FANDOM

9,342 Pages

Naughton Tactical Edit

On Feb 16 a user added that Emerson's mercenary group is called Naughton Tactical. The source for this is Image:Emerson.jpg. However I strongly believe this is a case of a misread source. There is no way that Emerson gave any name to his highly illegal mercenary group. It's not like there's a section in the Yellow Pages labeled "mercenaries for hire", and that there's a half-page advertisement for the prestigious Naughton Tactical, the finest Mercenary Group in the DC/Metro area. Clearly this is the legitimate company that is his day job, or at least a front company. Right? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 14:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly. --Proudhug 15:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Though Naughton Tactical could also be the "legitimate front", and secretly acting as a mercenary group.--Gonzalo84 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but "could be" is not the language of an encyclopedia, so it's an irrelevant point. --proudhug 20:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Who shot Emerson the second time? Edit

According to this page, it was Jack. According to many others, including the Fox site, it was Tony. I'm inclined to go with Tony as well; it's rather unlike 24 to edit a scene like that, where it isn't totally clear that Jack was the shooter. Unless, of course, it was indeed Tony who delivered the kill shot. Plus, Tony clearly saw Emerson aim his gun at him. Why WOULDN'T he shoot again? --G-reaper 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

After I watched the scene again, I had this discussion. I still believe it was Jack's kill, but this is a wiki and the discussion is always open. Please post your reply right over there, though, so the discussion can remain in one spot! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 03:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It was definitely a Tony kill IMO, though I could see a case being made either way due to the way it was edited. It's very subtle and quick but if you look closely Jack was just then picking himself up off the floor and turning around with the gun after the second shot was fired. And shortly after in the episode they showed Tony talking to Emerson - if Jack had shot him from that angle straight on, the bullet would've went right through one side of his neck and out the other, but there was no wound there. Also, the Bauercount folks didn't list it as a Jack kill either and they're pretty good at figuring this stuff out. SeanPM 03:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case that it was a Jack kill. I've seen the episode three or four times, and it would make no sense if Tony had shot him. Here are four reasons:

  • Weapon: When Emerson approached Jack, he took his gun and dropped it on the floor. After Tony shot him the first time, Jack falls and is seen crawling towards the area where Emerson had dropped his gun.
  • Motive: Emerson was about to shoot Tony, and he had already hesitated to shoot him the first time. Jack had obviously more resolve to kill Emerson than Tony had already showed because of his emotional involvement with Emerson.
  • Angle and direction of the shot: The shot clearly comes from the side from where Jack fell. If Tony had shot, I don't see why they wouldn't have put the shot in the head or the chest. I mean, most of these heroes are pretty good aims. It makes no sense for Tony to shoot him in the side of the neck.
  • Directing and purpose of the gunshot and the scene overall: Who would the writers put to shoot Emerson? Tony? Tony had an obvious emotional/fraternal relationship with Emerson and he had already hesitated to shoot him first. Sure, Emerson was about to shoot him, but then why not have Tony shoot him in the front and not on the specific side of the neck. If Tony was shooting to kill, then why not put the shot in the head or chest? And if he was shooting only to injure Emerson, why not in the leg or arm again, instead of the side of the neck which would probably end in a critical injury? Moreover, if the purpose was to have Tony shoot the man that he said was like a brother, why the director doesn't focus on his reaction after the shot? I mean, if you're going to stress the emotional aspect of it, why not highlight it. Instead, as Emerson gets shot, the camera cuts to Jack who's getting up, gun in hand, pointing in the same direction where Emerson was shot.

