S09.E03: Day 9: 1:00 PM-2:00 PM

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Kate's hunt for Jack continues as President Heller prepares to address Parliament after a devastating attack. Elsewhere, Margot Al-Harazi demonstrates how much she is willing to sacrifice for revenge.

 

Edited May 13, 2014 by maraleia

[Watcher0363]

I do not know if it was just me, but when mother terrorist greeted daughter terrorist in the garden. I got a strong Adrian and Nikita vibe. Oh Peta Wilson where have you gone.

[WhoAmIWorkingFor]

Chloe's choices make a bit more sense in light of what is now confirmed to have happened with Morris and Prescott, but... ouch.  She did get a hug from Jack, which I think might have happened... one other time, ever?

 

Simone's husband is a giant, neon-glowing candidate for the usual list of (1) Getting killed for cracking under the pressure/flipping on The Family (2) Getting killed for becoming annoying (3) Getting killed after being set up as a martyr in some part of the scheme (4) Getting killed for otherwise outliving his usefulness (5) Killing everyone else because he's actually the Big Bad in disguise.  I'd rate the odds of the first four as much higher than for the fifth, but there's always an outside chance on this show.

 

Speaking of early assholes, with the show's track record, Mark seems way too simple-minded for much else than an early nemesis.  I mean, perhaps the big plot really depends on him, but so far he hasn't been very subtle and most of the people on the show that are wearing such a huge Please Punch Me In The Face sign haven't turned out to be that clever in the end.  He's also risking considerable wrath from Audrey by poking at her father.

 

I had to run out for a bit, so I missed what happened to Basher after they ran him past the other gang and he spilled the beans, if it was shown at all.  Did they let him go, "Let Him Go," or is he in Behrooz territory now?

 

Erik apologizing to Kate: Only a minor death flag in the grand scheme of things.  They are doing a neat job of showing Kate as Jacqueline Bauer, in that typical rogue-agent kind of way (though she still loses points for resorting to old-fashioned-CTU-style blackmail on Navarro).

 

Jack starting a riot to get into the Embassy: Speaking of rogue-agent kind of things that one, y'know, does (on the bright side, it might be slightly less fatality-inducing than S3's prison riot).  I'm actually more curious to see how the fallout from the ID doublecross works out on Chloe's end of things, and she's also got the Serbian hitman on her end.

Edited May 13, 2014 by WhoAmIWorkingFor

[Milburn Stone]

I do not know if it was just me, but when mother terrorist greeted daughter terrorist in the garden. I got a strong Adrian and Nikita vibe. Oh Peta Wilson where have you gone.

 

The radical mother gives me a Fake Vanessa Redgrave vibe.

[Watcher0363]

I want a black man purse like Jack but I know I am not macho enough to pull it off.

Looks like next week we will get to see if MI-5 or the British police are any better at secure perimeters than CTU was.

[Tara Ariano]

Here's Jeff's post on the episode!

[Darkpool]

Seriously, Jack? Shooting protesters to create a diversion? Wouldn't the mere sound of gunshots have been enough to start a stampede?

[catrox14]

Jack shooting those guys in the leg to create a diversion made me laugh.  I thought, Jack is even more Jack than Jack ever was Jack.

[green]

Seriously, Jack? Shooting protesters to create a diversion? Wouldn't the mere sound of gunshots have been enough to start a stampede?

 

Yeah it is annoying that the one group of people I can identify with are the ones getting shot for no reason by the crazy so-called "hero".  Guess the guy doesn't understand the lesson of ends and means much.  Neither did Stalin who openly scoffed at the concept.  Don't like the dude and the fact he will "save the world" at the end of the series.

 

I really don't understand much of what is going on since it makes totally no sense.  I mean everyone knows all US military drones can be (and usually are) controlled within the US itself and I thought that was where the drone pilots were until they were suddenly driving one of them to the US embassy in London.  There is no need to lease a base in the UK for the hardware either since the US can launch drones from the base they already have in Germany though the Germans would kick them out after the first drone walkabout in Europe.  But then so would the Brits.  The US can also launch them from navy ships.  England makes no sense in this plot at all.

