Talk:24 (season 7)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject 24 (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject 24, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 24 on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the episode coverage task force (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Previous Season" and "Next Season"[edit]

Okay, what's the utility of the "Previous Season" and "Next Season" in the callout box? Because the seasons are only identified by number, there is no added benefit to noting that Season 7 is preceded by Season 6 and followed by Season 8! This convention only makes sense when Seasons or Episodes in a series are identified by name (eg. Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back) and the sequence isn't obvious. Let's deleted the numbers here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Premiere Delay[edit]

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)


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 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC) (Talk)
Please put it on! I'd like to see it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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. (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

Unable to check source[edit]

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? (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. (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the talk page[edit]

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)

Alberta Watson's returns[edit]

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? 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)

Morris O'Brian Return[edit]

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

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

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? 21:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, apparently it is legitimate. 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. (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


according to 24s offical site day 7 is still starting in 2008 so why does thi sight say it is prosponed indefanely plese versfy (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)


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 (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)

I don't think (Deceased) should be by the characters that have died so far. Some people DVR episodes, and when a main character is killed it is a surprise. I'm not against putting this information in episode summaries though. Rockingbeat (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that may be the case, but please see WP:SPOILER.. "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality". Hope this explains things. Best, Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Novick and Wayne returning?[edit]

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)

Aaron Pierce[edit]

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)

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

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. (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)


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)

Content dispute -- protection 2[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Moved from article page[edit]

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)

Original air date and length of first episode[edit]

Clearly this season officially starts in November 2008, not in Jan 2009. Also, it appears deceptive to list the first episode as a "2 hour" length; as this is not likely to be the uninterrupted run length (the regular run length for each episode being 42 minutes, where Fox promotes them as being "hour long episodes) - compare to 1-hour long Doctor Who "Special" episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the argument that the "2 hour" episode is not an official part of Series 7 (the reason given by the last editor changing "No. of episodes 25" to "No. of episodes 24 (and one two-hour prequel)"). It was announced in a Press Release solely about 24 Series 7, and besides "24 forty-two minute episodes plus one prequel episode" equals "25 total episodes". Here is the EXACT wording from FOX:

Fans have been waiting almost a year for the return of 24, television's most addictive drama. On Sunday, November 23 (8:00-10:00 PM ET/PT), the wait will be over as FOX presents a special two-hour prequel event.

