24 season 1 vs season 2 (1 Viewer)

[Fred Bang]

Hi,

I rented the first season and really enjoyed it. I'll probably buy the second season, but I would like to know how it rates against the first one. Is it better or worse?

Thanks

 

[Rob Speicher]

I think the majority opinion is that it started off better and ended worse. But I still recommend renting it, it's great TV.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

season 2 depends a lot more on coincidence than the first one and Jack does a few things that don't make sense toward then end, but it's still great.

 

[MickeS]

I liked Season 2 as a whole more than I liked Season 1. It has even more implausibilities, but it's a hell of a ride!

 

[Moe Maishlish]

Personally, I enjoyed Season 1 more than I did Season 2, but that's not saying much considering how much I absolutely loved watching both seasons. I think one of the main reasons I enjoyed Season 1 so much was because it was new, and I wasn't ready for the jolt of energy, suspense, and drama that 24 delivered in abundance!

It's sort of a moot point though. In my opinion, 24 is one of, if not the best show on Television today, so a bad episode of 24 is better than most good episodes of other shows.

It's kind of like comparing a BMW to a Mercedes. One might be better than the other, but on the whole they're considered better than everything else (depending on who you ask of course).

Moe.

 

[WillG]

I have to give the edge to Season one as well. Alot of people will say they liked Season 2 better because it "Upped the Ante" but Season one had higher stakes for Jack Bauer personally and that made it a more compelling story. Also, I wasn't as drawn in by the second half of the story as much as I would have liked to have been, Sure we did not want to see The U.S. mistakenly engage the "Three Middle Eastern Countries" in a war. It would have been bad for the world, but in a tv show or movie, viewers don't tend to care about "The World" so much but more for the characters we are watching. So, what dire stakes would that have had for Jack and the rest of the main characters, even Palmer?
Also, in S2 everybody pretty much knew that the bomb was NOT going to go off in L.A.
The smaller scope of the plot in S1 leaves alot more real possibility of failure where narrative is concened and that keeps us coming back. I also think the end twists of S1 were a bit more effective. However, in S2 these things are all wrapped in such a great package. And what they did with Mason's character in S2 makes up for the rest. Not that S1 did not have its share of flaws but is a bit better in my book, although not by much.

 

[Will_B]

I didn't like the way season two would introduce characters and then just let them drift away from the plot entirely, never to be seen again. I don't mean Kim, I mean, she's inherently a drifter, but the family of Blondes went nowhere after the airport, and Nina just vanished without a trace too, and I'd say they even messed up the Ensign Ro storyline too by not having anything she did or learned have any effect at all.

 

[Elliott Willschick]

I actually liked that they don't tie everything up at the end. If you think about a typical day at work, for example, you see many people. At some point in the day you have to meet with some of them to discuss what you're working on. However, they don't all have to come together at the end. You may only see some once in a day or maybe a week. If they tied everything together with every character I think that would lessen the message that this is only happening over one day and not the months it takes us to get through it watching on the network.

 

[Will_B]

Head's up, the cover of this week's TV Guide contains spoiler information right on the cover, in the form of a headline about 24, so if any of you shop for food, try to avoiding looking at the cover while you wait in the checkout line! It's not a major spoiler, but it sheds some light on Palmer beyond the fact that he's alive
.

 

[John Madia]

Season 1 vs. 2 is pretty much a matter of personal opinion. Overall, I felt season 2 was better paced and the storyline was more focused. However, the parts involving Kim were really, really bad. Jack should be the focus of the show and everyone else secondary characters. Of course the secondary characters should be fleshed out but they should also relate somehow to the main plot. Kim's scenes were just a distraction.

I'm still waiting for them to devote an entire episode to Jack in a Splinter Cell type mission. They certainlly have the time and it would be better spent than seeing Kim bounce around running away from mountain lions.

 

[BrianW]

Season One had more flaws, but much more clever plot turns and twists, especially in the first half of the season.

Season Two was better paced (for good reason, since Fox committed to the entire season the second time around), but a little short on cleverness in the plot turns and twists. And as pointed out, I find a story less compelling if it's about saving the world, and more compelling if it's about saving a man's family. But that's just me.

But they're both great television. Although I slightly prefer Season One, that doesn't make my recommendation for Season Two any less enthusiastic.

 

[WayneG]

Overall, Season 1 was better. Season 2 started off well but then floundered somewhat toward the end. And there are more implausibilities and loose-ends. Still, it's worth watching just don't try to be Sherlock Holmes and want everything to make sense.

 

[Ryan_C]

I enjoyed them both, it would be hard for me to pick one. But you are more concerned for the characters of Jack's family in S1 as someone mentioned, so that might get the edge.

Quick question. I don't think I missed it when watching, but after they recapture Nina in the desert after she wants immunity beforehand for shooting Jack, Jack whispers something in her ear. The show didn't ever enlighten us as to what was said, did it?

 

[WillG]

Ryan,

No we never found out. I wonder if it will be revealed in S3. In the commentary on that episode on the DVD set, one of the producers talked about what your question was but nothing was revealed. Maybe we'll never know because S3 is supposed to be taking place 3 years after S2 and I have seen nothing to suggest that Nina Myers will be part of the story so far
On the other hand, I'm sure the producers and writers know that we all want to know, so maybe we'll get clued in somehow.

 

[Ryan_C]

Will,

Thanks. The first time I watched 24 was the S2 marathon Labor Day, and I only caught the last 12 hours. Needless to say I bought both sets when they came out, and watched them nonstop until I got to the point in S2 where I first caught it on F/X.

I didn't think I remembered any closure on the issue in the last 12 hours, but just wanted to make sure.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

Just a question about S2.

I've only seen half of it so far. Is it safe to assume that the guy who employed Kim as a housekeeper has nothing to do with the rest of the series? It's a little stupid that he just happens to go nuts the same day this bomb plot unfolds...

 

[Will_B]

Robert, you assume correctly. He's purely subplot.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

Then I must agree that Kim has the worst luck in the entire world...

 

[WillG]

It's not really bad luck, just poor judgement. So many of the S2 situations she got herself into could have easilly have been avoided if she had just listened to her father and skipped town. If she wasn't so insistient on

Spoiler

rescuing that abused child she was sitting for [/spolier] she might not have ran into all that trouble. I'll let some things go for S1 as much of what happened to her was out of her control