So Long Jack

There was no two hour retrospective before the show and there was no appearance on Jimmy Kimmel after it. I didn't see newscasters talking about how Monday night was the official end of "24" and aside from a few mentions in magazines here and there, the show basically left the air with a medium bang and a bit of a whimper (if you saw the show you know what I mean). As a fan of the show I felt in my heart of hearts that the show wasn't living up to the expectations I seemed to have for it at the start of every season. Sure there were highlights every now and again and last season did give me higher hopes for this season but alas it wasn't to be and this could very well have been the last time we see Jack Bauer running (and screaming... and torturing) on the small screen; and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Now don't get me wrong, I think "24" definitely changed the way in which television shows of this nature were shown. From it's multiple scenes to the fact that events occur in real time, "24" was a very timely show (pun intended). Premiering within days of the events of 9/11, Jack Bauer came to encompass the good guy that many people hoped was actually out there fighting terrorism. He was steadfast, determined and ready to break rules (consequences be damned) to ensure that the United States was kept secure. Some would argue that it was the example set by the character that led to so many instances of torture or rule-bending in Iraq and Afghanistan but I beg to differ. If people weren't already of that nature to begin with, it would certainly take more than just a character on a show to make people believe that torture and gunplay was the only course of action in dealing with enemies.

Perhaps it's a means to an end and perhaps it's just a show. To me that's what it always was. I never tried to apply logic to everything I saw. After all, if I were to take the show to be the gospel truth about what life is like in America's intelligence agencies then God help us but we've got a lot of traitors and sleeper agents roaming in our midst. But in the end it's just a show and that's what we need to remember. After the conclusion of "Lost" I read much of the fan reaction on the internet and it ran the gamut of honest observation to inane and banal idiocy. People were crying out that the show 'cheated' fans and left too many questions unanswered.

To me that is the hallmark of truly thought provoking television. If you are given everything in a nicely wrapped package then why even have questions to begin with? You know that by the end the answers will be revealed. By having some questions left unanswered it's almost like allowing a viewer to determine the true ending on their own. While it wasn't as good (or mildly ambiguous) an ending as "Lost", "24"'s final moments were about what I expected with Jack Bauer, the one true hero in the world of the show doing what he's always done; fighting for the truth and his ideals. He's the "Superman" of the post-9/11 era who fights for truth, justice and the American way with a Sig Sauer P228 by his side. I'll miss seeing him next season but I'll rest easy knowing that he'll be out in TV-land defending America.

The End of Lost

I'm sure the web is going to be full of many pages and blogs dedicated to the end of "Lost". As a fan of the show, I couldn't let this opportunity pass by without writing something. Of course I'm actually writing this a few hours before the finale actually airs but I figured that this is as good a time as any to write down my thoughts on the end of the show. After six seasons the show which has garnered a tremendous cult following will be coming to an end. Looking back on everything that's happened, I can honestly say that I've been blown away by the fact that elements revealed to viewers in the first season and in the first few moments of the show are being brought full circle. I think that's a tremendous credit to the creators and the writers who may not have necessarily known at the beginning what would be happening at the end. That being said it's truly wonderful to have some answers to questions that have been burning for viewers since the beginning. Of course some mysteries will undoubtedly remain but to me that's one of the great things about a show like "Lost". It leaves many things open to interpretation and discussion.

No doubt there will be some who will come away from the finale with a sense of being cheated. Certainly with so much anticipation for the end of the show and hopes that all mysteries will be solved, there's a great deal of anticipation about the show but over the past few years I've seen the end of other shows I have tremendously enjoyed and I certainly hope that this finale lives up to what the show built up. Of course there wasn't as much fanfare in the general public for the end of some of the other series that I have enjoyed as much (if not more) than "Lost". I remember when shows like "Babylon 5" or "Battlestar Galactica" came to an end. Sure there were mentions in the press but nothing like "Lost".

