|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Jun 30, 2008 13:54:21 GMT -6
Just got this link from my buddy Larry; AMC is remaking the classic series "The Prisoner" with Jim Cavaziel and Ian McKellan. In these days of Guantanamo and the Patriot Act, this could hit a lot of nerves.......Be Seeing You!! ******************************* featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2008/06/the-prisoner-is.html'The Prisoner' is the latest classic to get a remakeFamous TV franchises are being extended every which way these days, on screens large and small, so it's not too much of a surprise to learn that the classic '60s series "The Prisoner" is getting a remake. Jim Cavaziel ("The Passion of the Christ") will star as Number 6 and Ian McKellan (he was Gandalf in "The Lord of the Rings" movies, among many other roles) will play Number 2 in the remake of "The Prisoner," which will air as a 6-part miniseries next year on AMC. The cable network is on the upswing thank to its original series, "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad"; let's hope the trend continues with "The Prisoner," which may be one of those series that shouldn't be remade -- but that remains to be seen. "The Prisoner spawned an enormous group of zealous fans who thrived on each week's psychological twists and turns. AMC's version brings The Prisoner back to primetime, and we're tempted to discuss more details, but in the spirit of the series, what you do know, may hurt you," said Christina Wayne, SVP of scripted original programming. The company's Monday press release is on the next part of this item. MUCH MORE AT LINK..... |
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Jun 30, 2008 13:56:34 GMT -6
"The Passion Of The Prisoner"?
"I'm not a number, I'm a free man!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jun 30, 2008 14:49:47 GMT -6
OK, this has my attention. I have the entire series on VHS, and I want to believe that remakes can be done that match or exceed the original, but I am usually disappointed. HOPEFULLY looking forward to this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Nov 1, 2009 19:08:39 GMT -6
They're starting to promote this on AMC. I think they said it starts November 15. Could be good!......Jake
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Nov 1, 2009 20:33:08 GMT -6
Saw an ad for it today on the subway. It'll be hard to outdo the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 2, 2009 6:03:32 GMT -6
I have the original on DVD, Im not holding my breath on this one. It depends on how much they have changed the story line. In the original, he had no idea who was holding him or why, if that element is missing, to me a key part of the tension of the series. "Which side are you on?" "That would be telling"
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 15, 2009 6:27:03 GMT -6
Just a heads up, tonight is the night. 8pm ET I believe
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Nov 15, 2009 11:16:34 GMT -6
Yep, got the DVR already programmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Nov 16, 2009 1:14:33 GMT -6
I watched the first two episodes. Anyone else? I thought they were pretty good. Of course, the proof of success won't be until the story arc has been resolved, but I like what I see so far. It is different, of course, but not TOO different to be good. More of an update for the current state of the world. By the way, did anyone else notice that... The dying old man at the beginning, Number 93, was wearing the same jacket that Patrick McGoohan always wore in the The Original Series? I thought that was pretty cute. I also liked the little "6" embedded in the O of "The Prisoner" in the logo. Kind of replaced the old-style bicycle logo. |
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 16, 2009 6:04:15 GMT -6
I watched the first half live, then a "domestic distraction" I couldnt ignore came along, I'll finish it up tonight. I did notice the item mentioned in your spoiler but didnt have a chance to see the credits to see who played 93. Wondering if there was a guest appearance of note there. I did not notice embedded 6. What I did see I found interesting enough to bring me back for another episode. Was the "follow the towers" a blatant reference which the story line will follow for the series? |
|
|
|
Post by nolaflacav on Nov 16, 2009 8:18:35 GMT -6
I watched the first half live, then a "domestic distraction" I couldnt ignore came along, I'll finish it up tonight. I did notice the item mentioned in your spoiler but didnt have a chance to see the credits to see who played 93. Wondering if there was a guest appearance of note there. I did not notice embedded 6. What I did see I found interesting enough to bring me back for another episode. Was the "follow the towers" a blatant reference which the story line will follow for the series? You are a far better man than I can ever hope to be. There is no way I could last an entire day finishing up a "domestic distraction." |
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 16, 2009 8:27:34 GMT -6
I leave them wanting more... which usually means it took me 2 minutes to begin with
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Nov 16, 2009 10:40:53 GMT -6
The "guest appearance" that I think you are referring too was not likely in the first place, as he's been dead for awhile now. At any rate, it wasn't him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 17, 2009 14:56:16 GMT -6
Watched the remainder of the show last night. I know the reviews have not been the best, but I didnt think it was too bad (maybe there was too much in the way of thinking that had to go on to follow the cuts back and forth in the timeline, I dont know)
I like that 2 is getting some hints of a backstory, and some of the other residents of The Village are also being shown away from the presence of 6 (even though it does take away the potential that those characters are simply around to mess with 6's head).