Regardless, when I search Wikipedia for "24 TV Movie" or "24 Prequel Episode" there is no such article. The place where this episode is mentioned is in this article. Therefore it's an encyclopaedic fact that the episode is part of Series 7. I'm also not convinced it will be a full two hour episode; Fox promoted the original series as being "24 one hour episodes"; but in reality produced 24 42 minute episodes formatted for advertising. -- (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's clearly not a fact. The prequel is referred to as a TV movie event and NOT an episode. The show is called 24 for a reason, there are *always* 24 episodes. Any prequels, mobisodes, etc are not counted as part of the season. As for your other complaint, FOX has said the prequel will be two hours and that's the only official information we have to go on right now - changing anything at this point is speculation. And honestly I don't think something that petty is worth debating over. SeanMooney (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
In that case "24 (and one two-hour prequel)" itself is an error. "24 (and one two-hour prequel)" literally means "25". You cannot go half-way. Either the prequel episode is a part of Series 7 and will be released on DVD along with the rest of the series; or it's completely disconnected and therefore shouldn't appear at all in an article entitled "24 Season 7".
The show is called 24 for a reason, there are *always* 24 episodes.
Then I would suppose Prison Break is called Prison Break because there is *always* a prison escape in each season? How come the *episode* does not contain its own *page* on Wikipedia if it is an *independent* event disconnected from Season 7?-- (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest going by however the episodes are numbered by the television series. The one with the number "1" will be the first episode of the season. Gary King (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's rather clear that the prequel is seperate of the actual season itself. It's already mentioned in the article, however I'm not really convinced that it's an episode. --Steve Crossin (contact) 05:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully this will solve the dispute: Matt Mitovich of TV Guide recently contacted FOX (posted just days ago on Jun 25) and confirmed the prequel is not counted as an episode. A few months pass between the end of the prequel and the start of the seventh season. SeanMooney (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
That article only confirms the fact that following the prequel episode there will be a full 24-episode "day". The fact is that the episode *is* connected to Season 7 - it *is* a part of the season, acts as the first episode, and brings the total number of episodes to 25. Yes this is different from all the other seasons, however Season 2 didn't start and end at midnight covering only one literal day - it instead spanned a 24 hour period. It is not encyclopaedic to put "24 (and one two-hour prequel)". AND one two-hour episode - are you joking? 24 AND One does not equal 25?? What am I missing??? -- (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I know it's been awhile, but I've been looking through this, and man! It amazes me that people say such incorrect things so confidently, as if everybody else is wrong! Of course 24+1 equals 25, . But it's not 25 episodes, guy (or girl). And, of course Day 2 spanned a 24-hour period-- that's how the show is made! Jeez, I don't know why I'm getting so pissed, but next time, read all of the other comments before posting yours (If you had, you'd have realized that Redemption was not an episode but a PREQUEL, a SPECIAL EVENT). It makes you look dumb. No offense. --Dann-Fonda (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted most uses of the word "prequel" in the article referring to Redemption. It is not a prequel, by definition, no matter what the PR says. It was broadcast in chronological sequence: it occurs between Days 6 and 7; it was broadcast between Days 6 and 7, so it is NOT a "prequel". I've changed the infobox to "prologue", though a bit less trendy than "prequel", it's accurate. Barsoomian (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reshoots of completed episodes[edit]

Have any episodes filmed prior to the strike last year been reshot, so that the "plan for the whole season" which the producers refer to could have been put into place? If not then they only planned the last 16 episodes and not the whole season. Bogger (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This entire article is rubbish.[edit]

'Season Seven, also known as Day 7, of the television series 24 was originally planned to premiere on January 13, 2008 but was delayed an entire year due to the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike. FOX will air a two-hour "prequel" TV movie titled 24: Redemption‎ on November 23, 2008 that bridges the gap between seasons.'

1. The first sentence in this Wikipedia article describes an event related to the season and not the season itself. 2. The remainder of the first paragraph is used up discussing something that's apparently "not a part of season 7".

The first sentence and the first paragraph of an article should be describing what 24 Season 7 is, and not merely "related" events.

'Known details'

"Known Details"??? This is utter rubbish, fuelling speculation and rumours; and is entirely un-encyclopaedic.


'Producers were determined to reinvent the series after facing criticism over the sixth season.'

You can't know their state of mind, just report the facts, not conjecture as to how they came to their decision.

'Measures will be taken during filming and production of season 7 to save energy and reduce enough carbon emissions throughout the season to make the season finale "carbon neutral".'

So what? Why does that belong in this article?

'A number of ways that the production intends to save energy are listed on the site'

This is, again, inappropriate for a wikipedia page. It reads like an advertisement.

'Howard Gordon said that 24 cares about the issue of global warming and takes fighting climate change seriously. A number of ways that the production intends to save energy are listed on the site, some of which are: using a combination of petroleum diesel and biodiesel instead of regular diesel fuel, creating a series of PSAs with Kiefer Sutherland and other main cast members to educate the public on what they can do to help with the issue, and, when appropriate, applying the issue of global warming and reducing carbon emissions to the storylines.'

There is no evidence that the production of 24 will have a direct impact ofn Global Warming. Therefore it is inappropriate to describe "carbon neutral" in this way. Furthermore, Biofuels are a debatable subject, many people feel that unless the land used to create biofuel is barren in nature (ie unable to sustain general crop) then it is taking up land otherwise used by farming for food, or forest, or wood harvest, etc.

