Re: The Prisoner remake *SUCKED*
Micky DuPree
<jbil...@gmail.com> writes:
: On 2009-11-22, Micky DuPree <MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply>
: wrote:
:: In article <000701ca6983$ee144ae0$ae78...@acer.com.tw>, "Nona Chase"
:: <ncha...@acer.com.tw> writes:
::: Also, if a person dies in The Village that doesn't necessarily mean
::: they died in 'Real Life' - it WAS the way one can permanently escape
::: The Village.
::
:: They say you can't really "die" in a dream. It wakes you up.
:
: How could you tell if time passed between when you stopped dreaming
: and when you woke up? (I know I'm breaking the metaphor.)
I think it ends up being a difference that makes no difference. If
dying in your dream merely makes you stop dreaming, the result of ending
the dream is the same. True, if dying in a dream made you die in real
life, we'd never know, because only the ones who stop just short of
dying in their dreams get to go on living and wake up.
They seemed to abide by the dominance of the physical in the new
_Prisoner_, though. No.2 knew that blowing himself up with a grenade
wouldn't kill him in real life. It just gave him a way out of the
dream, since presumably it would have violated people's ingrained sense
of reality for him to have survived such a thing.
:: I had two thoughts about that. One was that Summakor's psychological
:: approach to helping flawed people was pretty basic behaviorism:
:: rewards for good behavior, such as the perfect mate, beautiful
:: children, and approval; and punishments for bad behavior, fear and
:: the like. The justification seemed to be that if the Villagers could
:: be disciplined into conforming on one level of consciousness, this
:: discipline would inform their real-world selves as well, so it was
:: for their own good. The narrative never explicitly made that
:: connection, but left us to infer it.
:
: Real world 313 seemed to still be pretty messed up, and she was more
: confirmist than Six at pretty much every point in the narrative.
Yes, but by the end, which I believe was when we were first shown the
real-world Sarah, 313 had begun to see flashes of memory of her true
self. She believed what Six was saying. This all undermined Sarah's
ability to hold it together. 313 sensed that and did not want to leave
the Village and confront the real world of pain and trauma.
As far as we know, Michael wasn't significantly messed up when he
resigned from Summakor. Maintaining a hold on his sense of reality
while in the Village wasn't a threat to his sanity in New York. The
writer is making the case that it's a benevolence on the part of those
who can see the truth, like Michael, to maintain helpful lies for the
sake of those who cannot handle the truth, like Sarah. It's an updating
of Dostoyevsky's "Grand Inquisitor," substituting the mentally ill and
the "flawed" for sinners.
::: It would have been better if Two was grooming Six to take over by
::: doing these horrid psychological games on him and that Six ended up
::: losing who he is and becoming a dictator just like Two.
::
:: I think that's what happened, at least to an extent, but Two took
:: Six's measure and decided that the way to Six's heart was by
:: convincing him that he was the right man to run the Village the right
:: way, which got Six to drop the idea that the Village should be
:: abandoned altogether. Six accepted the groupthink that Two had
:: primed ahead of time that he was now the right man at the right time.
:
: I missed the first two minutes and the last two minutes. (I heard
: NewSix start his monologue, and I'm pretty sure I know what the rest
: of that monologue sounds like :) That also implies Six will end up in
: the same place as Two and nothing will change... but then again, they
: won't have a son 'this time around' either. Naah, I'm overthinking
: it.
Perhaps not. And it's not impossible that Six/Michael will come to
doubt his reign just like Two/Curtis did, but I think part of the point
is that once invested in the Village, you might opt out later, but you
never destroy the Village. The Village will go on. I think it would be
more appropriate, in fact, if Michael had tried to destroy the Village,
only to discover that the Village had become self-sustaining. The
Villagers had a powerful enough groupthink now that they didn't need a
top-down Dreamer or top-down enforcement to keep the Village going.
They kept themselves imprisoned, like they say crabs will prevent other
crabs from crawling out of the trap.
I read somewhere that there has been what amounts to a schism in
Scient*logy. Some believers feel that the church authorities have lost
their way, but these "protestants" seek to return to the true path. If
it can happen in real life, why not in the Village as well?
::: Here's another thing - do they ever tell us HOW they send these
::: parts of people to the other consciounsess?
::
:: Not explicitly. I inferred that the pills Mrs. Two took and the
:: drugs that recalcitrant Villagers were given were more than just
:: fiction, though. I thought they were dream representations of one of
:: the key tools of control in the real world, as was stealing people in
:: the middle of the night to condition them in the Clinic.
:
: Certainly if they have that degree of ability to watch everyone (and
: blow things up with relevant impunity?) they can drag off and drug
: people.