Next week I will Be Seeing It
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 17, 2009 15:04:03 GMT -6
The "guest appearance" that I think you are referring too was not likely in the first place, as he's been dead for awhile now. At any rate, it wasn't him. There has been some chatter that 93 was perhaps the old 6 finally getting away, making this a sequel rather than a reboot. The number designations werent necessarily static in the old series "6 for 2", but this ignores the fact that 6 got away in the final episode. BTW- I miss that 2 doesnt have a midget butler/valet |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Nov 17, 2009 16:06:06 GMT -6
The "guest appearance" that I think you are referring too was not likely in the first place, as he's been dead for awhile now. At any rate, it wasn't him. There has been some chatter that 93 was perhaps the old 6 finally getting away, making this a sequel rather than a reboot. The number designations werent necessarily static in the old series "6 for 2", but this ignores the fact that 6 got away in the final episode. BTW- I miss that 2 doesnt have a midget butler/valet 6 get away in the final episode of the original series? I seem to remember it being left ambiguous, especially in that... when he got to his apartment in London, the door opened automatically for him, just like they do in The Village. |
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 18, 2009 6:39:48 GMT -6
Good point Jake, and given the earlier episode where he had escaped to London and (was unexpectedly) returned, I suppose I should not have assumed that he actually escaped in the end. If The Village is an allegory for the collective of our own demons, we can never truly escape them, their memories will always haunt if not disturb us.
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Nov 18, 2009 9:53:28 GMT -6
So here's the thing ...
I've been watching this show for the past couple of nights -- or trying to, anyway -- and I'm having difficulty getting into it. I think it's because I liked the original series so much, I want this version to remind me of all the things I liked about it -- but it's so different, there's very little for me to find appealing about it.
I haven't seen the original in quite some time -- either on DVD or TV reruns, if any -- but I seem to recall the original had some humor amidst all the surreal activity and that's what I find lacking in this version. Does anyone remember it differently? I thought I recalled McGoohan's 6 sort of playing things with a bit of a smirk and suggesting he was somewhat above it all -- that was his way of refusing to succumb to the system. Caviezel's 6, OTOH, seems so beset by everything, he sometimes doesn't feel that "heroic" to me, so it's hard to root for him.
Maybe I'm just too tied to the original series to be able to give this one a fair chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Nov 18, 2009 10:39:11 GMT -6
I agree that McGoohan injected a bit of sly humor, mostly with his facial expressions. There was also more of a "spy vs. spy" vibe in the original version, whereas this new one has more of a Kafka-esque existential feel to it. I'm trying to appreciate it on its own terms, rather than comparing it to the original.
