Talk:24 (season 7)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 24 (season 7) article.
Article policies
WikiProject 24
24 Portal

This page is part of 24 WikiProject, an attempt to expand and create articles that relate to 24. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.

Contents

[edit] Premier Delay

I am surprised that all of the delay is being attributed to the WGA strike. Undoubtedly, this effects production immensly, but so does the abscence of your main character. Kiefer Sutherland was in jail for 48 days serving a no contest to a DUI charge. I would attribute this to the delay more than the writer's strike. -- Ownage2214

No, it's definitely the writer's strike causing the delay. They currently do not have all the episodes filmed, and they won't go on until they have the writers back so they can continue the practice of uninterrupted seasons. Check the source if you need confirmation; if there really is something to your suggestion then post a source so that we could suggest it as a contributing factor. Bradkoch2007 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The judge was fine with him serving the sentence in 2 chunks that would not affect production however when the WGA strike came up Kiefer instead elected to serve it all at once which includes Christmas, New Years, and his 41st birthday.CoW mAnX (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

This article seems to have alot of speculation in it so i am removing some stuff. If i broke any rules by doing, don't block me because I am new here. Just let me know thanksSckay 03:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

edited above comment for legibility's sake.

Personally, I think "unconfirmed" actors/actresses returning should be taken away. You could name any character from Season 1-6 that hasn't died as "unconfirmed." Also, the comment about Kim Raver possibly returning because she will be in the movie is irrelevant. It isn't even known when the movie will be from. It is not necessarily after Season 7.
hello i found some sort of scripts for the first two eps of this season... im pretty sure they r tru they r detailed and it sounds pretty good..... should it be put on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.50.210 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC) (Talk)
Please put it on! I'd like to see it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.145.228 (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Beware of false or misleading spoilers. There were quite a few of them in Season 7, including some purporting to be shooting scripts. Until and unless they are verified in a reliable source, none of this should be posted in Wikipedia.147.70.244.134 (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorists Not Being Terrorists . . . Wait, Huh?

I'm thinking Jon Cassar is joking about the Quebec terrorists; especially since just a bit above that someone else says the villain won't be a terrorist. -WarthogDemon 02:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I removerd it completely. It has been confirmed as a joke over and over. Please do not add information that is so clearly false. Just because Jon Cassar said it doesnt mean it was without sarcasm. Get a clue. WikiChloesLove 11:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to note, I wasn't the one that put it there in the first place. -WarthogDemon 17:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unable to check source

I saw the mention from digital spy source (or whatever) that Gary Oldman has turned down the role of a villain for season 7. I thought I'd see for myself, so I followed the footnote (it's footnote #7). However, I do not have access to view it, and if I don't, others don't as well. Is there a way to make it so that everyone can view it, because if not, the footnote and the statement should be removed because it cannot be verified. Anakinjmt 19:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a rumor that was put on this article saying that Kim was going to die mid season. Was that rumur true, or did someone just put that there for no reason? 69.131.145.228 (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
No confirmation yet - and unless it is reported by a reliable source (which excludes self-published fanzines and fan sites), it should not be mentioned here. 147.70.244.134 (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed the talk page

Various comments were unsigned, some were not indented, and some were stretching the page. I've fixed all of these issues. Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (as indicated at the top of the page). Also, this page is to discuss the Wikipedia article in general, but not the subject of the show. JamminBen 01:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed a few irrelevant discussions that relate to the subject matter rather than the Wikipedia article. If you want to discuss the show, there are plenty of TV forums on the Internet. JamminBen 01:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alberta Watsons returns

IMDb states that Alberta Watson will return as Erin Driscoll. I can't find any source for it, does anyone know if it's true or not? 83.86.73.158 13:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, imdb has also said Edward Norton is Jack's brother, Teri and Chase will be back, and they have no idea what they are doing. Listen to NOTHING imdb says. Puppet125 21:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the premise is that he is on trial for his actions, would it not be possible these people are being credited for perhaps a "Previously on", or video clips in the show, either flashbacks or evidence? Popher 19:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but on the same note it is possible that every other character that has appeared on 24 could return to testify for or against Jack. Without a reliable source, which IMDb isn't, then it can't be used. --Vinnyvinny2 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morris O'Brian Return

Where in the citiation does it state that Morris is returning? SignorSimon 21:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Almeida, this season's main antagonist