I think that's enough evidence to convince me that it was Jack's kill. Then again, I might be wrong and giving too much thought to something that's not worth it, but well. Thief12 13:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Thief12, especially on the Motive part. Also, Bauercount has errors and inconsistencies that I know to be incorrect. They do great work, and I've posted there before, but they aren't a source of canon. To answer G-reaper's closing question, Tony held back from shooting because of his connection with Emerson. He was almost crying when Emerson was dying and when he refused to forgive Tony. Remember that Emerson literally raised Tony from the dead!
On this topic, I'm glad a good debate has finally come up on the wiki, and also that everyone is perfectly civil. We've been overdue for a good debate on show content like this! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't settled. Perhaps Tony really did kill Emerson: can someone check the scene again? I can't tell on the Hulu version, but I think there's a chance that we see Tony's pistol flash. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 16:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I can check it again, but I've already stated my opinion, and it would be good if someone else does it. For what it's worth, I saw the scene several times and there's no such thing as a flash from Tony's pistol. As a matter of fact, the camera doesn't even show Tony for a good while after Emerson is shot. It only cuts to Jack who's just standing up gun in hand. Thief12 04:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow what you're saying. The camera is on Tony when the gunshot is heard. And I think I'm seeing a flash from his pistol. (You mentioned something about Tony after the gunshot.) Blue Rook  talk  contribs 05:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
No. The camera is on Emerson when he gets shot. After you see he gets shot, the camera cuts to Jack and doesn't go to Tony for awhile. Thief12 05:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack fell to Emerson's left and was going for his gun when the second shot happened. Plus, in the very next shot of Jack that we see, he's still getting to his feet and readying his gun, and he looks surprised to hear the second gunshot. On another note, I think the conversation Tony and Emerson had later indicated that Tony was the one who dealt the killing blow; I don't think Tony would have been so remorseful if it was Jack who had been the one to do it. Finally, again, the FOX website indicates that it was Tony who did it, and under the circumstances, I'm inclined to go with them on this one. --Pyramidhead 00:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link? Thief12 12:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The website Pyramidhead is talking about is this one, I think, just click the 1pm summary. But putting that aside for the moment anyway, Thief I think your assessment is mistaken. As evident from my first post on this thread, I believed it was Jack's kill too, but now I think we're the victim of extremely bad editing. Jack had only a supporting role in that scene, and the person who had the most ability and reason to take that shot was Tony, not Jack. The reason is this: it was Tony's true moment of revelation and purpose, undoing all the evil stuff he had done up to that point and proving his motivations finally. The emotional impact of that whole scene was Tony's willingness to even kill the man who resurrected him from death, a man that was like his brother for years... simply for the purpose of doing the right thing.
In addition to that, the gunshot was a through-the-front-and-out-the-back-side-of-the-neck wound. That effect really doesn't strike me as a shot entering from the side and below, where Jack was. It looked rather similar to the Curtis kill, which was also from the front. Entry wounds originating from the side are never depicted that way on the show, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have looked that way in real life either. Again, just a case of confusing editing. They showed Jack rising up and aiming because, even though that was Tony's scene, it's Jack's show and he is never depicted as being incapacitated for more than a few seconds. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 15:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, like you said, it's probably all because of the bad editing. I can't fight the original source (FOX), so I suppose we can all agree it was Tony's kill. Thief12 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I finally got around to rewatching the scene today, and I totally agree with Blue Rook on this. Because of the way it's edited, it could be argued that Jack may have shot Emerson, however that makes no sense from a story perspective. I think the scene was clearly written to illustrate Tony's betrayal of Emerson by having him kill him. The Fox.com recap merely says that Tony shot Emerson (which he undisputedly did the first time), but makes no reference at all to a second shot, from either Tony or Jack. --Proudhug 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but my initial point to think it wasn't Tony, was the editing. If they want to stress the emotional impact of the scene by having Tony shot a man that was like his brother, then why quickly cut to Jack after the shot is heard? That's bad editing and not really stressing the emotional strength of the scene than if the camera had lingered to Tony to show how he resented to make that shot (if he actually did it). The second thing is the direction of the shot that, to me seems to be more from the side than from the front. However, Blue Rook makes a good point by comparing it to Curtis' death who Jack shot in a similar way, from the front in the area of the neck/shoulder. Thief12 17:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter who shot him, it certainly was bad editing. Haha, it's funny I just watched the scene again, and thought it seemed like Jack took the shot, this time. Argh! However, like I said, Tony makes the most sense from a narrative perspective. Also, when they cut to Tony after the shot, he has a "I just shot you, bitch!" face, rather than a "Oh my god, Jack just shot my friend!" face.

