Don't you think a select few ...
Carlos Bernard, 24
Question: Don't you think a select few have no idea what they are talking about when they say
24 has jumped the shark for killing Tony? They believe it's just a simple cheap stunt by the writers, who should be ashamed of themselves. I, on the other hand, congratulate the writers for making such a risky and bold move. If Tony were to survive, would we see a combination of Season 3 and 4 again on Tony's part, teaming up with Jack and whipping some terrorist butt? Personally, I think that would be completely repetitive and not worth seeing yet again. His character did run its course and they made his death not a cheap stunt, but one with an emotional impact that we haven't seen since Teri Bauer died. This is great because Henderson will be the next Nina Myers, which the show has really lacked. If I read correctly,
Carlos Bernard believes he would rather have character evolution
and a lack of job security than keep playing the same type of character over and over. What do you think? Have the writers pushed it too far, or could it spark new directions for the show to explore?
Answer: First off, can you
believe how much great TV there is to respond to these days? Assembling and selecting the questions for this week's column has been a nightmare — there are so many opinions and reactions flying around. (For my own response to
24, check out my
Dispatch from earlier this week.) Secondly, nothing riles me quicker than to hear so-called fans saying a show has "jumped the shark." That is just too easy and couldn't be farther from the truth where
24 is concerned. This is one of the boldest, most ruthless action thrillers I've ever seen, and killing three major characters in two consecutive weeks was the opposite of a cheap stunt: It's a reaffirmation of the high stakes and dark risks involved in fighting these battles. And did you see Jack's face as he cradled the dying Tony? There is huge impact in Tony's passing. It may not have been as "heroic" as Lynn's sacrifice (paying for his sin of pride and for being a mewling suit), but Tony's hesitation to murder Henderson cost him dearly and allowed there to be at least some heroic action (or nonaction) on his part to cushion the shock.
But I'd be lying to say the response to Tony's death in particular was mostly positive. Most of the mail was like this from Ryan C.: "I was frustrated to see Tony die as well — what a waste of a great character! After waiting so long to see him return to the plot, I couldn't believe that the writers gave him such a phony, forced death. It felt cheap, and let's face it — he deserved better! So here's my question: Do you think 24 has gone too far with these over-the-top deaths? I'm afraid that my favorite show has fallen into a pit of cheapened sensationalism. Should I be worried?"
No. I would be worried if 24 didn't push its fifth season further than it ever has. This is not a show that plays it safe, for which we should be thankful, not critical. For those who feel Tony's death was ignoble: too bad. Not everyone gets the luxury of a John Wayne-worthy death scene in extreme situations like this. Remember Dina Araz a year ago? She was led outside of camera range, and boom! She's gone. Just like that. I hated it, but I accepted it. And considering that the producers have said they initially intended Tony to die with Michelle in the opener, I'm at peace with having him go out later, albeit with a melodramatic flourish, after teasing us that he might have a larger role to play this season. (Bottom line: The character was played out, even if his fans disagree.)
And in an edited version, here's a rant from John: "There was such an opportunity to do an amazing story that could either go with Tony saving the day, redeeming himself and avenging Michelle's death, or with Tony sacrificing himself à la George Mason in some heroic final scene in which he would soon be reunited with his wife. Instead we got something that felt as if, when it was brought up in the writers' room, the reaction was 'Ooooh, that is shocking! No one will see it coming! Forget about the legacy of the Tony character or the story possibilities, let's keep the audience on their toes!' If the writers seriously think that the key to the show is switching out casts every year and killing off all the characters we've come to know and care about in favor of new ones — or else people will stop watching — then I think they've seriously underestimated their audience. I just don't even know what to say, but for the first time I feel as if these writers couldn't care less about the characters that make up the show nor for the fans who watch. Instead, they favor making sure that every week something 'shocking' happens, and to me that is complete BS. Am I the only one who feels like this, or am I completely wrong?"
You are not the only one that feels like this, but I believe you're completely wrong. Grief and frustration I understand, but if you don't think the writers understand there's risk involved in twists like these, and that they're gleefully jerking us around just for the sport of it, you're terribly mistaken. On 24, the risks are worth it. The clock won't stop for anyone. Except, maybe, Jack, who may be the most tragic TV hero ever (even eclipsing Andy Sipowicz).
One last 24 note. A recurring sentiment goes like this from Steve S.: "What are your thoughts on the resurrection of the Audrey Raines character? Her transformation from an annoying sideshow to a strong heroine has been something to behold this season." Couldn't agree more. She's a real asset this season, and the restraint of Kim Raver's performance is a fine balance, given the extremity of everything going on around her.
