OT: New Prisoner
Mike Ross
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Amy Guskin
(in article <jt04g5dj6g1s0i30g...@4ax.com>):
> Who watched it? What did folks think? <<
No spoilers from me, so I'm not adding space.
I watched it I definitely have issues with it.
It's just not as menacing as the original. And the plot is spiralling into
something overly complicated that is getting hard to follow. I don't see an
arc of disorientation to equilibrium to ascendancy, like in the original, and
I miss it.
Amy
--
Ten Thousand Questions
A Question a Day for Journaling, Self-Discovery, and Transformation
"2009 is the Year of Questions"
tenthousandquestions.com
David Williams
"Amy Guskin" <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C7278811...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Who watched it? What did folks think? <<
As I previously posted, I wanted to try to avoid comparisons with the
original. We'll see if that's possible.
That said, I'm also going to withhold further comment until I've seen it all
the way through. In fact, I've yet to see tonight's two eps, as I JUST put
our little one to bed. Wife is asleep... time to crack open some
bottle-conditioned ale I've had hiding behind the salad spinner.
David W.
Mel
Amy Guskin wrote:
>>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:00:55 -0500, Mike Ross wrote
>
> (in article <jt04g5dj6g1s0i30g...@4ax.com>):
>
>
>>Who watched it? What did folks think? <<
>
>
> No spoilers from me, so I'm not adding space.
>
> I watched it I definitely have issues with it.
>
> It's just not as menacing as the original. And the plot is spiralling into
> something overly complicated that is getting hard to follow. I don't see an
> arc of disorientation to equilibrium to ascendancy, like in the original, and
> I miss it.
>
> Amy
Speaking of the original....Deep Discount.com has the complete set on
sale for $39.99, Blu-ray version.
And, I'm still slogging thru my set. Only 5 episodes to go. :-)
Mel
Jon Schild
I watched the first hour, and found it very similar to the original.
Neither one made a bit of sense.
Kay Shapero
ais...@fjordstone.com says...
> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:00:55 -0500, Mike Ross wrote
> (in article <jt04g5dj6g1s0i30g...@4ax.com>):
>
> > Who watched it? What did folks think? <<
>
> No spoilers from me, so I'm not adding space.
>
> I watched it I definitely have issues with it.
>
> It's just not as menacing as the original. And the plot is spiralling into
> something overly complicated that is getting hard to follow.
And the tactic of splitting a scene up into fragments and strewing them
through other scenes has gone past suspenseful and into annoying imho.
--
Kay Shapero
http://www.kayshapero.net
Vince M Hudd
> > > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:00:55 -0500, Mike Ross wrote
> (in article <jt04g5dj6g1s0i30g...@4ax.com>):
> > Who watched it? What did folks think? <<
> No spoilers from me, so I'm not adding space.
But, people, *PLEASE* remember to add some if you *do* discuss any of the
actual content. We won't get it here until early 2010 AFAIK.
> I watched it I definitely have issues with it.
> It's just not as menacing as the original. And the plot is spiralling
> into something overly complicated that is getting hard to follow. I don't
> see an arc of disorientation to equilibrium toï¿œascendancy, like in the
> original, and I miss it.
I'm not entirely surprised; I'm quite prepared to be disappointed when it
does appear here. (Hopefully, if I set my sights low enough, the result will
be that it's better than I expected!)
--
Vince M Hudd - Soft Rock Software
http://www.softrock.co.uk
http://misc.vinceh.com
M.J. Sammon
>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:00:55 -0500, Mike Ross wrote
> (in article <jt04g5dj6g1s0i30g...@4ax.com>):
>
>> Who watched it? What did folks think? <<
>
> No spoilers from me, so I'm not adding space.
>
> I watched it I definitely have issues with it.
>
> It's just not as menacing as the original. And the plot is spiralling into
> something overly complicated that is getting hard to follow. I don't see an
> arc of disorientation to equilibrium to ascendancy, like in the original, and
> I miss it.
>
> Amy
Mike
Amy Guskin
(in article <wnxMm.37526$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad>):
> Didn't McGoohan co-create the original? <<
Yes.
>> I didn't see any reference to him in the credits. <<
Aren't they using squashed credits? Did you really go through them
line-by-line? You're only going to see the principles, guests, and
high-level company credits in the opening. It might be that the squashed,
light-speed closing credits say somewhere "Original series created by..." Or
maybe they weren't required by their contract to have that credit.
Stile4aly
True, but the original didn't make sense in a good way.
Wes Struebing
<ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:00:55 -0500, Mike Ross wrote
>(in article <jt04g5dj6g1s0i30g...@4ax.com>):
>
>> Who watched it? What did folks think? <<
>
>No spoilers from me, so I'm not adding space.
>
>I watched it I definitely have issues with it.
>
>It's just not as menacing as the original. And the plot is spiralling into
>something overly complicated that is getting hard to follow. I don't see an
>arc of disorientation to equilibrium to ascendancy, like in the original, and
>I miss it.
>
Adding spoiler space, though I'm not sure whether this is really a
spoiler...
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Amy, how does it work with the same Nbr 2 every week? I would think
that in spite of McKellan's skills, it would grate on those who have
seen the original.
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
Amy Guskin
(in article <ujm6g5tklicfmd0mp...@4ax.com>):
Well, it's a short run -- just three nights -- so it doesn't feel that
different from Leo McKern getting a couple of cracks at #2. IMHO, the
problems with the update run much deeper than that small detail!
Mike Ross
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:17:16 -0500, M.J. Sammon wrote
>(in article <wnxMm.37526$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad>):
>
>> Didn't McGoohan co-create the original? <<
>
>Yes.
