Was Prisoner 09 shown in Europe?
redcat
A.N.Other
wrote:
>Was the new series shown in Continental Europe or elsewhere already? (Ex-US)
We're keeping our fingers crossed that it isn't ;-)
Moor Larkin
> Was the new series shown in Continental Europe or elsewhere already? (Ex-US)
It's slated, but not dated, for 2010 in Britain.............
http://www.itv.com/drama/cult/theprisoner/ .... but they are at least
speaking of it as a *series*, so mayhap we can snack at it, rather
than have to gobble the Super-sized Gut-buster AMC fed to it's cable
customers over there. I also know it will have to be a slightly
different version because British advertising laws will not allow the
advertisement strategy AMCemployed, so no Palm-Pre's for us
maybe,.. :-)) .... but I can see the marketing strategy of Alternative
Episode DVD Collections in the planning stage already...... :-))
Given the generally appalling reception it's had in the US, maybe they
might even re-edit it....... ?? Some reviews give me the suggestion
that whatever it was they filmed was then significantly re-imagined in
post-production.
The fact that Caviezel and McKellen both rated the project so highly
at the point where it was scripted,and yet it has turned out so
apparently disjointed suggests that maybe there were too people
interfering, although Bill Gallagher seems to be getting the blame, as
script-writer... although I did notice there was credit for a Script
Editor and even an Executive Script Editor.... !!! ......
Be seeing it
Moor
redcat
> On 13 Dec, 15:00, redcat <red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Was the new series shown in Continental Europe or elsewhere already? (Ex-US)
>
>
>
> It's slated, but not dated, for 2010 in Britain.............
> http://www.itv.com/drama/cult/theprisoner/ .... but they are at least
> speaking of it as a *series*, so mayhap we can snack at it, rather
> than have to gobble the Super-sized Gut-buster AMC fed to it's cable
> customers over there.
It was a "series" here as well. It ran over three nights (and boy, I
still feel run over!)and after that they ran it again and again.
I also know it will have to be a slightly
> different version because British advertising laws will not allow the
> advertisement strategy AMCemployed, so no Palm-Pre's for us
> maybe,.. :-))
Oh, that was whack. I didn't get it at all. I thought there were
supposed to be things revealed in the commercials. But there were not.
Whatever happened in the commercials (at their beginnings IIRC) directly
relating to the show was meaningless.
.... but I can see the marketing strategy of Alternative
> Episode DVD Collections in the planning stage already...... :-))
>
> Given the generally appalling reception it's had in the US, maybe they
> might even re-edit it....... ?? Some reviews give me the suggestion
> that whatever it was they filmed was then significantly re-imagined in
> post-production.
I don't think there is a whole lot of material to reedit into a cohesive
story. Just wait till you get to the holes in the ground. (And if you
do, you'll know you've wasted far too much of your life.)
> The fact that Caviezel and McKellen both rated the project so highly
> at the point where it was scripted,
What were they going to do? Say it sucks? Remember, neither one said
*anything* of any substance in those interviews.
and yet it has turned out so
> apparently disjointed suggests that maybe there were too people
> interfering, although Bill Gallagher seems to be getting the blame, as
> script-writer... although I did notice there was credit for a Script
> Editor and even an Executive Script Editor.... !!! ......
As I've expressed in private correspondence, it is as if The Prisoner
had been written by Communists.
>
> Be seeing it
Sure, why not? But, remember Moor, you once posted an very unexpected
post here on atp saying that I was a time waster. For a personal
correspondent to read that it was pretty shocking; not only that, but it
was very undeserved. So if your time is so precious that someone with
whom you'd been personally corresponding can be so denigrated in public
by you, then how do you justify wasting your time on this TV show that
both paid and unpaid, but emotionally involved, reviewers have been
telling you is crap?
rc
Moor Larkin
justify wasting your time on this TV show that both paid and unpaid,
but emotionally involved, reviewers have been telling you is crap?
My time is my own would be one nicely prisonerish answer I guess.
Some reviewers have liked the show. You yourself pointed to the
British Telegraph as being one of the outstanding ones. A few others
have said that whilst it struggles to bear comparison with the
original - as a stand-alone-show it was more intriguing than most of
what was around and this Board's own Mickey DuPree got positively
verbose about it.
The post-broadcast reactions of some of the key people involved are
interesting. You say that obviously the actors aren't going to say it
sucked (bad for business) but you are wrong to say neither made any
substantive claims for it. If you read their interviews they both say
they thought the original scripts they read were brilliant. I know
next to nothing about Caviezel but judging from his imdbCV he doesn't
seem to do just any old project. McKellen doesn't have to work and he
is so old now he can say anything he likes and the devil take the
hindmost (he says he likes to tear up bibles in hotels! The old
rascal).