This article previously stated that Tony Almeida would act as the main antagonist this season. Is there any legitimacy to this claim, or is it a fan theory of some sort? 24.24.90.148 21:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, apparently it is legitimate. 24.24.90.148 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Trailer for Season 7 has been shown in the UK this last few weeks and Tony Almeida is certainly 'on the other side' ... but as this is 24, you don't know if that is indeed the case, perhaps deep under cover, perhaps not. Tobias-UK 14:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

...and "interpretation" is considered original research by Wikipedia. It is best to get the interpretation from a reliable source and not from the clip itself. 147.70.244.134 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

according to 24s offical site day 7 is stille starting in 2008 so why does thi sight say it is prosponed indefanely plese versfy 64.222.112.135 (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Look up the definition of indefinitely. Obviously, Fox wants to get 24 back on the air ASAP, but until they can resume filming the unwritten episodes, they can't put them on the air. They're just saying 2008 because like everyone else they don't expect this strike to last longer than a year. Also, please use proper English and grammar on Wikipedia from now on. Bradkoch2007 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SPOILERS

Is any effort at all being made to keep this spoiler-free for people who don't want to know all the things that are SUPPOSED to surprise us? It's completely ridiculous that I come here to see when the season is airing, and BAM - very beginning of the article, I'm hit with two enormous spoilers. Please, PLEASE make an effort to keep this page spoiler-clean - spoilers belong somewhere specially marked, like the "plot" section, NOT the very beginning of the article. AdamSolomon (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't want it spoilt for you, then coming to this page was the worst decision you could have made. Do not remove information just because of your personal grievances; Wikipedia is a place for information and removing it is a vandalous act. We are not going to try and keep this page, or any other, spoiler free in any capacity whatsoever. asyndeton talk 01:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Not everybody wants all information. I see no reason not toit is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer" keep spoilers separate from other information about the season. Put it in the plot section - what's so wrong with that? I don't think it's vandalism to remove it, it's a way of making Wikipedia more useful for everybody. People who want to be spoiled can look down the page a tiny bit, and people who want to know when the season's going to air don't have to. AdamSolomon (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree. That specific piece of information is important to the article. It's the point of the season. Is it a spoiler? Yes, of course it is, but there are other websites on which you can find the start date and time that don't give you spoilers. I'm sorry for spoiling you, but something as important as that shouldn't just in the plot section. His return is a big part of the season. It's like asking to remove Graem Bauer's last name from the title of the page because it's a spoiler for those who haven't seen season 6. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
it would make sense to put SPOILER in big red words on the top page. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.201.134 (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As much as I agree with AdamSolomon, according to Wikipedia:Spoiler "it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer". I personally would still like to see it moved down the page to the plot section, but that is not required. The best way to deal with this would probably be consensus, which by my count is currently tied 2-2, and unless that changes significantly I don't think that any change should be made.Bradkoch2007 (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for Novick and Wayne returning?

I can't find anything indicating they are back, so unless someone shows something, they will be taken down. Puppet125 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Pierce

I searched through the ninth issue of the mag and can't see anything about Aaron anywhere. Does someone want to shed some light as to where it says this? SignorSimon (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Mary Lynn Rajskub as Chloe O'Brian" getting jumpy

Why does there seem to be an edit war going on regarding Mary Lynn Rajskub's position in the cast list. Am I missing something? Does it really matter?! ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone had her second initially, and I moved her down to third because I felt it was clear that Tony (Carlos Bernard) is going to be a much more prominent character in the coming season. I didn't think much of it at the time, just thought it was a small change, but then someone else switched it again. We went back and forth a few times. Whoever's doing it needs to get banned, imo. Characters should be in alphabetical order or in order of importance. Neither would have Chloe listed second. Mrmcpheezy (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't judge importance if the season has not aired yet. And she has been listed second for at least the last two seasons. Rhino131 (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly clear from the trailer that Tony will play a much larger role in the season than will Chloe. Mrmcpheezy (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a really childish thing to fight over. They are both regular cast members, why does it matter what order they're listed in on the page? It's getting pretty annoying having to watch this pointless edit war. SeanMooney (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I have this on my watchlist, like I have all 24 articles there, and I have to say this is one of the lamest edit wars i've ever seen. Cut it out, or, take it to dispute resolution. And, if you really have concerns, head over to WP:24 and list it on the talk page. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 22:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Rhino. I edited initially not thinking it a big deal, but Rhino got all butthurt about it. 208.79.244.64 (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

