Received: by 10.204.154.133 with SMTP id o5mr838537bkw.0.1340528246495;
        Sun, 24 Jun 2012 01:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Path: e27ni84284bkw.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Moor Larkin <moorlar...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.prisoner
Subject: Re: How are the mighty fallen
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 01:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <afe52948-5c39-4226-8785-7ab3c6fedf3f@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
References: <1b4fa1ca-128a-402a-b1c7-476d3cf7ffef@googlegroups.com> <4fe66bb4$0$6056$607ed4bc@cv.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 95.147.69.240
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1340528246 17392 127.0.0.1 (24 Jun 2012 08:57:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 08:57:26 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=95.147.69.240; posting-account=uHRcIgoAAACaxNk_D2TBP5xQDlsz91sm
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1,gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Jun 24, 2:21=A0am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2012-06-23 17:52:30 +0000, moorlar...@gmail.com said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2011 2:34:55 PM UTC+1, redcat wrote:
> >> On 4/16/2011 3:27 AM, roger wrote:
> >>> "Moor Larkin"<moorlar...@googlemail.com> =A0wrote in message
> >>>news:866afbac-d620-4877-b732-8e5b53333119@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com=
...
>
> >>> "Essential resource for film students, fans of McGoohan and building
> >>> on the success of The Prisoner remake in 2009 starring Ian McKellan
> >>> and Jim Caviezel, introducing many fans to the original series"
> >>>http://www.mcgoohanbiography.co.uk/
>
> >>> The author of this interesting new book, out later this month, would =
like to
> >>> distance himself from the questionable advertising line above. He hat=
ed the
> >>> remake and would like to make it clear that he has not the remotest
> >>> admiration for the 2009 series.
>
> >> Who wrote, and who approved, that weird line in the press release?
>
> > How odd that whilst
>
> > "The author of this interesting new book, out later this month, would l=
ike to
> >>> distance himself from the questionable advertising line above. He hat=
ed the
> >>> remake and would like to make it clear that he has not the remotest
> >>> admiration for the 2009 series."
>
> > I find when reading the introductory pages to this momentous tome, the
> > sentence:
>
> > "Moreover, the recent US remake of The Prisoner starring Ian MacKellan
> > and Jim Caviezel had won him [McGoohan] a whole new generation of fans
> > in 2010"
>
> > Looks like the press release says exactly what it found written in the =
tin.
>
> Not logically. There is no contradiction between the two propositions:
>
> "The Caviezel version of 'The Prisoner' was a very poor thing."
>
> and
>
> "The Caviezel version of 'The Prisoner' encouraged many people to look
> into the original version."
>
> --
> John W Kennedy
> "Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
> =A0 -- Charles Williams. =A0"Judgement at Chelmsford"



The general gist of this Thread is that the first is the case and the
second is not.

Whilst the first can only be a matter of opinion, the second can
presumably be a matter of fact.
But did the second happen? Not in my village, partly because hardly
anyone watched the Caviezel show anyway. But if it didn't happen, why
is it written as if it had?

The quote in the book does rather remind me of the pre-publicity for
the Caviezel outing, by the TV companies:
"...executive producer Damien Timmer states. =93The new series will
entrap you from the opening scene. We hope it will tap into this
iconic show's existing cult following, whilst creating a whole new
generation of fans...=94
http://www.sixofone.org.uk/Prisoner-Remake.htm