The Volokh Conspiracy
[Randy Barnett, January 22, 2008 at 12:19pm] Trackbacks
24: The Unaired 1994 Pilot
It turns out that Fox's "24" was proposed as a series in 1994. The pilot episode was recently bootlegged and released on line.

WHOI Jacket:
Classic.
1.22.2008 11:39am
RichC:
Wicked awesome.
1.22.2008 11:44am
alias:
Clever way of asking the question of how we ever got by without recent technological advances.
1.22.2008 11:52am
GW student:
You law professors really have no respect for IP or property rights, do you? Apparently, you have no qualms about proliferating the spread of a bootlegged copy of someone else's property.
1.22.2008 12:38pm
OrinKerr:
GW Student,

The key word here is "apparently." Fortunately, if you watch the video it's pretty clear it's not actually what Prof. Barnett claims.
1.22.2008 12:58pm
Scote (mail):

You law professors really have no respect for IP or property rights, do you? Apparently, you have no qualms about proliferating the spread of a bootlegged copy of someone else's property.


You really should check the facts (i.e. watch the fairly well done video) before getting all high and mighty with the accusations.
1.22.2008 1:07pm
alias:
I read GW law student's comment and assumed that it was tongue-in-cheek.
1.22.2008 1:29pm
alias:
I read GW student's comment and assumed that it was tongue-in-cheek.
1.22.2008 1:29pm
Scote (mail):

I read GW student's comment and assumed that it was tongue-in-cheek.


What? I might have to take my own advice? Sigh...

(We really need special fonts to show our tone of voice. One for tongue in cheek, one for sarcasm (Sarcastica Extra Heavy), etc. )
1.22.2008 1:42pm
Orielbean (mail):
I try to use the /s after a sarcastic comment. I don't know of any widespread usage for a sarcasm subcontext on the internet. It sure would be useful.
1.22.2008 1:47pm
Independent George (mail):
But what if the aim is not crude and crass sarcasm, but sophisticated deadpan humor? The moment you reveal your intent, it stops being deadpan.
1.22.2008 1:55pm
alias:
It's so hard to convey tone online. Maybe GW student was fooled by Prof. Barnett's joke, or maybe he/she/it was playing along. Whatever.
1.22.2008 2:28pm
Duffy Pratt (mail):
Very funny. It also raises the question of whether "24" will seem this silly and outdated in 12 years. Sort of like how Disneyland's Land of the Future conveys more about how people thought in the early 60s than it says anything about the future.
1.22.2008 2:45pm
Duffy Pratt (mail):
Very funny. It also raises the question of whether "24" will seem this silly and outdated in 12 years. Sort of like how Disneyland's Land of the Future conveys more about how people thought in the early 60s than it says anything about the future.
1.22.2008 2:45pm
alias:
How dare you disparage Tomorrowland. "Land of the Future," indeed...
1.22.2008 3:29pm
Scote (mail):

Very funny. It also raises the question of whether "24" will seem this silly and outdated in 12 years.


Yes, I hope that a show which proposes that regularly torturing people for information is a viable strategy for protecting the US from terrorists looks silly and very outdated in 12 years.
1.22.2008 3:33pm
Bruce:
In the first season or so of the X-Files (1993-94) Scully and Mulder did not have cell phones -- and somehow they managed to write a way around it. They did make fun of that fact later in a "flashback" episode where Mulder gets a call, and takes it on one of those 5-pound bricks from the 1980s.
1.22.2008 3:34pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Yes, I hope that a show which proposes that regularly torturing people for information is a viable strategy for protecting the US from terrorists looks silly and very outdated in 12 years.
If we're living under Sharia law, it probably will look silly.
1.22.2008 3:45pm
Scote (mail):

If we're living under Sharia law, it probably will look silly.


Yup, it would be proof torturing in the name of security didn't work.
1.22.2008 4:58pm
Bama 1L:
How dare you disparage Tomorrowland.

Disney has updated Tomorrowland. They just put giant irony quotes around the sign.
1.22.2008 6:01pm
Justin (mail):
"If we're living under Sharia law, it probably will look silly."

Can somebody write me the reasonable-sounding narrative of how we end up under Sharia law in 12 years?
1.22.2008 8:50pm
GW student:
tongue-in-cheek, but intentionally vague. Just wanted to see what responses it would get.
1.23.2008 11:05am
kia (mail):
Can somebody write me the reasonable-sounding narrative of how we end up under Sharia law in 12 years?

It's already happening in parts of Europe. If we continue to allow masses of immigrants (legal or illegal) to come into our country without integrating... we too will have communities within communities. The Muslim communities will be allowed to practice their form of Sharia law. Their law will trump our law because we are so tolerant. Soon the community will grow larger &will be able to elect local govm't leaders ... it just continues to grow from there. I am not a conspiracy theorist … but this is a very real threat.
1.23.2008 12:09pm
thegreatsatan (mail) (www):
You wouldn't think this was as funny if you had been to the FBI and seen their computer systems circa 1999-2001
1.23.2008 4:01pm

PicoSearch
Help