I don't think it was all that critical, though. Given the power that
the writer ascribed to this hypothetical level of sub-subconsciousness,
it may have been necessary only to drug/hypnotize/whatever the subjects
once in order to get them into the Village. After that, the discipline
of the group consciousness would give them their real-world structure.
: But I do think it was significant that time passed more quickly in the
: Village than in real life.
Why? I've heard it claimed (though I'm skeptical) that we dream most of
our dreams, even long and elaborate ones, in only a small fraction of
time. Once in the dream landscape, why would time differentials be all
that important?
: I don't actually think we're meant to see a direct line between
: anything in the Village and the real world.
The two things that I think showed a cause-and-effect relationship were
that undermining the average Villager's sense of the Village led to a
loss of their ability to cope in the real world, and that a greater
awareness of the Village in the real world bled through in the form of
memories in the Village. There came a point where what was going on in
New York seemed to directly parallel what was going on in the Village,
and they intercut between the two more.
: I think the actual answer, sadly, is that the author never bothered to
: answer that question (even for his own satisfaction).
I don't think he was bothered, and I do think he was satisfied.
-Micky
Dewey
news:hf3kal$gk2$1...@pcls6.std.com:
The bottomline is that the village wasn't a prison so it was stupid to
cast this as a reboot of "The Prisoner". They could have changed all the
names (or numbers) and the show could have stood on its own merits
(however few those were) without butchering the original series.
--
"You are, number 6"
- The New Number 2
Legend-11
--
Legend-11.
Default User
> Yet it is getting a fair old bit of Usenet space devoted to it.
> Curious.
What is your point? Do you really not understand why a highly-hyped
show that disappointed many viewers gets a lot of discussion? Or
something else?
Brian
--
Day 304 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Dewey
@news.eternal-september.org:
> Yet it is getting a fair old bit of Usenet space devoted to it. Curious.
>
The NJ Nets get a lot more usenet space.
Dewey
@mid.individual.net:
> Legend-11 wrote:
>
>> Yet it is getting a fair old bit of Usenet space devoted to it.
>> Curious.
>
> What is your point? Do you really not understand why a highly-hyped
> show that disappointed many viewers gets a lot of discussion? Or
> something else?
>
>
>
>
> Brian
>
I think he is trying to say that "popularity" (be it good or ill) is
equivalent to quality.
Legend-11
> Legend-11 wrote:
>
>> Yet it is getting a fair old bit of Usenet space devoted to it.
>> Curious.
>
> What is your point? Do you really not understand why a highly-hyped
> show that disappointed many viewers gets a lot of discussion? Or
> something else?
>
>
My point is that I forgot about it almost the moment I finished watching
it. It was very much forgettable. I have no desire to sit there and
dissect it the thing, and I'm curious why so many others are.
It's like..."Oh The Prisoner remake, let me count the ways in which you
were a pile of smelly old shit."
LOL
--
Legend-11.
roger
news:hfsart$eju$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> My point is that I forgot about it almost the moment I finished watching
> it. It was very much forgettable. I have no desire to sit there and
> dissect it the thing, and I'm curious why so many others are.
I'm not sure there are that many who want to over-analyse it (a few brave
souls have tried to fill the holes in the plot but seem to be in quite a
minority interest group). Yours appears to be the first reply on this board
for a week, suggesting perhaps that we've now all half-forgotten it, to
which its midweek broadcast-it-quick scheduling pointed anyway.
:-)
We're still discussing the original series 42 years on. This re-whatever is
going to struggle to make 42 days.
Dewey
news:hfsart$eju$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Default User wrote:
>> Legend-11 wrote:
>>
>>> Yet it is getting a fair old bit of Usenet space devoted to it.
>>> Curious.
>>
>> What is your point? Do you really not understand why a highly-hyped
>> show that disappointed many viewers gets a lot of discussion? Or
>> something else?
>>
>>
>
> My point is that I forgot about it almost the moment I finished
> watching it. It was very much forgettable. I have no desire to sit
> there and dissect it the thing, and I'm curious why so many others
> are.
>
Odd that you are here dissecting why others are dissecting it.
> It's like..."Oh The Prisoner remake, let me count the ways in which
> you were a pile of smelly old shit."
>
And there are so many.
> LOL
>
You are a flaming hypocrite, you know that? The subject of this group os
"The Prisoner" and you are chastising people for posting their opinions
of the remake here. Yet you continue to write post after post about why
they shouldn't.
Legend-11
"Post after post"? Exaggerate much?
--
Legend-11.
"Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence" - Leonard
'Bones' McCoy, Star Trek (2009).
Legend-11
> Legend-11 <Slith...@dropallthisgooglemail.com> wrote in
> news:hfsart$eju$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>>> Legend-11 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet it is getting a fair old bit of Usenet space devoted to it.