Bill Gallagher, the script-writer seems to be getting much of the
reviewer criticism (mainly because he made Number Two appear to *win*,
although that is disputed by some viewers) but he has just been
interviewed and despite the viewing figures halving after the first
night he says it has been a great success in his opinion:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/tubetalk/a190540/2010-tv-preview-the-prisoner.html
Question: It's now aired on AMC in the US. Were you pleased with how
it performed and the reaction?
Bill says: "I was. There was a conventional experience of prior-to-
broadcast, broadcast, reviews, reactions, audience figures - all of
which went well. The new experience for me was the Twitter reactions,
where I was reading the audience experience as they were watching it.
That was phenomenal - like something out of The Prisoner! They were
figuring it out and sharing their thoughts and giving reactions. As a
writer, you spend two or three years on something and put it out
there, then a few North London critics give you two paragraphs, but it
was phenomenal to experience what people were going through as they
watched it."
So far as my own wittering goes..... There is plenty of crap on TV
every day, so my watching something *culty* (that might be crap) next
year, will be no different to any other day. I do hope I only have to
watch an hour per week, rather than six hours of crap on consecutive
nights, that's my only desire. Iwatched most of Cape Wrath or
Summerlands or whatever the heck they called it in the end, the other
year
With regards to your original question on the Thread, I rhetorically
wonder if the new Prisoner will be dubbed into French, Spanish
(Japanese?) or German, as the original show was in the 1960's. I guess
that costs money and could be a good measure of whether *the business*
sees any merit in the show. Despite many learned claims in the decades
since that the *old* prisoner was some kind of failure, it was of
course a global dollar-earner at the time and formed a crucial plank
of Lew Grade's export sales over 1967-68. I find it fascinating to
figure out how history is re-written by those coming after, and the
new prisoner is just as interesting in that way, at the
moment......Not sure it'll last after I finally see the thing of
course..... :-)))
Some TV commentators over here are suggesting the new show may end up
on ITV3 or ITV4, because it will simply not fit into the main
channel's profile.......... These channels strugge to attain a million
viewers for anything apparently......... But who knows? Not
me...... :-)))
redcat
> On 14 Dec, 13:19, redcat <red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: how do you
> justify wasting your time on this TV show that both paid and unpaid,
> but emotionally involved, reviewers have been telling you is crap?
>
>
>
> My time is my own would be one nicely prisonerish answer I guess.
>
> Some reviewers have liked the show. You yourself pointed to the
> British Telegraph as being one of the outstanding ones.
So? Didn't mean I agreed with it. I hadn't even seen the show yet iirc.
I posted info about it, since no one else had mentioned it yet.
A few others
> have said that whilst it struggles to bear comparison with the
> original - as a stand-alone-show it was more intriguing than most of
> what was around and this Board's own Mickey DuPree got positively
> verbose about it.
You're going to force yourself to like it just because I didn't.
>
> The post-broadcast reactions of some of the key people involved are
> interesting. You say that obviously the actors aren't going to say it
> sucked (bad for business) but you are wrong to say neither made any
> substantive claims for it. If you read their interviews they both say
> they thought the original scripts they read were brilliant.
"the scripts are just brilliant" is not what I'd call substantial. In
the preview interviews I searched, but found nothing that sounded, in a
word, interesting. You can take "brilliant" and stick it on to any show.
It's just an overused adjective.
I know
> next to nothing about Caviezel but judging from his imdbCV he doesn't
> seem to do just any old project. McKellen doesn't have to work and he
> is so old now he can say anything he likes and the devil take the
> hindmost (he says he likes to tear up bibles in hotels! The old
> rascal).
How do you know McKellen doesn't have to work? How do you know what
Caviezel's career plans/opportunities are? Right, you're judging
something, but that doesn't mean it is so.
>
> Bill Gallagher, the script-writer seems to be getting much of the
> reviewer criticism (mainly because he made Number Two appear to *win*,
> although that is disputed by some viewers) but he has just been
> interviewed and despite the viewing figures halving after the first
> night he says it has been a great success in his opinion:
What else is he going to say? Is he going to go on record saying the
show he wrote bombed?
> http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/tubetalk/a190540/2010-tv-preview-the-prisoner.html
>
> Question: It's now aired on AMC in the US. Were you pleased with how
> it performed and the reaction?