 

And who knew the CIA has a major base in the UK where it can run around loose and do whatever it wants and both MI5 and MI6 are fine with all that.  No need to take prisoners to Egypt anymore when England is such a handy place to torture them instead.

 

Thought I'd give this a try because of the real time thing but it annoys me no end.  I'm out.  Wake me when they do a show with a bunch of idealistic hactivists who are the good guys and who save the world every week.  I'm tired of secret agent establishment types and rogues from same running around messing with the world in every other show.  Give me a new type of hero.

Edited May 13, 2014 by green

[Mars477]

While Jack kneecapping a few civilians to get inside the embassy is pretty bad, and I find that I really don't care if Kate and Erik capture Jack for good as long as they stop the terrorist attack, what did you expect? This is 24, and has always been 24, not "Propaganda for Anonymous the tv show".

That said, the underlying premise for this season is pretty stupid, and with that the stakes are undermined.

Politically, there is no way in hell that the Special Relationship could ever be undermined by two British friendly fire deaths from an American UCAV. Sorry, that's just just not happening. The Special Relationship has survived many more blue on blue incidents and will continue to. Secondly, it makes zero sense that the British people would be protesting American drone operators in England. Consider that this is a universe where there have been far more mass casualty terrorist attacks than have happened in real life, including a freaking nuclear detonation on American soil. If anything, the Brits would be protesting a lack of a drone program.

And practically... that's not how drones work. Drone pilots can operate just as easily in the US, so god knows why the Americans want to base operators in England. And secondly, pilots and drones are NOT based in the same facility. The drones are forward deployed in Afghanistan where the targets actually are. Why would any be flying out of England? They're drones, not strategic bombers.

I understand what they're going for. Drones are topical and how would we feel about our drones being used against us? Only, drones would get blown from the sky by anyone with an even remotely modern military. They're basically good for peeking in on an enemy with little to no antiair capability whatsoever, and doing that for a long time.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Mars477

[Curious5]

Just not feeling it... Never missed one episode over the years and yet I keep getting the feeling "so what". Not sure if it is too much action and no character buildup after three episodes. So far the mother daughter combo is the best part.

Not sure if it is the HD effect on the screen but the close up of Chloe crying with Jack just had a ewwww feeling. Something was way off with her skin. Close enough to see every pore but the skin looked plastic.

[Cindylou]

All I can think of is Lady Mac would eat Lady Stark for lunch.......  although Lady Mac would not have pimped out little Penny for anything.....

[6 MeowMeowBeenz]

gotta say we're not overly enthusiastic either. Still watching unless there's something better on. And I'm still digging seeing Sarah and wishing for a Chuck appearance. 

[marcee]

Jack shooting those guys in the leg to create a diversion made me laugh.  I thought, Jack is even more Jack than Jack ever was Jack.

Favorite part ever.

 

Me: Did Jack just totally shoot random innocents in the crowd?!

Husband: No, he shot that asshole from earlier.

Me: But what about the other guy?

Husband: That was probably the asshole's brother.

 

I love me some Jack Bauer.

[WhoAmIWorkingFor]

It occurred to me today while I was having a routine ID check that Jack's face should be all over the place for computerized facial recognition to pick up (considering that everyone else's face on this show is in a facial recognition database), so just wandering up to the gate with a fake ID shouldn't have worked.  So it goes.  Perhaps I was hoping for the guard to see Jack, say "You're Jack Bauer!", have Jack reply with "I am not the Jack Bauer you are looking for," and get waved through because he's now really a Jedi.

 

On the "not really feeling this season" thing, I feel a bit of that myself.  Heller might be a generally stand-up guy, but I still miss the David Palmer days, goof-ups and all.  It might just be that I associate William Devane with too many other roles.  And rooting for "America, warts and all" on this show is a mess of gray moralities.  The last couple of seasons has pretty much been just hoping that Jack and Chloe can have a half-decent relaxed off-screen retirement at the end of a season, but that just keeps on not happening.  I agree that several of the premises underpinning the main plot require a great deal of suspension of disbelief to work, but when they start using real countries for the plot...