>>>> Curious.
>>> What is your point? Do you really not understand why a highly-hyped
>>> show that disappointed many viewers gets a lot of discussion? Or
>>> something else?
>>>
>>>
>> My point is that I forgot about it almost the moment I finished
>> watching it. It was very much forgettable. I have no desire to sit
>> there and dissect it the thing, and I'm curious why so many others
>> are.
>>
> Odd that you are here dissecting why others are dissecting it.
People and their odd behaviours are far more worthy of discussion than
The Prisoner 'remake', any day of the week.
>
>> It's like..."Oh The Prisoner remake, let me count the ways in which
>> you were a pile of smelly old shit."
>>
> And there are so many.
>
>> LOL
>>
> You are a flaming hypocrite, you know that? The subject of this group os
> "The Prisoner" and you are chastising people for posting their opinions
> of the remake here. Yet you continue to write post after post about why
> they shouldn't.
>
>
The subject is 'The Prisoner', yes, and it is devoted to the original.
Had the remake been half decent, I'm sure it would earn itself honorary
membership. At best it was a distraction....at worst a pile of old shit.
To associate it with this group would be sacrilege.
Of course I'm not saying people shouldn't post what they like, it is
Usenet, I was just wondering why it isn't being as quickly forgotten by
some people. Perhaps they're just buggers for punishment. For me, out of
sight is out of mind as far as it is concerned.
Micky DuPree
: Yet it is getting a fair old bit of Usenet space devoted to it.
: Curious.
As I said a while back, I've had a lot more fun talking about the
_Prisoner_ remake than I had watching it.
-Micky
Moor Larkin
the AMC site, where he showed a depth of knowledge to be envied, about
the show he was supposedly re-making.....
"I'd seen the original, and not been an avid fan but thought it was
very stylish and amusing and to the point -- the point being, I
suppose, an ironic critique of preoccupations in the '70s that people
had with socialism or the end of the Soviet system."
http://www.amctv.com/originals/the-prisoner/imckellen-interview/
Of course he may be being mis-quoted.
Citizen Caviezel seems to have the same attitude to remaking too:
Q: You intentionally didn't watch the original Prisoner when you got
the role. Now that it's over have you gone back and seen it?
A: I haven't. In the beginning I actually hadn't heard of it, but it
didn't take long for me to learn how many people were huge fans of the
original. It can be very hard to approach the character freshly if
you've just seen someone else's performance in the same role. I guess
I'm kind of one of the guys that stays in the moment.
http://www.amctv.com/originals/the-prisoner/jcaviezel-interview/
Wouldn't it be amusing if it turned out that none of the writers or
producers or directors had ever watched the original either and
actually based their remake on things they had googled from
miscellanous fan-ramblings, rather than the actual show itself.....
Couldn't happen..... could it?
Dewey
4e73-887f-4...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
Actually, it would explain much
Anim8rFSK
<20b4bada-be87-4e73...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Moor Larkin <moorl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I had a laugh at Sir Ian Mckellen's little postprandial interview at
> the AMC site, where he showed a depth of knowledge to be envied, about
> the show he was supposedly re-making.....
> "I'd seen the original, and not been an avid fan but thought it was
> very stylish and amusing and to the point -- the point being, I
> suppose, an ironic critique of preoccupations in the '70s that people
> had with socialism or the end of the Soviet system."
> http://www.amctv.com/originals/the-prisoner/imckellen-interview/
> Of course he may be being mis-quoted.
No, Mckellen is an idiot. I saw him give the interview where he said
that the original show was about the evils of socialism, but now the
world has changed, so the new show is about the evils of capitalism.
But you still cashed the check, didn't you, POS.
--
Tiger Woods has just been named "Athlete of the Decade"
His chosen event? The Broad Jump.
Anim8rFSK
<20b4bada-be87-4e73...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Moor Larkin <moorl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Sure it could. That's what happened with Star Trek.
Ckyp
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Ronnie Bateman <OurOwnRon...@earthlinc.net> wrote:
>I finally finished grinding through that endurance test this morning.
>Boy, did I *hate* it. Nothing kept me watching, except the connection to
>the original show. Utterly humorless. All actors speaking in that
>conspiratorial, under-their-breath style as a cheap route to dramatic
>intensity. And god, that score. I'll do whatever I can to ensure whoever
>scored this project never works again. Ominous mood: Hold down ambient,
>droning note on keyboard while violinist bows around mournful Middle
>Eastern scale tones. Reflective mood: Hold down ambient, droning note on
>keyboard, then add piano going plinkety-plink-plink. Just ghastly. I
>hated the score so much that it distracted me from following the
>dialogue as well as I might have.
>
>Ah, OK. IMDB says the composer is named Rupert Gregson-Williams. I'll
>make a note of that.
