AMC's Prisoner
Dewey
thing and finally finished it. It took me over a week because, needless to
say, it sucked. I found it difficult to watch more than 15-20 minutes at a
time because it was simply too painful. Let's list the many ways it sucked:
1. I figured that Ian McKellan would at be a bright spot in what I expected
in advance to be a poor remake and I was disappointed. Aside from maybe two
or three brief moments (Two's little dance when he was telling 11-12 to
meet a woman for example) a good actor was completely wasted.
2. Cleveisel (sp?) sucked. Period. He was just absolutely awful. He had one
good moment, when Two said "I see no locked doors Six" and he started to
say something then interrupted himself: "WHat did you call me?" Other than
that, he was wooden board. They couldn't have done worse with Keanu Reeves
or Ashton Kutcher. He was terrible
3. Turning The Village into a positive? Whose shitbrained idea was that?
Defeats the entire purpose of the show. Obviously whoever conceived and
wrote this shit never even watched the original.
4. Using abbreviated titles from original episodes. Why?
5. The whole notion that the Village was a dreamstate. Dumb.
6. Here's the biggest thing to me: why was 6 there in the first place? From
what we see, other than his "resignation" there was nothing "broken" about
6 that needed fixing the way 313 ("Sarah") or 147 ("The Driver") needed
"fixing." There was no need for "information". 6 didn't have anything "The
Village" wanted in that respect. And 6 simply wasn't disobedient enough.
The whole dichotomy of Individual vs. Society was absent. This plays out in
the original in both obvious and subtle ways and is one of the most
enduring (to me) aspects of the original. Yet it was completely absent here
except for a few gratuitous moments.
7. Why the numbers? In the original, the Village was really a prison and
they stripped people of the identities for a reason, to break them. In the
remake they are not trying to break people, they are trying to fix them.
The number thing was stupid in that context.
8. There was so many more things that were unnecessary, under developed or
simply stupid. The love affair between 11-12 and 909. 11-12 himself
(although this character/actor may actually have been the best part of the
whole thing). The need for a drugged/sleeping Mrs. Two. Why give 6 a
brother? The holes. Blowing up the diner. The guy who slit his throat. And
what did they do with the store keeper and why? And the worst thing: the
gratuitous McGoohan-like character at the very beginning complete with the
same jacket the original 6 wore. Why? Good god, why?
9. I will say this. I thought the "More Village" concept was at least
intruiging in the way it was presented. "Secret of life: breathe in,
breathe out; More... Village..." At least it was original and different.
10. And this is actually the worst part of the whole thing. That in the end
6 "breaks" and assimilates. McGoohan would have screamed bloody murder.
So, except for a handful of moments totally maybe 2 minutes out of 360, it
was complete and utter shite. An embarassment that I fear will make the
original less accessible to those who haven't seen it.
--
"You are, number 6"
- The New Number 2
Legend-11
>
> So, except for a handful of moments totally maybe 2 minutes out of 360, it
> was complete and utter shite. An embarassment that I fear will make the
> original less accessible to those who haven't seen it.
>
Nah, I don't agree with that. It will bring people to the original out
of curiosity, and they'll find a wholly better and more enjoyable show.
That will be the silver lining of this cloud. It isn't capable of
sullying the reputation of McGoohan's masterpiece.
TBH, I found it a watchable distraction until parts 5 & 6....which were
very poor indeed. Still, I watched it all. I shan't be again.
I've since been re-watching my Twin Peaks gold box set...and oh the
contrast. Twin Peaks and Lost are the spiritual successors of The
Prisoner - balls to this cheap remake.
--
Legend-11.
Dewey
news:heeus2$e8g$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Dewey wrote:
>>
>> So, except for a handful of moments totally maybe 2 minutes out of
>> 360, it was complete and utter shite. An embarassment that I fear
>> will make the original less accessible to those who haven't seen it.
>>
>
> Nah, I don't agree with that. It will bring people to the original out
> of curiosity, and they'll find a wholly better and more enjoyable
> show. That will be the silver lining of this cloud. It isn't capable
> of sullying the reputation of McGoohan's masterpiece.
>
I hope you're right.
> TBH, I found it a watchable distraction until parts 5 & 6....which
> were very poor indeed. Still, I watched it all. I shan't be again.
>
I had to force myself to watch after part 1. After they revealed the
name of the company and what he did, I knew the whole thing was going to
be a disaster.