 

...speaking of which, I was slightly surprised to hear that The Family was specifically named as once working with Al-Qaeda, when in past seasons there would just be generically-described terrorist groups.  A writing decision based on the real AQ not being as specific a single target as it was in the last decade?

Edited May 13, 2014 by WhoAmIWorkingFor

[Delwyn]

I was commenting to someone today about how cracktastic this show is, and that I wish shows like Elementary and Castle would be way more enjoyable if they embraced the ridiculous. With 24 I want to break out the popcorn, because WHAT. I have zero expectations. With a lot of other network dramas I just want to break out the fast forward button. That said, it would be nice if we had some dramas that had no "check reality at the door" disclaimers on them.

[torqy]

So...Jack Bauer goes all John Reese on the protesters. (Sorry, couldn't help myself)

Agree with the poster who misses the Palmer era, and yes, Sherry Palmer would crunch not!Vanessa Redgrave for breakfast.

Delwyn, your post perfectly sums up my thoughts on this show. All that said, Mrs. Torqy and I will have the popcorn ready and salted for the whole season.

[dr pepper]

I do not know if it was just me, but when mother terrorist greeted daughter terrorist in the garden. I got a strong Adrian and Nikita vibe. Oh Peta Wilson where have you gone.

 

Oooooh, that's what i was feeling. Thanks for identifying it for me.

[Milburn Stone]

not!Vanessa Redgrave

 

I'm glad someone else is picking up on how the character is essentially the show's ripped-from-the-headlines surrogate for the extreme-radical (at least in the public's perception) real-life Vanessa Redgrave.

 

It reminds me of when Homeland created a character who was clearly not!Christiane Amanpour.

[Constantinople]

I'm glad someone else is picking up on how the character is essentially the show's ripped-from-the-headlines surrogate for the extreme-radical (at least in the public's perception) real-life Vanessa Redgrave.

 

It reminds me of when Homeland created a character who was clearly not!Christiane Amanpour.

 

Has Vanessa Redgrave been in the news of late?  Otherwise, I doubt she's much of an inspiration.

 

I presumed Catelyn Stark's character, Margot Al-Harazi, a.k.a "The Yorkshire Widow" was based on the White Widow, a.k.a Samantha Lewthwaite.  It's more topical, the nickname is almost identical and there are some biographical similarities.

[Mrs OldManBalls]

Seriously, Jack? Shooting protesters to create a diversion? Wouldn't the mere sound of gunshots have been enough to start a stampede?

 

I told myself they were probably very pretentious hipsters, judgemental vegans, or some sort of assy person who deserved it. I also told myself they're just flesh wounds. 

Edited May 14, 2014 by Mrs OldManBalls

[leighdear]

I definitely liked Audrey calling her husband on his need to make decisions for other people.  She needs to nip that in the bud!

 

I don't care much for Michelle Fairley.  She reminds me of a dour, British Joan Allen.  I love Joan.  I didn't like Michelle on "Suits" or "GOT" either.  She just keeps playing the same woman over & over. 

 

The IMDB page for the show lists how many episodes each character is in, so while it may be a little spoilerish, I always like to check & see how many the people I like are in, and how many the people I hate are in.  It's always a little surprising.  *LOL*

[Boundary]

I know they're building up to it but I just want Jack to meet Audrey and get done with it. It's the main point of this season, innit?

Otherwise, I enjoyed it, I knew I was watching 24 again when Chloe drove faster than the tube train on the streets of London, when a CIA agent basically assaulted and kidnapped a suspect (at least they acknowledged the police were on the way but, damn, how slow are they?), Jack shot a guy in the leg to create a diversion and the White House Chief of Staff forged the President's signature. All this within a single hour. They should just call this show "24: Going Rogue"!!!

[dr pepper]

 

Has Vanessa Redgrave been in the news of late?  Otherwise, I doubt she's much of an inspiration.