There's no accounting for taste. I think that one of the biggest
reasons that many viewers didn't like 'The Prisoner' remake, is that
the many viewers failed to grasp the profound analogies and
implications so brilliantly presented. IOW, they just didn't get it.
--
Ckyp
New & Improved WQ
The show was phony from start to finish. Nobody knew what they hell
they were doing in it but pretended to be profound in the process.
The implications of what the series presented are that if you embraced
it as having any meaning at all, analogy-wise or otherwise, then
you've only succumbed to being just as pretentious as all those
involved in the show. Yeah, I got it.
Anim8rFSK
wrote:
LOL, nonsense. There wasn't anything to get.
Ckyp
>a wonderful, brilliant, profound person. Zzzzz.
I've read dozens of the negative reviews since it first aired
mid-November. And not one of those critiques even mentioned what
the show was about. So that tells me that they either couldn't
relate to, or recognize the gist of, the story line, or else they
simply didn't watch the same 'The Prisoner' remake that the rest
of us watched.
I'll go with they couldn't relate to it. A bit too "under their
heads," no doubt. How's that for being polite.
--
Ckyp
Dewey
Dewey
Ckyp
>such shallow idiots.
I was a loyal viewer of the ITC original series when it first
aired in the US in the late 1960s. I remember how disappointed I
was to learn from the net station, having aired the final episode,
that the series had been cancelled after only one season, and the
station was also equally disappointed. So in your book, that
should make me a card-holding member, or perhaps even a founding
member, of the "typically shallow idiot" club.
>
>I don't know what kind of answer you demand for "what the show was
>about," but it's probably safe to say that you will reject any answer
>which doesn't exactly agree with yours.
I wasn't looking for any "answer" from the remake's most scathing
critics. You've already expressed your answer, that you "hated it,"
it was "humorless," etc. That comment of yours is interesting to me,
because the remake's conspicuously solemn and despondent quality was
essential to conveying the story. That man's hope for the future is
the very source of his future disappointments and despondency. All of
the distressing influences and uncertainties in six's life, as it
turns out, six was the ultimate source of it all, "the one." And
that, to me, is the underlying and pervasive theme of the story. Why
some people didn't get that out of it is entirely beyond me. I should
think it to be obvious.
>
>And since my complaints were more focused on the godawful score and
>sub-SyFy channel filmmaking and acting styles, your accusation doesn't
>make much sense.
No accusations were made. I did point out, however, that the
remake's generally negative reception was not necessarily the fault of
the AMC/ITV 2009 production, but the finger could be pointed more
justly, and I think rightly, in the opposite direction. The story may
not have been what you wanted to hear, but that doesn't mean it isn't
a lesson well-worth learning. Moral of the story, you know.
>
>You are laughably pretentious.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. But highfalutin phrases like
"laughably pretentious" could sound laughably pretentious to the
unsophisticated. I don't consider it to be, but what do I know?
> And just who are you talking about with
>"the rest of us"? Just how many other people viewed this production as a
>major television event *after* they had seen it?
In case you didn't notice, not everyone didn't like the remake.
Some people loved it, myself included. Did I consider it to be a
"major television event" after I had watched all six episodes? I
would call it way above average in its intelligence and insight
into the human condition. And the acting was _world-class_. I
must be a "typically shallow idiot," because it boggles my mind
how anyone could not have thoroughly enjoyed that series? The
music score I found very befitting to the extremely dark mood and
inescapable pessimism of the story. What else did one expect?
It is called "The Prisoner" with good reason. Very good reason.
But I don't think it's laughable at all that so many viewers
didn't appreciate the depth and scope of what they were viewing.
More like tragic. It's like, how could anyone not enjoy it? Yet
you must assume the opposite stance, like "how could anyone have
possibly enjoyed one minute of that tedious load of codswallop?"
I'm not trying to start an argument with you. I'm only trying
to help you to realize that not everyone shares your negative
reviews about the 2009 'The Prisoner' remake. Personally, I
loved it. I suppose because it was something that I could really
relate to. But it seems that not everyone can. Oh well.
--
Ckyp
Ubiquitous
> There's no accounting for taste. I think that one of the biggest
>reasons that many viewers didn't like 'The Prisoner' remake, is that
>the many viewers failed to grasp the profound analogies and
>implications so brilliantly presented. IOW, they just didn't get it.