> I've since been re-watching my Twin Peaks gold box set...and oh the
> contrast. Twin Peaks and Lost are the spiritual successors of The
> Prisoner - balls to this cheap remake.
>
I enjoyed Twin Peaks in its original run but when they started making
"features" it went downhill. "Fire walk with me" almost made me puke.
Graeme
I couldn't watch the first installment when it aired so I DVR'd the
whole
thing and finally finished it. It took me over a week because,
needless to
say, it sucked. I found it difficult to watch more than 15-20 minutes
at a
time because it was simply too painful. Let's list the many ways it
sucked:
>>
If you watched it 15-20 minutes at a time, I'd guess that it was even
worse than if you watched it in 2 hour chunks, because who can pick it
up again later and remember where they were before? "Oh yeah...
SOMETHING was happening... actually it wasn't. Who's that person
again?"
>>
1. I figured that Ian McKellan would at be a bright spot in what I
expected
in advance to be a poor remake and I was disappointed. Aside from
maybe two
or three brief moments (Two's little dance when he was telling 11-12
to
meet a woman for example) a good actor was completely wasted.
>>
If you expected the writing to be bad, I don't see why you expected it
to be good for him. If you expected his performance to be good but
not necessarily his role, then you pretty much got what you expected.
>>
2. Cleveisel (sp?) sucked. Period. He was just absolutely awful. He
had one
good moment, when Two said "I see no locked doors Six" and he started
to
say something then interrupted himself: "WHat did you call me?" Other
than
that, he was wooden board. They couldn't have done worse with Keanu
Reeves
or Ashton Kutcher. He was terrible
>>
They might as well have let Kevin Costner have this one after all.
>>
3. Turning The Village into a positive? Whose shitbrained idea was
that?
Defeats the entire purpose of the show. Obviously whoever conceived
and
wrote this shit never even watched the original.
>>
Is this supposed to be a list of reasons why it sucked, or a list of
reasons why it wasn't like the original? The idea of a virtual
reality therapy zone isn't BAD in and of itself. The failure is
entirely in the execution.
>>4. Using abbreviated titles from original episodes. Why?
It's a bit weak to argue that you disliked a show because of the
title. I know you wanted as many reasons as possible, but quantity
isn't everything. I didn't like the title "The Phantom Menace", but
if it had been a good movie, I wouldn't have cared much.
>>5. The whole notion that the Village was a dreamstate. Dumb.
Depends what you mean. Having a virtual reality Village isn't
necessarily bad (though I have no idea how people are able to exist
inside and out simultaneously). Needing a dreamer to dream it is just
incomprehensible, though.
>>
6. Here's the biggest thing to me: why was 6 there in the first place?
From
what we see, other than his "resignation" there was nothing "broken"
about
6 that needed fixing the way 313 ("Sarah") or 147 ("The Driver")
needed
"fixing." There was no need for "information". 6 didn't have anything
"The
Village" wanted in that respect. And 6 simply wasn't disobedient
enough.
The whole dichotomy of Individual vs. Society was absent. This plays
out in
the original in both obvious and subtle ways and is one of the most
enduring (to me) aspects of the original. Yet it was completely absent
here
except for a few gratuitous moments.
>>
I had no idea why he was there either and the story doesn't say, so we
have to guess. Maybe McKellan wanted to retire, and so wanted to
interest Six in taking over. Although that's kind of a stretch.
Nope, I have no idea why he was there either.
>>
7. Why the numbers? In the original, the Village was really a prison
and
they stripped people of the identities for a reason, to break them. In
the
remake they are not trying to break people, they are trying to fix
them.
The number thing was stupid in that context.
>>
We have to guess on that too. Maybe they were trying to divest people
of their old, broken personalities, but if they don't remember them,
there's no reason why the name should be so painful. Nope, I have no
idea why they had numbers either.
>>
8. There was so many more things that were unnecessary, under
developed or
simply stupid. The love affair between 11-12 and 909. 11-12 himself
(although this character/actor may actually have been the best part of
the
whole thing). The need for a drugged/sleeping Mrs. Two. Why give 6 a
brother? The holes. Blowing up the diner. The guy who slit his throat.
And
what did they do with the store keeper and why? And the worst thing:
the
gratuitous McGoohan-like character at the very beginning complete with
the
same jacket the original 6 wore. Why? Good god, why?
>>
The holes were my favorite part. The plot, quite literally, had holes
in it. Holes were the biggest part of the plot. This is allegory at
its finest.