 

Redgrave is in the lastest "mental specialist who's a mental case" show. It's called The Black Box, and stars Dr. Black, a manic depressive neuroscientist haunted by her mother's suicide and regularly skipping her meds. Redgrave plays Black's shrink.

 

 

 

I presumed Catelyn Stark's character, Margot Al-Harazi, a.k.a "The Yorkshire Widow" was based on the White Widow, a.k.a Samantha Lewthwaite.  It's more topical, the nickname is almost identical and there are some biographical similarities.

 

That was my assumption as well.

[samuel]

I'm loving it. Bring on the ridiculous. 24 has been ridiculous since and including season 2. It doesn't have to make perfect sense given our reality; I'm happy with the show providing high stakes within its own alternate reality. In 24's universe, some guy named Heller is the president. And Brits are mad about drone strikes. If you accept the former, you have to accept the latter, I think.

 

I like watching Jack kick ass with Chloe yammering in his ear, while the plot twists and turns, creating ever-higher stakes. Looks like we're going to get a lot of that this season, so I'm totally on board.

Edited May 15, 2014 by samuel

[GreyBunny]

Seriously, Jack? Shooting protesters to create a diversion? Wouldn't the mere sound of gunshots have been enough to start a stampede?

Just got caught up and, yeah, I'm back to hating Jack again.  It was bad enough that the show depicts torture as getting good results but then the so-called hero shoots innocent people to create a diversion.  At least one of the gunshots went through the protester's thigh which could have broken the femur and/or severed the femoral artery, both of which could or would be life-threatening.  At least it happened in the UK where they actually have universal health care.

 

Potato-face Chloe is even more potato-faced than ever.  I don't get why she's dressed like some punk kid.  Grow up, dumbass.  

Audrey is still annoying and I wish she were dead instead of Morris.

[dr pepper]

I like the actor that played Morris. And hey, this is 24. People who die offstage aren't necessarily dead.

[Watcher0363]

For a deeply guilt ridden person, channeling the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and stealing state secrets, is a pretty good coping mechanism. It beats cutting, binge drinking or eating, and hyper sexuality.

Although in Chloe's case, hyper sexuality would make her the perfect woman. She would give you great sex, then without prompting, she would get quickly dressed, say thanks and goodbye with that half hearted smile, then leave. Probably paying for the pizza on her way out.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Watcher0363

[Watcher0363]

I like the actor that played Morris. And hey, this is 24. People who die offstage aren't necessarily dead.

When Chloe told Jack she hot wired the car, I immediately thought deep cover. Because Chloe has had the look of a woman on the jazz ever sense season four when she let loose with the M4A1 rifle.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Watcher0363

[Boundary]

For a deeply guilt ridden person, channeling the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and stealing state secrets, is a pretty good coping mechanism. It beats cutting, binge drinking or eating, and hyper sexuality.

Although in Chloe's case, hyper sexuality would make her the perfect woman. She would give you great sex, then without prompting, she would get quickly dressed, say thanks and goodbye with that half hearted smile, then leave. Probably paying for the pizza on her way out.

 

Hey, Lisbeth Salander would do that, and don't forget she'd make coffee too. I think the hacking and the make up are a deliberate shout out to Girl with the Dragon Tatoo and then being on undercover makes even more sense now. I think she's an NSA agent, out to bring down the hacker group and at some point her investigation will intersect with Jack's, then she'll tell him.

[Milburn Stone]

Has Vanessa Redgrave been in the news of late?  Otherwise, I doubt she's much of an inspiration.

 

I presumed Catelyn Stark's character, Margot Al-Harazi, a.k.a "The Yorkshire Widow" was based on the White Widow, a.k.a Samantha Lewthwaite.  It's more topical, the nickname is almost identical and there are some biographical similarities.

 

I'm gonna go with Redgrave as the main inspiration. Couple of reasons. The actress playing the not!Vanessa Redgrave character looks a lot more like Redgrave than Lewthwaite, from what I can tell in a Google image search of the latter. She's also close to Redgrave in her dialect and mannerisms. And from what I can glean from Lewthwaite's Wikipedia bio, Lewthwaite doesn't come from the wealthy, patrician background that the not!Redgrave character, and the real Redgrave, do. 

