Has '24' jumped the shark?

Warning: Do not read this article if you are a "24" fan and have not watched through the February 26 episode ("4:00PM-5:00PM") or if you don't want a few spoilers from previous seasons.

For five time-ticking, heart-stopping, breath-taking seasons, FOX's hit drama "24" has been one of the smartest, most exciting series on television. Jack Bauer has become a household name. It's season premiere each January is a major television event. I have long been one of the shows biggest fans, and I still am. So now I find myself surprised to be asking this question: has "24" jumped the shark?

For those unfamiliar with the term, "jumped the shark" is used to describe a television show that has hit its creative peak. It is often used to decribe long-airing shows that tapered off during their final years. With five and almost a half seasons in the can, it's safe to ask this question for "24."

For years, "24" was the show that pushed the envelope. It seemed that each season brought a terrifying new threat, element or thrill. Season one debuted the season's defining elements: the real-time narrative and the fact that no major character, no matter how sympathetic, is safe. In season two the threat was escalated to a national level. In season three, the threat was partially carried out. Season four saw a completely reinvented and rejuvinated cast and a larger set of villians, and season five went as far as they could go by making the President himself a culprit in the plot.

It's almost as if "24" is sealing its own fate by trying to get bigger every season. By continually making the threats bigger and bigger, the bad guys badder and badder, and Bauer darker and darker, the writers of "24" have set a course that must inevitably end in failure because there comes a point at which bigger can no longer be better.

That point may well be this season. I won't recount all of it's events for the sake of brevity, but most of the shows plot elements have simply been repeats of prior episodes. A nuclear bomb explodes? Done in season two. Jack Bauer must somehow make a return to active duty? Done in seasons two, four and five. Inside plots in the White House? Two and five. It's all the same. Reed Pollack's plan to eliminate Wayne Palmer to put the V.P. in charge mirrors Mike Novick's plan to oust David Palmer in season two. Gredenko using the Arabs to take the fall for his plot is exactly what Peter Kingsley and Max have already done in season two.

The most exciting moment in the season so far - the nuclear explosion - has already been done, before and the show's next exciting moment was also a repeat. Sure, the bomb incapacitating Wayne Palmer this week so that the V.P. can take over was exciting, but we've already seen that, in season four when an attack on Air Force One put Charles Logan in charge.

There are also several, potentially intriguing plot elements that seem to just be ignored. How has the country been able to not rip apart admist 5 (now 6) different presidents in eight years, and a dozen terrorist strikes within that span? And why (besides producer Joel Surnow being an ultra-conservatve) does torture continue to always work for Jack Bauer? Why can Jack Bauer do anything, anytime? Think of the amazing plot twists that could be if the nation erupted into riots, if CTU followed a lead from a tortured suspect only to see that lead proven false, or if Jack somehow failed at something and collapsed under the weight of the past eight years?

But that's the problem with "24" this season. In place of innovative new ideas, they simply take old ones and make them bigger and bigger. In short, the creative spark that made "24" so good may be starting to leave.

What can they do to fix this? It's too late the adjust season six, so season seven needs a major overhaul. Instead of making everything "bigger and better," the writers should create a threat that is smaller, more acute. Shift the focus to the people making the decisions, make it a more character-driven show. Return the show to it's roots, season one, when the threat was smaller and not known to the public and suspense was created not by the amount of explosions, but by how the characters were forced to deal with the circumstances around them.

"24" is still one of the better shows on television. But even the best shows sometimes need to tweak their formulas, lest they risk becoming stale and uncreative or, in short, jumping the shark.

Presidential primary history

The above article is just a little history lesson about the GOP and the Democrat's choosing of their presidential candidates. The gist of it is that Rudy Guiliani, being the front-runner for the GOP right now, has a good shot at being the nominee since Republican's tend to go with their front-runners. Hillary Clinton, however, could be vulnerable because the Democrats are not as decisive early on and front-runners tend to falter (i.e. Howard Dean in 2004).

My initial thoughts are that the Republican party is largely homogeneous: predoninantly white, middle to uppper-class, and Protestant. A GOP candidate can play to that base early on and cruise to victory. The Democrats, on the other hand, have a largely fractured base. A candidate must try to balance the competing pieces, such as the anti-war people, the gay community, the labor forces or the African-American community to name a few, and often times stumble along the way.

In 2000 George Bush was able to satisfy the Republican base early on with his "compassionate conservative" message, and never let go. In 2004, however, Howard Dean may have played too much to one part of the Democratic base, the anti-war part, leaving primary voters to go with the presumably safer choice of John Kerry.

There are a lot of factors, but that's just what I thought of when I saw this. I've always said that the GOP has been better at party discipline the last decade or so primarily because their party has less diversity of opinions in the base, allowing them to easily rally beind a single message. Thoughts?

Message from the cold

Man its been cold here lately. The windchills have been below zero the past couple of days, which isn't as bad as I expected but certainly making me ready for spring more and more. Overall I'm enjoying the winter, but I wish there were more snow. Just not when I drive (more on that below).

Lately it's been a lot of the same old, same old. Work has become pretty routine in terms of just reading applications as they come. Some days I have a full 7.5 hours of work, while others I seem to idle around because I've gotten it all done. I was officially the first one out of the road for the Spring, thanks to a lone winter national fair in Pittsburgh last week. I foolishly thought that I'd rather just drive there (it's about 6 hours) than fly. The drive in was nice, but the drive back on Friday kicked my butt. It snowed/rained the entire way, which meant it took me longer, and it was draining - not something you want after 10 hours of college fair duty.

It was back to the office and routine yesterday. I don't travel much until March, when I have a few scattered fairs in New Jersey. April, however, get's really exciting. I'll be in SoCal for a week and a half and NorCal for another week and a half, which I'm way excited about. And yes, I do get to do the college fair at Saint Mary's so I'll hopefully get a chance to say hi to SMC folk while I'm there. I'm looking forward to going, although its created some complications...

...being that I've started taking classes in Counseling here at Manhattan. I've already had to drop one of my two classes due to my travel schedule, so I'm just kind of testing the waters right now in terms of this program. I don't even know if I want a degree in counseling, and even if I do, whether or not I'll be able to finish the program.

Anyways, between class and actually trying to work out, I've found myself with less free time, which I guess has been good.

On a final note, here's an interesting link I found: Manhattan Elsewhere. Some guy went to Google Maps and figured out what the island of Manhattan looks like, size wise, compared to other (mostly) major cities. I found the comparison to San Francisco intriguing. Manhattan looks so tiny by comparison: it fits between Oakland and S.F., S.F.'s financial district is easily as wide as Midtown Manhattan, and Golden Gate Park is bigger than Central Park. It's pretty weird, and if you've been to New York you might agree with me: Manhattan doesn't feel that small. It certainly doesn't feel smaller than San Francisco. Maybe its the taller buildings, maybe its the constant crush of people, maybe its the faster pace of life, but compared to San Francisco, Manhattan seems much, much, much bigger. Any thoughts?