>
> Bill says: "I was. There was a conventional experience of prior-to-
> broadcast, broadcast, reviews, reactions, audience figures - all of
> which went well. The new experience for me was the Twitter reactions,
> where I was reading the audience experience as they were watching it.
> That was phenomenal - like something out of The Prisoner! They were
> figuring it out and sharing their thoughts and giving reactions. As a
> writer, you spend two or three years on something and put it out
> there, then a few North London critics give you two paragraphs, but it
> was phenomenal to experience what people were going through as they
> watched it."
"what people were going through" is usually used when people are going
through something painful.
Example: "Why go through it? Let's run away from time." -- Ray Davies,
'Run Away From Time'
>
> With regards to your original question on the Thread, I rhetorically
> wonder if the new Prisoner will be dubbed into French, Spanish
> (Japanese?) or German, as the original show was in the 1960's. I guess
> that costs money and could be a good measure of whether *the business*
> sees any merit in the show.
I still don't understand why you found me a time waster in my reply on
that thread or another (I'm not going back to look for it; your insult,
though, was apparent. And that to someone who'd only shown you support.)
>
> Some TV commentators over here are suggesting the new show may end up
> on ITV3 or ITV4, because it will simply not fit into the main
> channel's profile.......... These channels strugge to attain a million
> viewers for anything apparently......... But who knows? Not
> me...... :-)))
Truest thing you've said.
rc
Moor Larkin
force yourself to like it just because I didn't.
Not at all. I don't expect to like it at all. I expect to laugh and
think how McGoohan did it so much better... :-)))
I watch lots of things I don't like.... once..... I tend then to never
watch them again.... Sometimes I turn them off after half an hour.
Sometimes I sit through the whole thing just to see if it gets better.
On 15 Dec, 13:14, redcat <red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: "the scripts
are just brilliant" is not what I'd call substantial. In the preview
interviews I searched, but found nothing that sounded, in a word,
interesting. You can take "brilliant" and stick it on to any show.
It's just an overused adjective.
The moor you look the moor you find.... But no need to take my word
for it:
"For Caviezel’s part, the 40-year-old star of The Thin Red Line and
The Passion of the Christ says he is not worried about falling short
of McGoohan’s incomparable stature. Caviezel (pictured above, right,
with Ian McKellen) never saw the original series and barely studied it
while filming the remake. Instead, he was intoxicated by McKellen’s
participation, Bill Gallagher’s passionate script and Nick Hurran’s
direction. (For Sir Ian’s take, read Wired.com’s interview with
McKellen)
Will Caviezel’s commitment be bold enough for fans who have been
waiting for a legitimate Prisoner remake for more than 40 years? After
all, when the controversial Prisonerfinale “Fallout” aired, McGoohan
fled London and went into comparative hiding in Los Angeles for the
rest of his life, before passing away earlier this year.
Caviezel is convinced that the answer is yes."
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/07/qa-can-jim-caviezel-fill-patrick-mcgoohans-prisoner-shoes/
"What got McKellen so excited about this Prisoner? Sir Ian says that
it was neither McGoohan nor the original series that prompted his
involvement, but Bill Gallagher’s superlative script, which
interrogates everything from psychiatry and domesticity to
surveillance and technology."
http://www.wired.com/underwire/?p=12373
On 15 Dec, 13:14, redcat <red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: How do you know
McKellen doesn't have to work? How do you know what Caviezel's career
plans/opportunities are? Right, you're judging something, but that
doesn't mean it is so.
You'll be asking me how I know I am really alive next.... So far as
Ian's existentialism goes.... he said so:
"This is the sort of thing I would enjoy watching myself and that is
always the test. It also arrived at the right time – I wanted to work
and, to top it all, it brought me to Cape Town. Now, it’s more
intriguing than when I first read it. It’s a thriller and unlike the
original series, this is much more about what Six wants to escape from
and why he can’t escape."
http://scifiandtvtalk.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/sir-ian-mckellen-talks-about-the-prisoner/
On 15 Dec, 13:14, redcat <red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: I still don't
understand why you found me a time waster in my reply on that thread
or another (I'm not going back to look for it; your insult, though,
was apparent. And that to someone who'd only shown you support.)