 

I also think Redgrave may be better known to more members of the audience than Lewthwaite. If the writers picked Redgrave as their approximate model, they didn't do it just for their own inspiration. They did it as a form of shorthand for the audience. They want the audience to bring something to the character, by saying, "Oh, I get it, she's supposed to be like X." The character gains more resonance that way. But shorthand doesn't work if you use a model that few people (or relatively few people) have heard of. 

 

When I referred to the not!Redgrave character as "ripped from the headlines" upthread, I probably should have made clear that I didn't mean "ripped from today's headlines." It's true that Redgrave hasn't been in the news lately for her radical activism. But it wasn't so long ago, and well within the memories of most, if not all, of the audience.

 

Perhaps it would be accurate to say that the character is a fictional mix of the two models, with a heavy emphasis on Redgrave. She combines a dash of Lewthwaite's actual suspected terrorism with Redgrave's everything else (including her radical activist past and present).

Edited May 15, 2014 by Milburn Stone

[Constantinople]

I'm gonna go with Redgrave as the main inspiration. Couple of reasons. The actress playing the not!Vanessa Redgrave character looks a lot more like Redgrave than Lewthwaite, from what I can tell in a Google image search of the latter. She's also close to Redgrave in her dialect and mannerisms. And from what I can glean from Lewthwaite's Wikipedia bio, Lewthwaite doesn't come from the wealthy, patrician background that the not!Redgrave character, and the real Redgrave, do. 

 

I also think Redgrave may be better known to more members of the audience than Lewthwaite. If the writers picked Redgrave as their approximate model, they didn't do it just for their own inspiration. They did it as a form of shorthand for the audience. They want the audience to bring something to the character, by saying, "Oh, I get it, she's supposed to be like X." The character gains more resonance that way. But shorthand doesn't work if you use a model that few people (or relatively few people) have heard of. 

 

When I referred to the not!Redgrave character as "ripped from the headlines" upthread, I probably should have made clear that I didn't mean "ripped from today's headlines." It's true that Redgrave hasn't been in the news lately for her radical activism. But it wasn't so long ago, and well within the memories of most, if not all, of the audience.

 

Perhaps it would be accurate to say that the character is a fictional mix of the two models, with a heavy emphasis on Redgrave. She combines a dash of Lewthwaite's actual suspected terrorism with Redgrave's everything else (including her radical activist past and present).

 

Michelle Fairley wasn't originally cast as Margot al-Harazi;  Judy Davis was.  Regardless, I don't see why they would cast either actress to call to mind Vanessa Redgrave since neither one looks particularly like Vanessa Redgrave.  Neither of Vanessa Redgrave's husbands were known terrorists, nor has Vanessa Redgrave ever been wanted for terrorists acts, or ever had an Interpol alert ever put out on her.  Samantha Lewthwaite is "The White Widow"; Margot al-Harazi is "The Yorkshire Widow"; Vanessa Redgrave has never been known as "The ________ Widow".

 

More to the point, viewers who can associate "Vanessa Redgrave" and terrorism, even if they don't agree with the association, aren't likely in the show's desired demographic range.  Vanessa Redgrave's Oscar speech was 36 years ago (I recall watching it live).  Most of the recent ratings I see, for Monday's episode, and for the networks in general, focuses on the 18-49 range.  A Google news search of "Vanessa Redgrave" combined with Israel, PLO, Palestine or Middle East returns 1-2 hits, total.  Samantha Lewthwaite has been in the news multiple times within the past year.

[Milburn Stone]

Michelle Fairley wasn't originally cast as Margot al-Harazi;  Judy Davis was.  Regardless, I don't see why they would cast either actress to call to mind Vanessa Redgrave since neither one looks particularly like Vanessa Redgrave.  Neither of Vanessa Redgrave's husbands were known terrorists, nor has Vanessa Redgrave ever been wanted for terrorists acts, or ever had an Interpol alert ever put out on her.  Samantha Lewthwaite is "The White Widow"; Margot al-Harazi is "The Yorkshire Widow"; Vanessa Redgrave has never been known as "The ________ Widow".