The entire article reads as a personal opinion with no regard whatsoever as to being neutral and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki. If you feel you could improve the article, be bold and fix it. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it "rubbish"? Wikipedia articles don't only contain in-universe information about a TV show, but every little piece of info about production, air-dates, etc. Otherwise, the article would be incomplete. If you want info pertaining to the plot, check the Plot section. --Dann-Fonda (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

About Jack Bauer[edit]

In season 7, will Jack Bauer become an FBI agent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levis93 (talkcontribs) 15:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see, shall we? If you have some verifiable information from a reliable source (and not a 24 fan forum or someone's blog sheet), then we can look it over and see about extracting some encyclopedic facts from it. Even if it happens to be true by sheer luck, we have no way to verify it yet. The Wikipedia is not the place for posting fan speculation and wild guesses that are (perhaps) based on sparse television commercials, which are notoriously misleading and even deliberately edited specifically to create interest. Thanks though. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 17:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I know the episode airs soon in the USA, but I think you've been very unfair to this writer. In the 17 minute preview of episode one the FBI are clearly seen offering Jack a deal. So if this does happen it will happen within the first couple of episodes, and so is a good educated guess and there isn't long to wait now to confirm or deny it. -- (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to point out one of my previous suspicions regarding Almeida - the article reads (and has done for a long while) that "Carlos Bernard will return as Tony Almeida in the premiere of season 7 as one of the main antagonists". This is clearly false and proves that this was never a true encyclopaedic entry for this article. And I suspected for a long time this wasn't "entirely true" because it would have lost all believability. -- (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


What's the deal with Alexander Trepkos? I keep seeing hints that he's going to be back in the last episode of season 7. Anyone done research on this? — Deckiller 01:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly?[edit]

Is that the actual quote from Entertainment Weekly at the end of this article? The grammar is so bad it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

"Fresh characters like this is the way that the is only that..."

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode guides[edit]

they are too long compared to the rest of the articles of 24. They should just be summarized like on season 6 article. (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

From article[edit]

Sorry, but this is getting longer and longer. Until this can be trimmed, it's gotta go. A few sentences on each episode should suffice, not 3 paragraphs. Brevity is essential. Steve Crossin Talk/24 00:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing. — Deckiller 01:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

summaries of unaired episodes[edit] has summaries of the next two episodes. These can possibly be paraphrased for inclusion here-- (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In-universe date[edit]

This is an encyclopedia, so continuity is required, that takes precedence over the TV show. Most feel that the date is a production error, and should be removed. Thats called Consensus. Also, the date isn't that important. Saying it took place however long after the previous season would be adequate. Best, Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 13:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone edit the master list[edit]

I'm lazy. Lets clear out all the TBD notes:

-- (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reception Section[edit]

The Reception section had only one post in it with a short quote that told very little about anything other than making a joke about spoilers. This quote is useless and you cannot have an objective reception section that only has a single review. This was deleted and should stay that way until the section is improved with more sources and more useful quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


ma godhow can jack sufferthis much,cant he just die.eeeeeeeeeeh pliz kill the guy coz he has suffered alot.then why does tony haveto be a bad guy???????????.instead kill olivia talor off coz she is a traitor 411. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonas Hodges, etc.[edit]

"Jonas Hodges" redirects to the main article; can someone fix this? I haven't the energy. And there are other people to write articles for. OneWeirdDude (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This 24 Season 7 article is very different from the articles for the first six seasons. It doesn’t really address the Main Plot, Major Subplots, Plot Twists, etc. It is not really about the show at all from an entertainment standpoint, but is more of a description of how the Writers Guild's strike affected production, along with the political overtones of the show. Shouldn’t an article about one season out of seven conform at least a little to the same format used for the other six seasons? The production issues should be a subtopic further down the page - after the plot and sub-plot summaries. J-Mac (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)