Troll O Meter
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------------------
^
|
redcat
I think it was about baking cakes with cherries for Ian McKellen, murder
for no reason, a taxi driver with bad lines, meaningless explosions,
holes in the ground (ditto) and pigs.
rc
Dewey
news:j4SdnVjvgagql6fW...@earthlink.com:
The dumbest part was that there could be people born in the village that
didn't have a counterpart in the real world. Were they just mass
hallucinations? The other dumbest part is that there was no rhyme or
reason for "6" being in the village. Everyone else in the Village was
being "fixed" and they arrived on busses from where? From the Village of
course. But not "6". No, he wakes up in the desert and miraculously
finds his way to the village. And he mysteriously is the only one who
knows it's not the "real world."
And really, no one was bright enough to ask where stuff came from? What
the hell were those towers for? Geez, the number of silly, stupid things
is endless.
Ckyp
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Ronnie Bateman <OurOwnRon...@earthlinc.net> wrote:
>Ckyp <ckypper@crew> wrote:
>
>> >> I'll go with they couldn't relate to it. A bit too "under their
>> >> heads," no doubt. How's that for being polite.
>> >
>> >Right, because the people who love the original "Prisoner" are typically
>> >such shallow idiots.
>>
>> I was a loyal viewer of the ITC original series when it first
>> aired in the US in the late 1960s. I remember how disappointed I
>> was to learn from the net station, having aired the final episode,
>> that the series had been cancelled after only one season, and the
>> station was also equally disappointed. So in your book, that
>> should make me a card-holding member, or perhaps even a founding
>> member, of the "typically shallow idiot" club.
>
>and you don't even get sarcasm.
>
>> it was "humorless," etc. That comment of yours is interesting to me,
>> because the remake's conspicuously solemn and despondent quality was
>> essential to conveying the story. That man's hope for the future is
>> the very source of his future disappointments and despondency. All of
>> the distressing influences and uncertainties in six's life, as it
>> turns out, six was the ultimate source of it all, "the one." And
>> that, to me, is the underlying and pervasive theme of the story. Why
>> some people didn't get that out of it is entirely beyond me. I should
>> think it to be obvious.
>
>have left room for dark humor.
>
>> >And since my complaints were more focused on the godawful score and
>> >sub-SyFy channel filmmaking and acting styles, your accusation doesn't
>> >make much sense.
>>
>> No accusations were made. I did point out, however, that the
>> remake's generally negative reception was not necessarily the fault of
>> the AMC/ITV 2009 production, but the finger could be pointed more
>> justly, and I think rightly, in the opposite direction. The story may
>> not have been what you wanted to hear, but that doesn't mean it isn't
>> a lesson well-worth learning. Moral of the story, you know.
>
>You respond to a complaint about the filmmaking by sticking up for the
>script. Um, OK.
>
>> > And just who are you talking about with
>> >"the rest of us"? Just how many other people viewed this production as a
>> >major television event *after* they had seen it?
>>
>> In case you didn't notice, not everyone didn't like the remake.
>
>
>> And the acting was _world-class_. I
>> must be a "typically shallow idiot," because it boggles my mind
>> how anyone could not have thoroughly enjoyed that series?
>
>can't fathom any other take on reality beyond your own.
>
>> The music score I found very befitting to the extremely dark mood and
>> inescapable pessimism of the story. What else did one expect?
>> It is called "The Prisoner" with good reason. Very good reason.
>
>
>The original "Prisoner" had delightful scoring, yet was also called "The
>
>> But I don't think it's laughable at all that so many viewers
>> didn't appreciate the depth and scope of what they were viewing.
>> More like tragic. It's like, how could anyone not enjoy it?
>
>
>> Yet
>> you must assume the opposite stance, like "how could anyone have
>> possibly enjoyed one minute of that tedious load of codswallop?"
>
>
>> I'm not trying to start an argument with you. I'm only trying
>> to help you to realize that not everyone shares your negative
>> reviews about the 2009 'The Prisoner' remake.
>
>of anyone having a different opinion, so you project and assume I can't
>either.
IOW, you're simply mocking inanely and vacuously for argument's
sake, without a shred of substance to support your juvenile
harangues. Wait, I get it, "bate-man," as in a homonym for
"bait-man." Or is for "mastur-bate-man?" You're just trolling
for billygoats and jerking everybody off. And I got suckered in.
Fool me once. As they say on usenet, "plonk."
You get the last word, "einstein."
--
Ckyp
New & Improved WQ
That's our lovable ambiguous gender Ronnie Bateman for ya. Arguing
for arguing's sake (Ugh. Everything you write just REEKS of
pretension) and deriding for deriding's sake (Now Mr. IQ is using
gruesome double negatives). Ronnie, apparently, is incapable of
comprehending the intricacies of double negative language. It comes
with his/her being confused about his/her own ambiguous gender.
Aside from that, you still don't know what you're talking about when
it comes to the new Prisoner.