 

More to the point, viewers who can associate "Vanessa Redgrave" and terrorism, even if they don't agree with the association, aren't likely in the show's desired demographic range.  Vanessa Redgrave's Oscar speech was 36 years ago (I recall watching it live).  Most of the recent ratings I see, for Monday's episode, and for the networks in general, focuses on the 18-49 range.  A Google news search of "Vanessa Redgrave" combined with Israel, PLO, Palestine or Middle East returns 1-2 hits, total.  Samantha Lewthwaite has been in the news multiple times within the past year.

 

Regarding your first paragraph, Constantinople, this is why I talked of the dash of Lewthwaite's actual suspected terrorism being integrated into the character. For all Redgrave's radicalism, she's never been accused of that. But every other aspect of the character calls Redgrave to mind more than Lewthwaite. (And I think this would also have been the case had Judy Davis played her.) The show implicitly asks the question, "What if someone like Redgrave secretly went much farther in the direction of radicalism, all the way to terrorism, than anything the public suspects?" It imagines that as a starting point, and takes off from it.

 

Regarding your second paragraph, Redgrave's Wikipedia entry shows that her radical activism has continued into the pretty recent (not ancient history) past. I quote: "In December 2007 Redgrave was named as one of the possible suretors who paid the £50,000 bail for Jamil al-Banna, one of three British residents arrested after landing back in the UK following four years' captivity at Guantanamo Bay."

 

Putting aside whether you or I think Redgrave is an admirable character, I think it's safe to say the right-leaning showrunners of 24 look askance at her activities. And I doubt whether they are that much older than 49 themselves. I'd venture to say that at least the older half of the 18-49 demographic has some (at least peripheral) awareness of Redgrave's activities, enough for the show to use that awareness as a signifier.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Milburn Stone

[TimWil]

Here's one of Redgrave's "causes" I find amusing-in 1976 she very strongly opposed the casting of Donna McKechnie (an American) in the London cast of A Chorus Line after a British performer had been fired.

I think Michelle Fairley is OK in the role. Diana Rigg would have been incredible, though. Fairley bears a huge physical resemblance to another great British actress, Jane Lapotaire.

[John Potts]

Would it kill Chloe to actually argue with Jack on occasion? If she's meant to have fallen in with a bunch of loonies who have crazy beliefs like torture is wrong and that government keep secrets mainly to cover their own asses (I know - nuts right?), then couldn't she say as much to Jack? Even if she goes along with what Jack was doing, she could at least make a token effort to act the part of a hacktivist. I'm glad the hacker in chief actually betrayed Jack, because at least he was acting in accordance with his beliefs (presumably he disapproves of US "Imperialism" so discrediting that is, as far as he is concerned, a good thing) and it's not as if Jack's been straining to persuade him he's wrong.

 

Boundary They should just call this show "24: Going Rogue"!!!

 

Considering all the laws Jack’s broken over the years, more like “We can always find new rights to violate!”

 

Anyone else think it weird that an American talking to another American would refer to a place that serves alcohol as a pub and not a bar? I mean, kudos for actually using a correct Britishism, but why would they? And on the subject of things that are wrong, the Northern Line doesn't go anywhere near Ealing (where they were last week); while it's probably possible to outrun an Underground train (think of the French Connection), it's pretty damn unlikely and if that was supposed to be the House of Commons that President Heller was addressing, it was completely wrong (they didn't say it was, but it seems unlikely they were conducting other business outside the Commons before Heller spoke).

 

Whoamiworkingfor Simone's husband is a giant, neon-glowing candidate for the usual list of (1) Getting killed for cracking under the pressure/flipping on The Family (2) Getting killed for becoming annoying (3) Getting killed after being set up as a martyr in some part of the scheme (4) Getting killed for otherwise outliving his usefulness (5) Killing everyone else because he's actually the Big Bad in disguise.

