Tuesday

Reworking '24'
to beat the clock

Its life ticks off. How to give it more seasons.

By Ed Robertson

In case you missed it, Fox announced last week that Robert Cochran, co-creator and executive producer of the hit TV series “24,” signed a new deal that will keep him in charge of the thriller for two more years.
   “24” has already been renewed for the fall. This further suggests that viewers can count on seeing Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) race the clock until at least 2005.
   Cochran better roll up his sleeves. If he expects to pull off one more season (let alone two), he has a lot of work to do.
   Brilliant though "24" is, even die-hard viewers have to wonder how much more it has left. After all, the show is the most intense hour on television, generating more hair-raising chills and eye-popping gasps per episode than any other drama in history. The heart can only take so much.
   Beyond that, it’s safe to say that “24” has been cheating death for well over a year, and not on account of the ratings. It's rather because of the very premise of the show.
   Think about it. Most dramas on television are designed with longevity in mind, generating stories from a premise loose enough to allow for as many different plots as possible, for as many seasons as possible.
   Compare that to “24.” The show is so tightly wound around a singular gimmick -- having each episode, of course, play out in real time over a 24-hour period -- that its demise is practically inevitable.
    Historically, gimmick-laden series such as “24” tend to burst onto the scene fast, only to flame out equally fast once the audience grows weary of the gimmick. Short of a major rehaul, shows of this kind usually disappear after two or three seasons.
   “The Fugitive,” for example, was a show with two imploding elements: either Richard Kimble catches the one-armed man, or Lieutenant Gerard catches Kimble. While David Janssen kept the original running for four years, the recent Tim Daly remake vanished after only one.
   “Batman” made a splash in 1966 with its farcical comic book plots and onomatopoeia, only to fade away after two years.
   “Run For Your Life,” quite literally, had its own death built into it. Series protagonist Paul Bryan (Ben Gazzara) was a man who had only two years to live. Though he managed to hang on for a third season, it wasn’t too much longer before he finally bit the dust.
   To their credit, Cochran, Sutherland, Joel Surnow and the others who bring us “24” have done a remarkable job wringing two full seasons out of a one-shot premise. This year’s story, centering around Bauer’s attempt to prevent a nuclear war, has proven to be every bit as exciting as last year’s assassination plot.
   And yet, if Cochran hopes to keep “24” ticking beyond the life of his contract, he’ll have to shift gears and move the show away from its original format. Otherwise, it’s just a matter of time before his own concept blows up in his face.
   With that in mind, here’s what “24” needs to do in order to succeed next season:

(1) Drop the clock, and drop the real time element.
   Granted, these are the signature elements of the show. At the same time, for these elements to work requires more pulsating coincidences and willful suspension of disbelief than any other series in history.
   The television audience is bound to lose patience. It is entirely possible to play the story out over 24 hours without having every episode represent a single hour.

   (2) Leave Jack’s personal life out of it.
   This means eliminating his teenage daughter Kim (Elisha Cuthbert), without question the stupidest character in the history of television.
   Not only would the show be better without her, dropping Kim would allow Jack to concentrate on what he does best -- saving the world from total disaster -- without also worrying about whatever idiotic scrape Kim manages to get herself into.

   (3) Change the setting.
    Not only take Jack out of CTU, take him out of Los Angeles altogether and place him in another city (or for that matter, another country) where he somehow encounters precisely the sort of situation that only he can defuse.

   (4) Drop David Palmer.
   Nothing against Dennis Haysbert (who plays President Palmer) -- indeed, it’s Haysbert that makes Palmer the strongest, most interesting character on the show. It’s just that last season Haysbert was a senator, this year he’s president. Short of somehow becoming God, there’s not much further up the chain of being his character can rise.
   In fact, in many ways the problem with Palmer epitomizes much of the dilemma facing “24” as it heads into next season. Even if Cochran kept Palmer aboard as president, it’s a bit of a stretch to expect a lone wolf like Jack Bauer to have that sort of exclusive access to the chief executive two years in a row.
   About the only way a third season with Palmer would work is if the show did something like this:
    Let’s presume Palmer overcomes the coup he faced last week at the hands of his own cabinet and finishes his term with his reputation and dignity intact. Some other dastardly threat to the United States emerges. In desperation, the head of homeland security turns to former President Palmer for help. Palmer agrees, but only if he can bring in the one guy in the world he knows he can trust: Jack Bauer.
   That not only puts Palmer and Bauer back on the same team, it does so in a way that’s not entirely inconceivable.
   Now it’s up to “24” to make the changes work. Otherwise, history suggests it won’t be long before the clock runs out for good.

Ed Robertson is a writer from the San Francisco Bay Area who covers television.

Printer-Friendly Version | Send to a Friend
Cover Page | Contact Us