Of course I don't bear the show any ill will. As I stated earlier, I think it's a credit to the creators and cast of the show to have been able to sustain interest and enthusiasm for the show over so many seasons. Certainly some wonder why the show should end when there is obviously still a great deal of appreciation for it and to me the answer is simply best paraphrased by George Costanze in "Seinfeld" who believed that good things should always end on a high note. It was disappointing that "Seinfeld" didn't end on as high a note as many had hoped for but at least it ended when it was still popular and when the majority of the public cared enough to see what happened at the end.

I can say that for those of us who were as loyal to "Battlestar Galactica" or "Babylon 5" or "M*A*S*H" or so many other great shows the end of those series were felt with just as much joy as there was loss. Now some may wonder why there should be a sense of loss for something ending like a television show but like it or not, television shows of this sort become a part of our daily existence. Perhaps it's a bit of exaggeration but just see how many people will be standing around the office talking about the ending and what it means to them. Perhaps they'll be talking about how it was more hype than substance or they'll mention that they found it to be the best end of series that they have seen. Whatever the reaction, I'm sure it will be a hotbed of discussion. As the final few hours tick down, I find myself feeling both a sense of eagerness and a sense of sadness. I'm sure it will be worth the wait.

Goodbye Jack

At last it's official. Jack Bauer will no longer have the worst days of his life and no longer will we, the loyal '24' audience be able to watch and enjoy the often adventurous and twisted plots that exemplified life for the characters on '24'. After last season, which took place in Washington, DC, I had somewhat higher hopes for this season seeing as how it was supposed to be set in New York City. I mean after all, New York, the City that Never Sleeps, why would it be boring? But somehow the show managed to find a means of becoming so and now, as ratings continued to decline, the powers that be at Fox decided it was time to pull the plug on the loud ticking clock.

I started catching up on '24' a couple of seasons after it had already been on the air. I used to have marathon weekends where I would not have class or any work and I would watch back to back to back episodes and I managed to get caught up in no time. Since then I have been watching on television alongside the regular audience but I can tell you, I have noticed a few things in all that viewing that led me to believe that such a show couldn't sustain itself perpetually and I'll attempt to explain why. Firstly, while the Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU) where Jack and his co-horts work is supposed to be a relatively secret organization that operates within the United States, a lot of people know about it. It's location is fairly well known and terrorists often staged strikes against their headquarters. I can't think of a season where CTU wasn't attacked in some scheme to knock it out of commission.

And that's not the only rotating plot point that the show seemed to latch onto. There were many plot and sub-plot points that seemed to carry on from one season to the next. While I'm sure it was based on some survey of what plot elements random audience members enjoyed, it wasn't the best thing to repeat season in and season out. What am I talking about? Well again, you'd assume that since CTU is an elite security apparatus within the United States, the security requirements to get a job there and to gain access to classified material would be difficult. Yet almost every season, the agency has been penetrated by rogue agents or spies from other countries or terrorist groups.

Okay I grant you the first time, it could happen. But after that, don't you think the security procedures and screening would increase to the point that getting a job there would be harder than doing linear algebra without a calculator? I would like to think so but that's not the case. Terrorists continue to infiltrate CTU with reckless abandon and the leaders there seem powerless to do anything. Suddenly don't you think the audience would begin to view CTU as a relatively powerless (and therefore meaningless) organization? I think even the other agencies in the show seem to think that. Like when CTU was hit with an electro-magnetic pulse device recently this season, when Jack Bauer contacted the NSA to request their help, it seemed as if they were completely unaware that an attack had occurred on US soil.

Now perhaps for the sake of cinematic (or television-atic) liberties some elements like these are left in but then you have to wonder, do people really think that it's plausible anymore? After all, the Bush Administration left our country with a legacy of interdependent agencies that are supposed to know what each and every other agency is supposed to be working on in the interest of promoting greater security, so then are we really supposed to believe that Jack Bauer is the only real person on the case (even when he's tried to retire multiple times in the past)? I mean seeing as how CTU is hiring people like Freddie Prinze Jr (who really needs to learn to stop breathing through his mouth all the time) to serve as replacement Jack Bauers? Perhaps it is definitely time to retire the series while it has a shred of believability and integrity left.