As for the angle, Jack actually fell behind Emerson, so his shot wouldn't be directly from the side, anyway. Though, slowmo-ing it, the squib goes off on an angle that would be very unlikely to have come from directly in front of him, but Peter Wingfield turned enough to his right immediately so it kinda does look like he got hit from the front. --Proudhug 18:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony's loyalties Edit

I say the After Day 5 section should be edited to reflect that Tony was never really on Jack's side after Day 5. OneWeirdDude 17:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason Tony didn't shoot him in the chest was that Emerson had body armor on. Shooting him in the leg wouldn't have dropped him either.

Latest edits by UxbridgeEdit

I rolled back a bunch of edits from Uxbridge for several reasons:

  • His first edits include what is incorrect information, as far as I know. Emerson's profile doesn't say he was the founder of Naughton Tactical, and says he was skilled in "hand-to-hand combat", not "closed quarters".
  • I also think there was a bit of speculation and non-NPOV on the edits and the prose of the events.
  • Also, one of the pictures he uploaded was already on the site (see this vs. this) but without cropping, which I think is preferred.

A case can be made for some of the edits, but I preferred to roll them back and bring back what might be useful, if anything. Thief12 (talk) 13:22, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

FYI I never make edits unless I have the source in front of me. The episode was referred to for all edits. Tony specifically said close quarters combat in the episode. There was no speculation, everything posted was derived from conversation with Tony and Baur or Emerson and Tony or all three. The reason it was edited was that the old version was not as thorough - the entry is about Emerson after all not Tony or Jack - hence the photo that focused on Emerson and not Jack and Tony, the close shot is preferable since Emerson is the topic. You even removed the specifically cited information on his service record as stated by Tony and retained errors like the location where Renee was shot. I don't make this stuff up, but I suppose it is useful to know improvements are frowned upon in this wiki Uxbridge (talk) 15:35, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
My reverting of your edits wasn't done hastily or with bad blood, so you need to take that in consideration first and not think it's personal. I tried to express my concerns politely and as detailed as I could with the time I had right now, but since the edits were so vast, I planned to look into them more calmly. Like I said at the end of my statement, we can always bring back whatever you added with the history. Some additional details about the concerns I had are:
  • Even if Tony said "close quarters", Emerson's profile says "hand-to-hand", which you removed. You could've either add the "close quarters" statement, without removing anything.
  • About the picture, in accordance to our image policy, we try to keep an eye on the amount of images we upload. And since the image you uploaded was technically there already, there really is no need to upload a new one, cropped or not.
Again, this is not personal, so don't take it that way. I will look closely into your edits. Thanks for your contributions. Thief12 (talk) 15:53, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
So we'll state in background notes that he's skilled in both fighting skills and cite either one.--Gunman6 (talk) 16:05, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

It can hardly be personal since we don't know each other, but it is pretty cavalier to eradicate another person's efforts wholesale, when there was nothing more than a single phrase you didn't like. And I stand by my improved use of the picture, a clearer more focused shot of the subject, not just the same one cropped. Uxbridge (talk) 16:09, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't just a phrase, but like I've said, your edits are not "eradicated". We can restore anything you added. But I'd like to clarify some of your sources if it's not a problem with you.
  • Emerson being the founder, as opposed to director, of Naughton Tactical.
  • Emerson serving in Beirut, Mogadishu, Afghanistan.
  • The line "He could not cross the line Emerson was apparently willing to cross and target innocent American" seems a bit non-NPOV.
I'll start with those to see what we can bring back and will continue checking the rest of the edits. Thief12 (talk) 16:24, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

Already stated my source. Watch the episodes and listen to the conversations. Uxbridge (talk) 21:55, March 28, 2015 (UTC)

I believe both of you have made solid points. Can you please cite the exact time or scenes that this is brought up, Uxbridge?--Gunman6 (talk) 23:00, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
"Day 7: 11:00am-12:00pm" shortly after the 15-minute mark. I just corroborated it, and restored it to the article. That said, I didn't find anything about him being the founder of Naughton, as opposed to just the director. Anyway, Uxbridge, thanks for bringing those facts to our attention. As you can see, I've been checking up your edits and restoring parts of it, as my time allows. With an edit as big as this was, I hope you understand. Thief12 (talk) 00:20, March 29, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.