 

While watching his scenes, I was going "You are so going to get killed!" I hadn't actually considered he might be the Big Bad, but I guess it's possible.

 

Mars477 Drone pilots can operate just as easily in the US, so god knows why the Americans want to base operators in England.

 

That weirded me out too - when Heller talked about handing him over, I assumed they'd have to fly him in from the States. OK, so it would probably take an implausibly short amount of time (probably around three hours), but it's not like the character is especially major and couldn't disappear for a few episodes.

 

Dr Pepper And hey, this is 24. People who die offstage aren't necessarily dead.

 

Hell, people who die onscreen aren’t necessarily dead!

Edited May 18, 2014 by John Potts

[TimWil]

LOL, John Potts re: the ones dying onscreen not being necessarily dead.

Maybe Morris and Prescott's deaths were faked so they'd be put in some witness protection program?

[WhoAmIWorkingFor]

Would it kill Chloe to actually argue with Jack on occasion?

Chloe has argued, or at least disagreed, with Jack on a few occasions in the past.  But it would definitely help her become more of a full sidekick instead of just an assistant if she was allowed to have a bit more conflict with him.  The amount of time that has passed should have created more of an opportunity for this.

 

I'm glad the hacker in chief actually betrayed Jack, because at least he was acting in accordance with his beliefs (presumably he disapproves of US "Imperialism" so discrediting that is, as far as he is concerned, a good thing) and it's not as if Jack's been straining to persuade him he's wrong.

I'm curious to see how that plays out, since the guy's now fallen into the tricky middle ground of characters that may end up helping out in the end despite their obvious personal conflicts; some of those transitions have worked out better than others.  (For example, Jack and Paul Raines ended up being pretty good together even though it made no sense at all.)

 

Anyone else think it weird that an American talking to another American would refer to a place that serves alcohol as a pub and not a bar? I mean, kudos for actually using a correct Britishism, but why would they?

Can happen if you've been there for a while, though.

 

Simone's husband...

While watching his scenes, I was going "You are so going to get killed!" I hadn't actually considered he might be the Big Bad, but I guess it's possible.

I'm rating the probability of his being the Big Bad as about the same as gravity reversing itself in the morning so that I roll out of bed onto the ceiling, but it seemed worth mentioning as a long-odds twist. :)

 

[GreyBunny]

I'm an American who lives in the States, never lived in the UK, and I call bars pubs.  *shrug*

 

Considering all the laws Jack’s broken over the years, more like “We can always find new rights to violate!”

 

Yup.  Might as well call season 9 "The Terrorists Have Already Won."

[Catherinewriter]

Wouldn't you think Chloe's makeup would have begun to dim or rub off by now? Presumably she's not taking time to refresh it. I hate the look on her.

And by god, he did shoot two of the protesters, if blood is any evidence of such an action. Really, Jack, shooting people who are supposed to be on your side (Western, U.S./Brits, etc.) Judas Priest!

Milburn Stone, what happened with Judy Davis, do you know? She would have been fantastic. Terrific actor, haven't seen her in awhile.

[WhoAmIWorkingFor]

 

Really, Jack, shooting people who are supposed to be on your side...

I'm pretty sure that the plan that started Season 3 still takes the prize for the most eggs broken on the way to making an omelette.  Then there's the end of that season...

[Bort]

And on the subject of things that are wrong, the Northern Line doesn't go anywhere near Ealing (where they were last week);

I was pretty much assuming that Yates and Simone had gone clear across town to get good and far away from the firefight they just escaped from. It would've taken a good hour to get to Kennington station from Ealing, though.

I was having fun with the underground scenes. Waterloo IS the next station north of Kennington. Charing Cross is not the next stop after that, Embankment is. HOWEVER, Embankment was closed all winter for renovations, it only JUST opened back up like a couple of months ago.

[TimWil]

That's not quite true. No Northern or Bakerloo line trains will stop at Embankment station until October. The District and Circle line trains aren't affected, however.