Worshipping at the Altar of the TV

I think most people would be lying if they said that they didn't watch a lot of television. Sure there are those out there who don't watch television at all but they are definitely a small minority in the grand scheme of things. Ever since the television was invented there have been a growing number of ways in which the makers of television and the movies have been attempting to keep you coming back to 'worship' over and over again. Seriously, if television watching were a religion, I think it would surpass every other organized religion on the planet.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with television. I mean after the way things are going in the economy and around the world these days television is at least a means of escaping reality for a little while. Sure it probably isn't the healthiest or smartest means of releaving the modicum of normal mundane life but it certainly is the most addictive to most people. And television makes things so much more convenient for people who want to broaden their horizons but not take the time to do it. For example, think of the number of times people have seen the movie before reading the book. You know what I mean when I say that. Although the book of some television show or movie may have been around for decades, until it is filmed and broadcast, many people would never be bothered to know about it.

And the appeal of television doesn't seem to be diminishing. Sure there are fluctuations in how much and what people watch but nonetheless there is still a distinct appeal to television that doesn't seem to wane with age. Don't believe me? Then how about the recent record breaking television viewing record set by Toronto native Suresh Joachim. Originally from Sri Lanka, Joachim's previous claim to fame was setting the original nonstop TV watching record back in 2005 when he watched for a little over 69 hours. This time he stuck it out for a little longer and set a new record at just over 72 hours. Now perhaps it isn't the most noteworthy means of claiming fame but there are just some things that people do well and obviously Suresh Joachim knows what his particular talent is.

In order to make his record marathon Joachim claimed to have had between 25 and 30 cups of coffee. I can only imagine how his bladder was doing after all that. How does one even begin training for such a feat? I mean I know that food eating contest eaters (I can't call them athletes) practice binge eating on occasion in order to keep up the practice but how does a person intent on watching TV for so long get prepared? Probably by watching as much TV as he can and knowing what will keep him awake and what won't. In Joachim's case he reportedly watched three complete seasons of "24". It seems impossible but it's true.

Now although scientists and doctors keep coming and telling us how bad so much television is for us, there has been no diminishment in its appeal. And I think it would be safe to say that at least in the near term there won't be diminishment in it at all. I find it ironic that in that quest to escape from reality (which as I said is the reason that most people watch television) some of the most popular shows today are reality shows. I guess people find appeal in viewing someone else's reality as opposed to their own. But still. If Jedi-ism can become an accepted religion in England then why not a Television-ism religion in this country? Stranger things have happened.

The Price of Going Green in the Digital Age

For many people the argument that the switchover to all-digital broadcasting next month was reason enough to purchase a new LCD or Plasma flat screen in order to make sure that all future Football games or tv seasons would be in crystal clear depiction and gaming would be elevated to pristine levels. Of course what many of these same people won't tell you is that rather than spending thousands of dollars on a new TV you could get the same quality by purchasing a convertor box that would receive digital signals and then downgrade the image to your old CRT televisions. Sure you won't be able to see the beads of sweat trickling off the nose of the quarterback during the Super Bowl but the question is would you really want to?

Still many people have opted to upgrade to flat screens simply because it's the current wave that everyone is riding. They will talk about how the TV saves space since it isn't as bulky as big screens that had started to dominate the market. They talk about how much nicer the picture looks when you watch anything on it. They also talk about how upgrading is almost a law due to the act of Congress requiring all networks to switch over to all-digital broadcasting this year. But is this upgrade trend (real or implied) actually doing a disservice to what Congress and the world seems to be pushing for? What exactly am I trying to say? Well as you know everyone and their brother is jumping on the eco-friendly and 'going-green' bandwagon so is it any wonder then that some other people will take that dictum very seriously?

The state of California (led by the Governator -- Arnold Schwarzenegger) is contemplating the idea of banning certain types of LCD and plasma screen flat-screens. The rationale for such a decision? The fact that some of these televisions suck up more energy than normal televisions. In energy-starved California it's come down now that every precious kilowatt hour needs to be used judiciously. But in their efforts to help the environment there are concerns that it could affect the retail market as well. There are proposals being debated right now which would tax retailers on the sale of televisions that supposedly drain more energy than others and what retailers are concerned with is that consumers would then turn to online dealers to make their purchases rather than helping the local economy. This itself would turn out to be another blow to the economy of the state if it did happen.