I've finished the first three episodes so far. In the third one, there is a character named 909, pronounced "nine-oh-nine." Am I the only one who keeps hearing the Beatles song from Let It Be in my head whenever he is addressed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 18, 2009 18:09:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 18, 2009 19:48:09 GMT -6
Checkmate- Well, you cant get much more explicit, if you want a nice tight explanation for everything this was it. It was about as explicit as the original was ambiguous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Nov 19, 2009 0:42:12 GMT -6
I watched episode four tonight. Two to go. Then I've got to find the original and watch them all again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 19, 2009 6:36:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Nov 19, 2009 9:52:11 GMT -6
Very cool -- thanks for the link, Gordon. Didn't know they had this on their Web site... I'll definitely have to check out the old episodes there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 19, 2009 10:41:58 GMT -6
Youre welcome, and it seems I dodged the implications of actually being helpful... this time at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Nov 19, 2009 10:46:55 GMT -6
When it comes to The Prisoner, you get a pass. Special Dispensation from The Church of Latter Day Bukkake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 19, 2009 13:36:57 GMT -6
Youre the one
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Nov 21, 2009 18:04:56 GMT -6
I finally finished all 6ix episodes. Interesting stuff. Thoughts?
Or do we need a spoiler thread to discuss it? I doubt anyone but the three of us here care (if that many).
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 22, 2009 6:52:55 GMT -6
I say this thread is "open discussion" from here down, reader beware!
Couple way to go at this, the metaphysical and the presentation thereof, and the overall acting/directing.
I in general, give the series high marks for the pure metaphysical, though at times I felt I was watching a "sunny" version of the Matrix. In this respect, I think it equaled or surpassed the original, but fell apart in trying to cram too much into too little time, in the end I felt as if I was being spoon fed questions then having the answer stuffed down my throat. I would have been a lot happier if given several more episodes to let things work out on there own. Much like downing a fine wine or good single malt in one gulp, everything was there but all the nuance was missed if I had sipped it instead.
Caviezel was great. He played 6 the way Daniel Craig played Bond, a bit tougher and grittier, but less thoughtful. I enjoyed McKellan as 2 also, but I think more so because he played the part for the entire series, rather than being a "guest star of the week". It gave the character a lot more depth which I felt was a positive for this series.
Directing wise, the use of the desert added to the dream like alternative world. No boundaries and open to a point, but uncrossable in the final analysis, unless you look for and find the secret. Nice cutting between realities, effective in keeping me wondering what was going on, and adding elements in the parallels between the realities. Only problem, I never felt a reason as to why I should care about 6. The Prisoner series was about WHY he resigned. McGoohan's characters was being pressed each week for an answer to that question. I never felt that Caviezel's character was being pushed at all. In the end, why he resigned was irrelevant, and there was no other aspect that was substituted into the story to make me care about what happens to him.
I will never look at a pot hole in the road the same way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Nov 22, 2009 9:44:07 GMT -6
I agree with much of your assessment. Although I don't think Summakor cared why he resigned, and we weren't supposed to either; the very fact that he figured out as much as he did showed them that he had something special in the way of talents, and that is what gave Curtis (#2) the idea that he may have found himself a successor.
I like the switching between the Village and NYC. In the first few episodes, I assumed that the NYC scenes were all flashbacks. But toward the end, they were clearly occurring in parallel. My first thought was, hey, when did these stop being flashbacks and start being parallels? But then I thought, hey dumbass, they were probably ALWAYS in parallel! That gave the entire production a neat new twist.
Kudos to McKellen for starting out as a very sinister figure, and in the end, becoming almost sympathetic, without any overt ch-ch-change in demeanor. A great performance.
I loved the scene were #2 and the shopkeeper were smoking cigarettes. Didn't seem to have much to do with the story, except that they were both enjoying the obvious subversiveness of it all. Also liked the quick glance upwards in the bar where #2 noticed the old bone-shaker type bicycle from The Original Series! Also: is it just me, or is the Summakor logo (the big S) sort of an echo of the Village logo (the five-pointed palm in a "stop!" pose)?
The only thing I really didn't care for was Caveizel's performance. To me, what makes a good story great is a character that I can care about, and Caveizel's #6 was about as compelling as a sock puppet. A little more charisma and we would have been rooting for him all the stronger, and the story would have been much more grabbing on a gut level.
|
|