Possibly Number 93 was originally intended as a McGoohan cameo?
>>
9. I will say this. I thought the "More Village" concept was at least
intruiging in the way it was presented. "Secret of life: breathe in,
breathe out; More... Village..." At least it was original and
different.
>>
Yeah, but this is supposed to be a list of reasons why it sucked.
It's a bit sneaky working in a bit of praise to pad a Suck List.
>>
10. And this is actually the worst part of the whole thing. That in
the end
6 "breaks" and assimilates. McGoohan would have screamed bloody
murder.
>>
Not me. I WANT a Six as wimpy as that one breaking. Otherwise I'd
feel that if this guy can hold out then anyone can, and lose respect
for the whole Village.
With a story as dour, as depressing, and existential as this one, full
of people killing themselves because life is so bad, I can't imagine
them using any different ending.
One thing I'll give them credit for, though. Rover did look menacing
this time. Although why he was there and where he was trying to keep
people from escaping TO is, again, incomprehensible.
Dewey
e52baa...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>
> Is this supposed to be a list of reasons why it sucked, or a list of
> reasons why it wasn't like the original? The idea of a virtual
> reality therapy zone isn't BAD in and of itself. The failure is
> entirely in the execution.
>
No, it's not bad in and of itself. In fact, it's very intriguing. It's
just not remotely close to "The Prisoner." In fact, it wasn't a prison
at all, more of a rehab.
>
>>>4. Using abbreviated titles from original episodes. Why?
>
> It's a bit weak to argue that you disliked a show because of the
> title. I know you wanted as many reasons as possible, but quantity
> isn't everything. I didn't like the title "The Phantom Menace", but
> if it had been a good movie, I wouldn't have cared much.
Fair enough.
Actually, I think you've nailed it. At least in your version it makes
some kind of sense.
Another excellent interpretation.
> Possibly Number 93 was originally intended as a McGoohan cameo?
>
Indeed. 9-3=6.
>
>
>>>
> 9. I will say this. I thought the "More Village" concept was at least
> intruiging in the way it was presented. "Secret of life: breathe in,
> breathe out; More... Village..." At least it was original and
> different.
>>>
>
> Yeah, but this is supposed to be a list of reasons why it sucked.
> It's a bit sneaky working in a bit of praise to pad a Suck List.
>
Sorry.
>
>>>
> 10. And this is actually the worst part of the whole thing. That in
> the end
> 6 "breaks" and assimilates. McGoohan would have screamed bloody
> murder.
>>>
>
> Not me. I WANT a Six as wimpy as that one breaking. Otherwise I'd
> feel that if this guy can hold out then anyone can, and lose respect
> for the whole Village.
>
Another good point. You've actually made the show a little more
enjoyable for me now. I say that in sincerity. I appreciate your
interpretations.
> With a story as dour, as depressing, and existential as this one, full
> of people killing themselves because life is so bad, I can't imagine
> them using any different ending.
>
> One thing I'll give them credit for, though. Rover did look menacing
> this time. Although why he was there and where he was trying to keep
> people from escaping TO is, again, incomprehensible.
>
--
Graeme
> > Actually, I think you've nailed it. At least in your version it makes
> some kind of sense.
Actually, I like the idea now more than when I said it. Maybe it does
work if #2 wanted to retire. We were wondering what all the trials
were for, since there was no information that the Village wanted to
extract from 6. But if the trials were all attempts to get him
interested enough to want to jump in and run the village himself, "the
right way", it kind of makes sense.
> Indeed. 9-3=6.
Ah. Of course, I hadn't even noticed that. That must be it.
Moor Larkin
>
> Ah. Of course, I hadn't even noticed that. That must be it.
Summakor Skool of mattymatiks:
9x3=27
2+7=9
9 turned upside down = 6
It's a known fact that only number nine makes another number when it
is turned upside-down... except for all the other ones of course.
roger
news:45d78164-f269-4744...@v13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>> Indeed. 9-3=6.
> Ah. Of course, I hadn't even noticed that. That must be it.
No, it's more arcane than that. 'Ninety-three' is a novel by Victor Hugo.
'93' is the victor (get it?) because he apparently has escaped. Hugo's book
is built upon questions like "Can a good action be a bad action?" and "Does
not he who spares the wolf kill the sheep?". The plot is an abstract
judicial difficulty, the hero is an abstract historical force, all very much
in keeping with The Prisoner.
