agents protecting her son.
Obviously, in between the prequel and Day Seven, Taylor's son got murdered and the perps made it look like a suicide by fabricating a bunch of evidence about shady financial dealings.
Jon Voight played the defense contractor masterminding the whole Sangala plot in the prequel, but he has yet to make an appearance on Day Seven.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by topspeed
As for Kim coming back, I have no problems with that at all. She's had what? 3 or 4 years to hone her craft? Maybe she's can act now. Then again, maybe most of the male viewers, including your humble scribe, could care less. Put her in a perilous situation, perhaps kidnapped and held captive in, oh...say...a trampoline factory, and I'll think she's worthy of an Emmy.
Yes, I'm that shallow.
:lol:
I agree, who cares if she can't act. If the trampoline proves too demanding for her thespian prowess, maybe a car wash or a pool filled with jello will suffice ... :cool:
-
I know I'm going to sound like a softy (not something Clint would ever do), but I hope they keep the torture stuff in check. I've read numerous reports that it desensitizes the viewing public to it's actual use and that isn't good for anyone. Anyhow, I agree that it seems to be what they throw in when the story starts to loose steam, like in S6.
-
Sorry,
I've been a little "slow" on warming up to the new season & I was a HUGE "24" fan for seasons 1~ 4. I agree w/ Groundbeef that I had ultimately decided not to even watch it after the 2 yr. break. I thought the last season was beyond wretched.
I think after the poor showing that made up the last season "24" needs to earn my trust back, & that's fine, if I feel like giving it a chance.
I'm not real kean on some of the "new additions" to the cast either.
Jabeane Garofola doesn't equate "Chloe" to me. I don't think she's even in the same realm.
And Jon Voight? Are you kidding me? All I gotta say about that is "Anaconda!" That and I start rolling just even hearing his name after watching him in that. I mean I know it's not a stellar movie by any means, but after he switched his "accent' like the 4th time, sometimes in the middle of dialogue, I can't really take the dude seriously anymore.
In the first seasons, Jack meant something to me. He spoke to me. I really liked him. He was heroic and bad ass!
Somewhere in the last installement previous to the 2 yr. hiatus, he lost those qualities for me. I'm sure it has to do the writing, script, and such but it still got lost.
Speaking of LOST, that is one show I will def. be tuned in to!
Hope the rest of you guys find that Bauer is worth your time...
-
Put the gun down!!!
Give me the key!!!
I'm going to kill you!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
:rolleyes: Again.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
I know I'm going to sound like a softy (not something Clint would ever do), but I hope they keep the torture stuff in check. I've read numerous reports that it desensitizes the viewing public to it's actual use and that isn't good for anyone. Anyhow, I agree that it seems to be what they throw in when the story starts to loose steam, like in S6.
Man, if you ain't a bleeding heart liberal, there ain't no such thing! :rolleyes:
-Or-
In touch with your... feminine side huh?
:biggrin5:
-
How exactly does that make me a liberal? The more people see torture, the more people think it's OK. That gives our foreign service men, military, and all the shady folks in between license to do the same. The problems with that whole way of doing things are:
1. Those that survive our "treatment" and those who know them, will hate us that much more. Call it blowback or whatever, but this is one surefire way to create more American-hating planejackers. Let's all remember that the folks we now refer to as Al Qaeda, are the same folks we trained and called freedom fighters back when Reagan was in charge. Good one.
2. When our guys get caught, our enemies have absolutely no guilt about yanking out their fingernails, tearing off eyelids and boiling their feet. Don't believe me? Check out what's happened to some of the poor bastards who got caught in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Their stories will turn your stomach.
3. To get results from torture, you need to capture a large number of folks, fry them to a crisp, and hope that one of them knows something. Never mind the fact that 99% of people tortured don't know anything, but the whole single-guy-tortured / ticking-time-bomb scenario is a fiction, perpetuated by shows like 24. In reality it's much more like finding a needle in a haystack, except that the haystack are all the inocent people who have to be tortured to find the one needle.
4. The people who really do know stuff don't break. They will reveal partial truths, misleading info, and implicate others who know nothing, until their minds are mush. Most people who are tortured to that point are complete vegetables afterwards. Check out what's happened to our service men who've come back from soviet prisons or the poor saps who've spent some time in Chinese prisons where the technology to break people is unlimited. In the real world, Jack would never have survived that without becoming a complete head-case - showing him completely recovered is telling the public that torture isn't so bad and that people can survive it. Not likely.
5. The success in breaking people depends entirely on how long the "technicians" have to work on the victims. The gruesome stuff you see on 24 and movies like Syriana is actually hollywood theatrics. If information needs to be extracted from a group of people, the prolonged psychological effect of long-term abuse is the most likely to get results, however unreliable these results may be (see above). Gruesome torture is actually widely used throughout the world for punishment rather then acquiring information. 24 completely misleads the public into believing a fantasy description of torture - it's really pretty disgusting.