Ckyp
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, "New & Improved WQ" <w...@reborn.com> wrote:
>On Dec 29, 6:37=A0pm, Ckyp <ckypper@crew> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Ronnie Bateman <OurOwnRonnieBate...@earthlinc.net> w=
>rote:
>> >Ckyp <ckypper@crew> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>cnypped
>>
>> >This really testifies to your self-absorption. You can't handle the idea
>> >of anyone having a different opinion, so you project and assume I can't
>> >either.
>>
>> sake, without a shred of substance to support your juvenile
>> "bait-man." =A0Or is for "mastur-bate-man?" =A0You're just trolling
>> for billygoats and jerking everybody off. =A0And I got suckered in.
>> Fool me once. =A0As they say on usenet, "plonk."
>
>That's our lovable ambiguous gender Ronnie Bateman for ya. Arguing
>for arguing's sake (Ugh. Everything you write just REEKS of
>pretension) and deriding for deriding's sake (Now Mr. IQ is using
>gruesome double negatives). Ronnie, apparently, is incapable of
>comprehending the intricacies of double negative language. It comes
>with his/her being confused about his/her own ambiguous gender.
LOL! I am not unamused. Psychologists say that closet-gays
and trans-sexuals-testicles have a lot of "angst" issues. That
could explain why Ronnie Batman is so angry at the world.
>
>Aside from that, you still don't know what you're talking about when
>it comes to the new Prisoner.
Oh, come on. "Good cop, bad cop" is like a worn out cliche.
But since you're the new Prisoner connoisseur on the block, I'll
present you with a modest challenge. My favorite moment from
watching 'The Prisoner' remake was at the very end, because it
completed the circle and tied up all the loose ends. So please
explain why the melancholy girl, the village doctor "number 313"
and temporarily-surrogate "dreamer," has a bit of tears rolling
down her despondent face as "six"/"the one"/"the new two"
explains to her that "we have to make it (the village) work?"
Here's the frame http://www.amctv.com/originals/the-prisoner/
I'll give you a hint. Think 'The Devil's Advocate' starring
Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino. Remember the end of that movie?
The answer can be given in one word. So that's my challenge
to you. What's the word, or close synonym for the word, that
I'm looking for? This is an _easy_ challenge. One simple word.
How hard can that be?
--
Ckyp
New & Improved WQ
>
> I'll give you a hint. Think 'The Devil's Advocate' starring
> Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino. Remember the end of that movie?
>
> The answer can be given in one word. So that's my challenge
> to you. What's the word, or close synonym for the word, that
> I'm looking for? This is an _easy_ challenge. One simple word.
> How hard can that be?
I have a better challenge. You tell me what it is and I'll tell you
if you're bullshitting or not. I'm not the new Prisoner connoisseur
on the block you think I am.
Ckyp
>I have a better challenge. You tell me what it is and I'll tell you
>if you're bullshitting or not. I'm not the new Prisoner connoisseur
>on the block you think I am.
Thought so. You're a sock puppet of the former. You speak the
same way as "Ronnie Batman."
The answer is vanity. And you can bullshit yourself to death.
--
Ckyp
New & Improved WQ
Is that what the answer is? Vanity? Really? That's what made the
series come full circle and tied up loose ends for you? That's what
it's all about? It may've been the punch line, if you want to call it
that, for The Devil's Advocate, but you're totally off the mark
thinking that the new Prisoner had anything to do with vanity, even in
the slightest or vaguest sense.
Gee, and here I thought it was all nothing but about people getting
sucked into a dream state for therapeutic purposes, The Village itself
being the dream state. And what a boring idea that is. How was
anything that happened in the series relevant or relatable in any way
to the current state of things in reality? Is the series trying to
tell us that we all need help and need to succumb to some sort of
dream state to get better? Is that stupid or what?
At least the original series reflected the themes of its time, being
about freedom, the individual against society, technological invasion
of privacy, revolution, and it all came wrapped up in the popularity
of a genre in its prime at the time, as a spy series. What did the
new Prisoner reflect of this time? Nothing in any relatable way
whatsoever. While the original was accessibly surreal, the new one
was so abstract as to be not only mind-jarringly incomprehensible, but
also slickly incoherent.
In the original we knew 6 was a spy, and that was easily understood
without any further explanation. In the new one, he's just some
corporate hack and so what? What's so important about him on any
level as a spy would be? Why should we care about someone who worked
for big business in the same way we should care about a spy who always
puts his life on the line to save the world?
What was the real reason for the new 6 to be in The Village? So he
could take over it? Take over a dream state? Yeah, and so what am I
supposed to get out of that?
What was the real reason for the old 6 to be in The Village?