Already there are concerns about the current state of the economy. Can you imagine what could happen if suddenly another part of the consumer market was drastically hit by changes in consumer spending. This past winter there was a fair amount of business in the flat-screen television market and although spending was down at times due to the market conditions, the number of empty LCD and plasma-screen TV boxes you see at curbside these days tells you that not everyone is holding back from making that one big purchase. When Congress and economic leaders are pointing to consumers and demanding they spend more to stimulate the economy; do we really need some sort of disincentive to make purchases?

That's the real question then I guess. Would the state be willing to sacrifice a bit of economic stability if it meant that the environment would be better? Go to Los Angeles and once you see the smog you'll understand why there are concerns over whether or not the environment there should be saved or not. Still, it always ends up being a question of what is more important at the moment than at the future. The economy needs people spending now but if we continue to erode the environment by buying up more plasma screens or other devices that are a drain on energy being produced by the state, we have to create more energy producing plants which will harm the environment more which in turn will lead to a damaged environment for future generations. It's funny how a simple desire to watch a football game in digital high definition can have such global consequences.

Educational Television

Who says television can't be educational? I mean after all, I learned lots of important things from television. I perfected my use of the English language by watching Sesame Street. I learn about the world around me on a constant basis by watching the news and shows on the History Channel. So who says that television is subversive or sending the wrong message? Well, perhaps the good officers down in central Kentucky. This past weekend they arrested 36-year-old Michael Hobbs on suspicion of robbery. When taken into custody and interrogated, Hobbs revealed that he learned how to break into houses watching the show "It Takes a Thief" on the Discovery Channel.

What's the show about? Well, I myself have never watched it but in reading descriptions, the show is hosted by two ex-burglars who have seen the errors of their way and have taken to helping homeowners understand where the vulnerable points of their homes are. Basically in each episode they come to a house and run through a scenario which they would use to rob that particular house and then go through a practical demonstration. None of the property is actually stolen but the hosts show that they could easily get to it and they then offer up advice on how to prevent such theivery. Interesting huh?

Some will undoubtedly look to this article and call for the end of such a show but I think it argues for itself. One can say that the show helps would-be thieves gain an understanding of how to penetrate houses and do so in an efficient manner but I also contend that it shows would-be victims how to defend against incursions into their houses. You can argue both sides effectively but I think the case for keeping this type of show on the air is stronger. How so? Well think about it. Shows like this have educated people on the effects of smoking over the long run and how not wearing seatbelts can be hazardous (and deadly) to your health. No one argues there that it is educating you in a bad way.

That doesn't mean that I'm encouraging people out there to watch the show so that they can quit their jobs or take up burglary as a profession. On the contrary, I think it will encourage us to take more steps to protect our homes from such incursions. A few years back when the Club was touted as the most effective deterent to car theives, television journalists did reports to determine if it truly was an effective protective device and the found thieves who then demonstrated how easy it was to still bypass the protection and steal the car. Even at that time there were people who called for the banishment of such 'educational' shows since it showed thieves that they could still steal a car despite apparent protection.

All that being said, did Michael Hobbs have anything from the houses he broke into? Well when police searched his house they didn't find a single piece of evidence that indicated that he had stolen anything. The evidence that police had, prior to his confession of learning his skills from the Discovery Channel, was that he had been offering gutter cleaning services in the neighborhoods where the burglaries occured. The case apparently came together from there though the debate on the status of the show continues. There hasn't been any statement by the Discovery Channel as yet with regards to whether the show will be yanked off the air or not but my gut feeling is that the show will remain on the air.

As I said, I think it's beneficial in the long run to have such a show on the air because when you watch a few episodes you'll most likely be inspired to secure the homestead. Sure there will be those, like Michael Hobbs who will want to see if the methods of breaking into a home are as 'easy' as they're shown on television but that doesn't mean that this will lead to a sudden rise in home invasions. What it will likely mean though is that the Discovery Channel will definitely see a brief rise in viewership as more people tune in to see what this show is all about. True story or an attempt to boost ratings? You decide.