6. Finally, because of the large numbers that need to be tortured to get results - call it an assembly line of torture, if you will - it turns out that only large bureaucracies are capable of doing it. Only countries like China, the US, and Russia really have the means. Some states like Romania, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and pre-2001 Iraq have/had to spend extensive resources to maintain a repressive system that brings useful results, and much of this bureacratic apparatus is more for spreading fear rather than actually getting results (a good book about how this worked in Iraq is called The Republic of Fear). So ironically, torture at such a scale is really a modern product of an industrialized state. The US has been at the forefront of this disgusting trend - and that is why they typically don't support effective international anti-torture legislation. I hate to break it to you, but after China, the US is the largest manufacturer of torture tools, techniques, and research.
These are simply the facts. You can do your own research if you like, but it's a pretty F'up system. What is portrayed on 24 is just Hollywood nonsense that fuels American ignorance, xenophobia, and calousness about what is really a horrible legacy of abuse. There's nothing liberal about pointing that out, but there is something absolutely moronic in applauding a show like 24 for doing this. I don't know if the director of 24 has an agenda with this, but one thing I can say: he either has no clue about the real world, or he willfully seeks to mislead his audience about it. In either case, it's a gross asault on Human Rights, the historical record, and ultimately our legacy as an "advanced" civilization.
Bleeding Heart Liberal? Yeah, whatever.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by topspeed
. Then again, maybe most of the male viewers, including your humble scribe, could care less. Put her in a perilous situation, perhaps kidnapped and held captive in, oh...say...a trampoline factory, and I'll think she's worthy of an Emmy.
Yes, I'm that shallow.
Please sign my online petition:
www.topspeedfor24S8.com
(not a real website)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
:lol:
I agree, who cares if she can't act. If the trampoline proves too demanding for her thespian prowess, maybe a car wash or a pool filled with jello will suffice ... :cool:
And
www.howtosaveTheView.com
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
How exactly does that make me a liberal? The more people see torture, the more people think it's OK. That gives our foreign service men, military, and all the shady folks in between license to do the same. The problems with that whole way of doing things are:
1. Those that survive our "treatment" and those who know them, will hate us that much more. Call it blowback or whatever, but this is one surefire way to create more American-hating planejackers. Let's all remember that the folks we now refer to as Al Qaeda, are the same folks we trained and called freedom fighters back when Reagan was in charge. Good one.
2. When our guys get caught, our enemies have absolutely no guilt about yanking out their fingernails, tearing off eyelids and boiling their feet. Don't believe me? Check out what's happened to some of the poor bastards who got caught in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Their stories will turn your stomach.
3. To get results from torture, you need to capture a large number of folks, fry them to a crisp, and hope that one of them knows something. Never mind the fact that 99% of people tortured don't know anything, but the whole single-guy-tortured / ticking-time-bomb scenario is a fiction, perpetuated by shows like 24. In reality it's much more like finding a needle in a haystack, except that the haystack are all the inocent people who have to be tortured to find the one needle.
4. The people who really do know stuff don't break. They will reveal partial truths, misleading info, and implicate others who know nothing, until their minds are mush. Most people who are tortured to that point are complete vegetables afterwards. Check out what's happened to our service men who've come back from soviet prisons or the poor saps who've spent some time in Chinese prisons where the technology to break people is unlimited. In the real world, Jack would never have survived that without becoming a complete head-case - showing him completely recovered is telling the public that torture isn't so bad and that people can survive it. Not likely.
5. The success in breaking people depends entirely on how long the "technicians" have to work on the victims. The gruesome stuff you see on 24 and movies like Syriana is actually hollywood theatrics. If information needs to be extracted from a group of people, the prolonged psychological effect of long-term abuse is the most likely to get results, however unreliable these results may be (see above). Gruesome torture is actually widely used throughout the world for punishment rather then acquiring information. 24 completely misleads the public into believing a fantasy description of torture - it's really pretty disgusting.
6. Finally, because of the large numbers that need to be tortured to get results - call it an assembly line of torture, if you will - it turns out that only large bureaucracies are capable of doing it. Only countries like China, the US, and Russia really have the means. Some states like Romania, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and pre-2001 Iraq have/had to spend extensive resources to maintain a repressive system that brings useful results, and much of this bureacratic apparatus is more for spreading fear rather than actually getting results (a good book about how this worked in Iraq is called The Republic of Fear). So ironically, torture at such a scale is really a modern product of an industrialized state. The US has been at the forefront of this disgusting trend - and that is why they typically don't support effective international anti-torture legislation. I hate to break it to you, but after China, the US is the largest manufacturer of torture tools, techniques, and research.
These are simply the facts. You can do your own research if you like, but it's a pretty F'up system. What is portrayed on 24 is just Hollywood nonsense that fuels American ignorance, xenophobia, and calousness about what is really a horrible legacy of abuse. There's nothing liberal about pointing that out, but there is something absolutely moronic in applauding a show like 24 for doing this. I don't know if the director of 24 has an agenda with this, but one thing I can say: he either has no clue about the real world, or he willfully seeks to mislead his audience about it. In either case, it's a gross asault on Human Rights, the historical record, and ultimately our legacy as an "advanced" civilization.