1) He's been in more episodes 2) The actor's name would appear first alphabetically using either first or last names 3) The character's name would appear first alphabetically by last name. The only logical argument, putting aside trying to estimate someone's importance to something that hasn't happened yet, is that Cloe would come first by alphabetical character first name - all other logical ways of looking at it support Tony coming first. And I support this making the lame edit list. CoW mAnX (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is pathetic. However, Cow mAnX, I believe you are totally wrong as the points are irrelevant to casting. I believe when it airs Chloe's name will be first because:

  • She has been in more recent episodes
  • She is on the good side, whereas Tony is apparently bad.
  • They rarely list cast in alphabetical order, its usually due to position in the cast, Keifer will always be first, or if they are a featured star. Look at Buffy, Alyson Hannigan was nowhere really in the first few series, then she became an 'and' then a 'with', due to character appearance and breakout.
  • She has become a bit of a breakout character since she was bought in.

But... the most important point is: who cares? really!!!! its pathetic the page has been blocked due to something so petty. Chocobogamer (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • To set the record straight, I never edited anything, I just saw the edits and this talk page section and added my thoughts. I agree, all this is really stupid, just wait until the show airs and put them in the credits order. Rhino131 (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I find this dispute absolutely ridiculous. If this is is a real severe issue, pursue dispute resolution, although I think everyone here should just come off the Reichstag and calm down. I'd mediate the dispute myself, but as I'm the 24 project co-ordinator, it would be a conflict of interest, therefore I cannot. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Due to this very petty edit war, I've requested an administrator protect the article, which has been done. Please, please, resolve this dispute. I'm on hand to help out if needed. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Also listed the dispute here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been protected due to petty issues, and that's what concerns me. Look, I agree that this is pathetic, but I would just let the people switch them around, I don't see why it's worth protecting the page, as long as it shows that Kiefer Sutherland is the starring cast member. Besides, I think the arguement's been resolved.Green Kirby (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that full-protecting the page for a week was a bit harsh but perhaps that's what is needed for people to cool down and realize they were fighting over a stupid thing. I am thinking of rewriting the page to be similar in style to Lost (season 4) - the cast section would be prose instead of a list. This would make it easier to read and also would cut down on the edit wars I hope. What does everyone think? SeanMooney (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be open to that idea. Anything that helps improve the article, go ahead and do it :D. For the record, I asked the article be protected, merely as it was a dispute I saw no end to without intervention, and I think the protection has shown what will happen if content disputes, no matter how petty, happen. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems that "someone" has moved it again. Was this dispute ever resolved? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 11:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think the dispute wasn't resolved. It's rather lame, in my opinion, but I don't see what can be done about it. Steve Crossin (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have alphabetised the entire cast, including Keifer, I think this is the only way to keep the peace until the series comes out. I think, well hope, that if you say 'cast in alphabetical order' it will stop stupid edits Chocobogamer (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content dispute -- protection 2

I've fully protected the page for three days. Please discuss below this line. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 14:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Now personaly, I agree that Tony should be second on the cast, but it's only because of the fact that he seems more important in the trailer, not to mention being in the series longer. But it really does'nt matter. I mean c'mon, is it really worth protecting the whole article? As far as I'm concerned, as long as Kiefer Sutherland is on the top of the list, as he should be, I don't see the big issue you admins seem to be making this into.Green Kirby (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I requested protection, as, well, I saw a petty edit war that needed discussion. And I'm sure that after the protection expires, it will continue. But, seriously, does it really matter of the order? And, how exactly can we determine someone's importance from a 2 minute YouTube video? Really, I think it should just be left how it is, is it really worth edit warring over? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mary Lynn Rajskub was credited third in season 5 and Carlos Bernard was fourth. Therefore, she should be credited higher in day 7 as well. Although I do think that Mary Lynn, Carlos and James Morrison will probably be credited as "Special Guest Stars" next time. But my original point stands (can't believe the page has been protected because of this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveem (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My question is, is it really worth edit warring over this? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, of course it is'nt, but I don't think it's worth protecting this over.Green Kirby (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not worth it at all, especially when the first official (FOX) cast list comes out - then the argument will be moot. B.Wind (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from article page


As the only source is the YouTube video, which can't be used as a source, I've removed the whole section. If you can incorporate this content into the article, sourcing other sites other than YouTube, go ahead, but for a TV show that hasn't even aired yet, I don't see why this section is there. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)