Well, if you can't be bothered, I'm not sure why I should either. I
think I complained once that you were taking the piss out of Poster
Tomm by suggesting that he couldn't conclude anything about George
Markstein, since he couldn't have a seance..... I complained that if
people couldn't be bothered to tackle the information, why did they
have to be rude?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.tv.prisoner/msg/fb0deaf53341ee8c?hl=en
It was also another case in point where because someone introduced new
ideas they had somehow to *prove* their information was valid, whilst
preceeding information was somehow validated by its simple a-priori
existence, even though in the case of Markstein the whole farrago was
a nonsense in the first place, but *nobody* questioned *that*
- *Harrrumph*.. :-))
Of course, it may be something else entirely that I said. How would I
know? It's just me *judging* again..... Or is that me *having an
opinion* and seeking then seeking corroboration to back it up?
ml
redcat
[snip]
> Well, if you can't be bothered, I'm not sure why I should either. I
> think I complained once that you were taking the piss out of Poster
> Tomm by suggesting that he couldn't conclude anything about George
> Markstein, since he couldn't have a seance.....
Seances happen to be (or were at that time) Tomm's line of work.
Something he is proud of, so much so that he posted a scene on line,
with himself and Shirley MacLain, dealing with the psychic world. So
asking him for a seance is like asking you about garden furniture. Tomm
took no offense. Why should he? But you decided you knew everybody's
business better.
What moor wrote to me on atp Sept. 25, 2008:
"Not to mention a little less piss-taking with references to seances by
contributers who have very little to contribute themselves."
Not a nice thing to say.
rc
Moor Larkin
So far as I recall that poster did not bring his personal beliefs OR
his personal business into his arguments about the subject he tackled.
They were brought in by snide posters in here, who interrogated his
web-id's, like some demented Number Twos (both senses of the term).
Thus they avoided answering any of the points the guy was making by
just taking the piss out of him as a person. Tomm was too dignified to
express annoyance in my opinion.... yes... I make no apolgy for having
one...... His complete absence from the board since seems proof enough
for me.
I suppose you think he enjoyed the sort of crassness elsewhere on
those threads at the time:
"A tosser who tells gullible people he can channel the dead has no
respect for anyone, nor deserves any himself.
Don't expect him to back up his claims with proof ____. He's used to
people blindly accepting his bullshit. That's the way arrogant Tomm's
world works unfortunately. "
Maybe you missed these. People don't read every thread I guess. I may
have missed something myself - who knows, but that sort of talk was
not untypical.
I think the way his personal background was explicitly and creepily
dragged into this arena of what should have simply been a challenging
chat about a a forty year old TV show and it's fascinating creation,
was the most despicable piece of internet bullying I have ever
witnessed in all my time on the web. Not at all nice, you are right.
Speaking up for the guy, and in support of his side of the argument
(which was a good one) at the time, was why I came back to this forum
after a year or two of just lurking, having previously had enough of
the regular *Gordon-baiting* that went on in my previous year or two
here, beforehand. None of MY business of course, but there you are,
I'm such a crankass I guess. Now I'm just too lazy to leave town
again... :-))) ..... Sometimes you just have to find a way to live in
disharmony, plus I've been on the internet a bit longer and understand
how some parts of it work, better than I used to.
ml
redcat
OK, so you're saying people said not nice things to Tomm, so this gave
you license to say not nice things to me.
rc
Brian Watson
> "For Caviezel�s part, the 40-year-old star of The Thin Red Line and
> The Passion of the Christ says he is not worried about falling short
> of McGoohan�s incomparable stature."
Just as well...
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
www.imagebus.co.uk/shop
scoville
> Some TV commentators over here are suggesting the new show may end up
> on ITV3 or ITV4, because it will simply not fit into the main
> channel's profile.......... These channels strugge to attain a million
> viewers for anything apparently......... But who knows? Not
> me...... :-)))
The Prisoner was included in an trailer for "Winter on ITV1" last
night.
Scoville.
Moor Larkin
but they seem more excited about the locations... :-)))
"So just why would South African audiences have any interest in
watching it? Well, despite the sorely lacking storyline, Sir Ian
McKellen brings his customary impishness to the role of Two and, if
nothing else, Jim Caviezel (Jesus in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the
Christ) offers up a generous helping of eye-candy.
And if that isn't enough to entice you, spotting the familiar Cape
Town sites (where much of the new series was filmed) should keep you
entertained."
http://tonight.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=5276404&fSectionId=434&fSetId=251
Legend-11
I enjoyed Cape Wrath. I never bothered to check what the general
consensus was on any groups or forums....did it go down badly?
I thought it was a good example of how to take influence from The
Prisoner and do your own thing with it, and I really enjoyed the result.
Not as good as something like Lost, but I'd watch a re-run any day.
Legend-11.