Information, information, information. But we never got the
information, because 6 successfully resisted, and the information
itself can mean to be his own individuality, which he refused to
abandon. The Village was a microcosm of a world government and the
only way to run a world government effectively is to control the
population by any means necessary, to keep it in a sedated state of
having everything they need in exchange for what Big Brother wanted
from them - information, or, allegorically, their individuality and
freedom. Viewers could identify with 6's predicament - to give in or
to fight on. The human spirit wins as 6 fights on and escapes. But
what does he escape to? Back home, or a Village of another kind? No.
2 is seen at the end off to work on another day in the House of
Commons, No. 6 notes a hearse drive past before getting into his
prized possession sports car - a hearse similar to the one that came
to take him away in the beginning. What's the connection? The
Village is what the world would be like if left to unscrupulous people
wanting to control it, No. 2 is working in government to try to make
that future happen, and for No. 6, if he doesn't behave while back at
home, well, then, the hearse was there to remind him that they can
just come and take him away again. Individuality and freedom has its
limits within the big picture of society as a whole and you're never
as free as you believe yourself to be.
Those are all powerful universal and timeless ideas, concepts and
themes. What's universal and timeless about the new Prisoner? That
it's all a dream, and therapy can be found in it? Talk about no
dramatic tension whatsoever.
As for vanity, I think you were dreaming yourself when you were
watching the show.
Moor Larkin
universal and timeless about the new Prisoner? That it's all a dream,
and therapy can be found in it? Talk about no dramatic tension
whatsoever.
This does seem to be a real glitch to me. I won't see the show until
2010 in the uK, but whatever its merits or demerits, when reviews
explained that the whole thing is ONLY some kind of mental experience,
my mouth just made a little O.
One guy I read recently, suggested that it struck a chord with the
notion of people *existing* in the internet these days: *Second
Lives*....... and so forth, and if the twist had been along those
lines, where people were avoiding dealing with the struggles in their
real life by hiding in a virtual world, it could have been quite a
thought-provoking notion. But the passiveness of everyone receiving
therapy from some mental leader seems a bit .... sedated........
In his final movie, Hysteria, Patrick McGoohan [and writer/director
Rene Daalder] played with a notion that *citizens* of their Asylum
would all go into the world *sharing* one anothers consciousness and
explored how dominant characters would seek to exploit the others by
misusing this sharing. It was a less than perfectly realised movie and
one that contains a fair amount of sex (which seems to alienate
traditional McGoohan fans) but I thought it was a neat idea, and as
the original movie failed a little, it might benefit from a
remake...... :-)))))))
I have wondered if this type of idea was what McGoohan had in mind for
his own never-realised Prisoner movie and when he concluded he had
struck out with the Hollywood Collective, he inserted a version of it
into Daalders protest against Pharmaceutical Psychiatry in 1998.
Anyone still possessing a video-tape machine can get a copy ultra-
cheap at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Hysteria-Patrick-McGoohan/dp/B000SA8WO8
"In the near future where drugs and surgery can make a model citizen,
renegade psychiatrist Harvey Langston has managed to connect all his
patients and redistribute their madness in a radical new psychotherapy
he calls a 'collective consciousness'. When principled, young Dr. Frye
visits Langston's institute, he falls obsessively in love with
Veronica, Langston's most beautiful patient. Determined to possess
her, Frye threatens the experiment. But the young doctor has
underestimated his opponent; Langston's 'little' project is a many
headed monster with a fierce single purpose... Survival! "
Dick Spanner
> In article <nJSQm.48161$X01....@newsfe07.iad>, Jeremy Billones
> <jbil...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> : On 2009-11-22, Micky DuPree <MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply>
> : wrote:
>
> :: In article <000701ca6983$ee144ae0$ae78...@acer.com.tw>, "Nona Chase"
> :: <ncha...@acer.com.tw> writes:
>
> ::: Also, if a person dies in The Village that doesn't necessarily mean
> ::: they died in 'Real Life' - it WAS the way one can permanently escape
> ::: The Village.
> ::
> :: They say you can't really "die" in a dream. It wakes you up.
> :
> : How could you tell if time passed between when you stopped dreaming
> : and when you woke up? (I know I'm breaking the metaphor.)
>
> I think it ends up being a difference that makes no difference. If
> dying in your dream merely makes you stop dreaming, the result of ending
> the dream is the same. True, if dying in a dream made you die in real
> life, we'd never know, because only the ones who stop just short of
> dying in their dreams get to go on living and wake up.
>
> They seemed to abide by the dominance of the physical in the new
> _Prisoner_, though. No.2 knew that blowing himself up with a grenade
> wouldn't kill him in real life. It just gave him a way out of the
> dream, since presumably it would have violated people's ingrained sense
> of reality for him to have survived such a thing.