Bleeding Heart Liberal? Yeah, whatever.
:crazy:
Touched a nerve? I sorry. :(
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
How exactly does that make me a liberal? The more people see torture, the more people think it's OK. That gives our foreign service men, military, and all the shady folks in between license to do the same. The problems with that whole way of doing things are:
1. Those that survive our "treatment" and those who know them, will hate us that much more. Call it blowback or whatever, but this is one surefire way to create more American-hating planejackers. Let's all remember that the folks we now refer to as Al Qaeda, are the same folks we trained and called freedom fighters back when Reagan was in charge. Good one.
2. When our guys get caught, our enemies have absolutely no guilt about yanking out their fingernails, tearing off eyelids and boiling their feet. Don't believe me? Check out what's happened to some of the poor bastards who got caught in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Their stories will turn your stomach.
3. To get results from torture, you need to capture a large number of folks, fry them to a crisp, and hope that one of them knows something. Never mind the fact that 99% of people tortured don't know anything, but the whole single-guy-tortured / ticking-time-bomb scenario is a fiction, perpetuated by shows like 24. In reality it's much more like finding a needle in a haystack, except that the haystack are all the inocent people who have to be tortured to find the one needle.
4. The people who really do know stuff don't break. They will reveal partial truths, misleading info, and implicate others who know nothing, until their minds are mush. Most people who are tortured to that point are complete vegetables afterwards. Check out what's happened to our service men who've come back from soviet prisons or the poor saps who've spent some time in Chinese prisons where the technology to break people is unlimited. In the real world, Jack would never have survived that without becoming a complete head-case - showing him completely recovered is telling the public that torture isn't so bad and that people can survive it. Not likely.
5. The success in breaking people depends entirely on how long the "technicians" have to work on the victims. The gruesome stuff you see on 24 and movies like Syriana is actually hollywood theatrics. If information needs to be extracted from a group of people, the prolonged psychological effect of long-term abuse is the most likely to get results, however unreliable these results may be (see above). Gruesome torture is actually widely used throughout the world for punishment rather then acquiring information. 24 completely misleads the public into believing a fantasy description of torture - it's really pretty disgusting.
6. Finally, because of the large numbers that need to be tortured to get results - call it an assembly line of torture, if you will - it turns out that only large bureaucracies are capable of doing it. Only countries like China, the US, and Russia really have the means. Some states like Romania, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and pre-2001 Iraq have/had to spend extensive resources to maintain a repressive system that brings useful results, and much of this bureacratic apparatus is more for spreading fear rather than actually getting results (a good book about how this worked in Iraq is called The Republic of Fear). So ironically, torture at such a scale is really a modern product of an industrialized state. The US has been at the forefront of this disgusting trend - and that is why they typically don't support effective international anti-torture legislation. I hate to break it to you, but after China, the US is the largest manufacturer of torture tools, techniques, and research.
These are simply the facts. You can do your own research if you like, but it's a pretty F'up system. What is portrayed on 24 is just Hollywood nonsense that fuels American ignorance, xenophobia, and calousness about what is really a horrible legacy of abuse. There's nothing liberal about pointing that out, but there is something absolutely moronic in applauding a show like 24 for doing this. I don't know if the director of 24 has an agenda with this, but one thing I can say: he either has no clue about the real world, or he willfully seeks to mislead his audience about it. In either case, it's a gross asault on Human Rights, the historical record, and ultimately our legacy as an "advanced" civilization.
Bleeding Heart Liberal? Yeah, whatever.
Good comments.
To be fair I think my buddy Rich's comments were meant to be light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek after some of your earlier rounds, and not to provoke you. He's got a new year's resolution to avoid political threads :D
But a good, somewhat on-topic comment...how much does 24's use of torture desensitize us to its immorality? If simple, fictional TV violence is enough sway their opinion, then surely the "in the interest of our country" attempt at justification of the use of torture would be enough to win support too...I'd like to think people are smarter than that. If they're not, it's too late and additional TV violence isn't going to cause any more harm anyway.
As for torture in general...I always thought the difference between the good guys and the bad guys is that the good guys would exhaust all options before using any means necessary to win. But at some point I guess your back gets pushed against the wall, and as much as I hate to admit it, I think deep down inside I always knew that we elect and appoint people to make that ugly decision for us when it has to be made.
I'm probably in that group that publically doesn't like it, but silently, if it came to the point where it saves our lives I...not accept, but rather consicously ignore its use...which is probably just as bad. Just being honest.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
Good comments.
To be fair I think my buddy Rich's comments were meant to be light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek after some of your earlier rounds, and not to provoke you. He's got a new year's resolution to avoid political threads :D
Yes, I was using it in the sociological sense, not in the political vein. And why did you ignore my second choice flyover? :wink5: = j/k (but I thought you already knew that.)
|