>
>
> :: I had two thoughts about that. One was that Summakor's psychological
> :: approach to helping flawed people was pretty basic behaviorism:
> :: rewards for good behavior, such as the perfect mate, beautiful
> :: children, and approval; and punishments for bad behavior, fear and
> :: the like. The justification seemed to be that if the Villagers could
> :: be disciplined into conforming on one level of consciousness, this
> :: discipline would inform their real-world selves as well, so it was
> :: for their own good. The narrative never explicitly made that
> :: connection, but left us to infer it.
> :
> : Real world 313 seemed to still be pretty messed up, and she was more
> : confirmist than Six at pretty much every point in the narrative.
>
> Yes, but by the end, which I believe was when we were first shown the
> real-world Sarah, 313 had begun to see flashes of memory of her true
> self. She believed what Six was saying. This all undermined Sarah's
> ability to hold it together. 313 sensed that and did not want to leave
> the Village and confront the real world of pain and trauma.
>
> As far as we know, Michael wasn't significantly messed up when he
> resigned from Summakor. Maintaining a hold on his sense of reality
> while in the Village wasn't a threat to his sanity in New York. The
> writer is making the case that it's a benevolence on the part of those
> who can see the truth, like Michael, to maintain helpful lies for the
> sake of those who cannot handle the truth, like Sarah. It's an updating
> of Dostoyevsky's "Grand Inquisitor," substituting the mentally ill and
> the "flawed" for sinners.
>
>
> ::: It would have been better if Two was grooming Six to take over by
> ::: doing these horrid psychological games on him and that Six ended up
> ::: losing who he is and becoming a dictator just like Two.
> ::
> :: I think that's what happened, at least to an extent, but Two took
> :: Six's measure and decided that the way to Six's heart was by
> :: convincing him that he was the right man to run the Village the right
> :: way, which got Six to drop the idea that the Village should be
> :: abandoned altogether. Six accepted the groupthink that Two had
> :: primed ahead of time that he was now the right man at the right time.
> :
> : I missed the first two minutes and the last two minutes. (I heard
> : NewSix start his monologue, and I'm pretty sure I know what the rest
> : of that monologue sounds like :) That also implies Six will end up in
> : the same place as Two and nothing will change... but then again, they
> : won't have a son 'this time around' either. Naah, I'm overthinking
> : it.
>
> Perhaps not. And it's not impossible that Six/Michael will come to
> doubt his reign just like Two/Curtis did, but I think part of the point
> is that once invested in the Village, you might opt out later, but you
> never destroy the Village. The Village will go on. I think it would be
> more appropriate, in fact, if Michael had tried to destroy the Village,
> only to discover that the Village had become self-sustaining. The
> Villagers had a powerful enough groupthink now that they didn't need a
> top-down Dreamer or top-down enforcement to keep the Village going.
> They kept themselves imprisoned, like they say crabs will prevent other
> crabs from crawling out of the trap.
>
> I read somewhere that there has been what amounts to a schism in
> Scient*logy. Some believers feel that the church authorities have lost
> their way, but these "protestants" seek to return to the true path. If
> it can happen in real life, why not in the Village as well?
>
>
> ::: Here's another thing - do they ever tell us HOW they send these
> ::: parts of people to the other consciounsess?
> ::
> :: Not explicitly. I inferred that the pills Mrs. Two took and the
> :: drugs that recalcitrant Villagers were given were more than just
> :: fiction, though. I thought they were dream representations of one of
> :: the key tools of control in the real world, as was stealing people in
> :: the middle of the night to condition them in the Clinic.
> :
> : Certainly if they have that degree of ability to watch everyone (and
> : blow things up with relevant impunity?) they can drag off and drug
> : people.
>
> I don't think it was all that critical, though. Given the power that
> the writer ascribed to this hypothetical level of sub-subconsciousness,
> it may have been necessary only to drug/hypnotize/whatever the subjects
> once in order to get them into the Village. After that, the discipline
> of the group consciousness would give them their real-world structure.
>
> : But I do think it was significant that time passed more quickly in the
> : Village than in real life.
>
> Why? I've heard it claimed (though I'm skeptical) that we dream most of
> our dreams, even long and elaborate ones, in only a small fraction of
> time. Once in the dream landscape, why would time differentials be all
> that important?
>
> : I don't actually think we're meant to see a direct line between
> : anything in the Village and the real world.
>
> The two things that I think showed a cause-and-effect relationship were
> that undermining the average Villager's sense of the Village led to a
> loss of their ability to cope in the real world, and that a greater
> awareness of the Village in the real world bled through in the form of
> memories in the Village. There came a point where what was going on in
> New York seemed to directly parallel what was going on in the Village,
> and they intercut between the two more.
>
> : I think the actual answer, sadly, is that the author never bothered to
> : answer that question (even for his own satisfaction).
>
> I don't think he was bothered, and I do think he was satisfied.
>
> -Micky