>
>>> I didn't see any reference to him in the credits. <<
>
>Aren't they using squashed credits? Did you really go through them
>line-by-line? You're only going to see the principles, guests, and
>high-level company credits in the opening. It might be that the squashed,
>light-speed closing credits say somewhere "Original series created by..." Or
>maybe they weren't required by their contract to have that credit.
He didn't want to have anything to do with the remake; he wouldn't touch it with
a bargepole. I very much doubt he would have permitted his name to be on the
thing in any form.
Amy Guskin
(in article <b907g5d1igntm3lo2...@4ax.com>):
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:05:45 -0500, Amy Guskin <ais...@fjordstone.com>
wrote:
>
>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:17:16 -0500, M.J. Sammon wrote
>> (in article <wnxMm.37526$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad>):
>>
>>> Didn't McGoohan co-create the original? <<
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>> I didn't see any reference to him in the credits. <<
>>
>> Aren't they using squashed credits? Did you really go through them
>> line-by-line? You're only going to see the principles, guests, and
>> high-level company credits in the opening. It might be that the squashed,
>> light-speed closing credits say somewhere "Original series created by..."
>> Or
>> maybe they weren't required by their contract to have that credit.
>
> He didn't want to have anything to do with the remake; he wouldn't touch it
> with
> a bargepole.<<
I know that, but that doesn't always obviate the need for an "original series
created by" credit. There are legal reasons why you might not want to
disassociate from something, even if you think it's crap.
>> I very much doubt he would have permitted his name to be on the
> thing in any form. <<
Could be. But my point still stands: they ran fast-speed squashed credits,
so unless someone slow-stepped through them, you couldn't really tell at a
glance whether or not they gave him a credit.
David Williams
B
E
S
E
E
I
N
G
Y
O
U
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
>> Amy, how does it work with the same Nbr 2 every week? I would think
>> that in spite of McKellan's skills, it would grate on those who have
>> seen the original. <<
> Well, it's a short run -- just three nights -- so it doesn't feel that
> different from Leo McKern getting a couple of cracks at #2.
> IMHO, the problems with the update run much deeper than that
> small detail!
A couple of key differences also speak to Wes' question.
1. The original was a longer show - 17 eps vs. 6 eps.
2. In the original, #6 has time to "settle down" in the Village, temporarily
accepting his fate while engaging in longer-term battles with the rotating
#2's. This makes the original more episodic, while the update is a
contiguous story-line, taking place in (apparently) a much shorter
time-frame. So changing #2 wouldn't have made sense.
3. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the finale that I just watched.
If I understood it correctly, the Village is a mental construct of #2's
wife. So you can't change out #2 that easily.
Regards,
David W.
David Williams
"Amy Guskin" <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C728D264...@news.eternal-september.org...
> s
> s
> s
> s
> s
> s
> s
> s
> s
> s
> s
> s
> s
> s
> s
> s
> s
> s
> small detail!
Agreed. Now that I've watched it all, I don't even know where to begin with
the story. So I'll begin with stylistic concerns.
I agree with Kay Shapiro's post. I found it an aggravating and frutstrating
show to watch because of the fragmented editing. If I understood the ending
correctly, the fragmentation is an allegory for the fragmented minds of the
Village's inhabitants. But that doesn't make the story-telling technique
any less annoying. At times it was as annoying as Benjy's section at the
beginning of "The Sound and the Fury."
I was also annoyed by the sound-mixing. Lots of the dialogue is delivered
in a mutter, and tends to disappear under the music and/or sound FX. I had
to rewind and relisten frequently, sometimes several times over for a single
line.
Lastly, I found much of the camera-work distracting. Odd angles for no good
reason, etc. Ideally, I believe one should be engrossed in a story, and not
distracted by artsy-fartsy attempts at directing.
Conclusion: Stylistically, I didn't like it all.
My ample criticism of the actual story could fill volumes. I'd enjoy
engaging in a discussion, but I've got things to do today. Simply put
though, I am very critical of the story objectively, WITHOUT reference to
the original. IF one does try to critique it as an "update," it get's even
worse. (The original had a number of flaws as well, but they were more
forgiveable, IMO.) I would have preferred that they omit ALL but a few
passing references to the original. But they included too many to ignore,
IMO.
Better stop now, and go run my errands... Need to adjust the downspouts and
order our turkey.
Regards,
David W.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Who watched it? What did folks think?
I've only seen the first episode, not sure if I'll watch the others.
They've no replacement for the co-stars of the original, McGoohan and
Portmeirion. And they seem to have discarded every hint of the
drollery, wit, pacing, individuality, character, suspense,
intelligence, style, and wild 60's imagination that characterized the
original series. The whole sorry affair reminds me of nothing so much
as a dismal depressing government office in which one has to stand on
endless queues only to be told in surly tones that the form one needs
is at another window.
Plus the music sucks.
--
Josh
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
voxwoman
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:00:55 -0500, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Who watched it? What did folks think?
>
> I've only seen the first episode, not sure if I'll watch the others.
> They've no replacement for the co-stars of the original, McGoohan and
> Portmeirion. And they seem to have discarded every hint of the
> drollery, wit, pacing, individuality, character, suspense,
> intelligence, style, and wild 60's imagination that characterized the
> original series. The whole sorry affair reminds me of nothing so much
> as a dismal depressing government office in which one has to stand on
> endless queues only to be told in surly tones that the form one needs
> is at another window.
>
> Plus the music sucks.
>
I watched the first night, and have the rest on TiVo, and will catch
up on it when time allows later this week. I have MAJOR issues with
some things that really have nothing to do with the original, but with
common sense.
It doesn't compare well with the original, either, in the first 2
hours. (And I just finished rewatching the original as IFC had it
running on Friday nights for the past 2 months). I am more than happy
(and looking forward to!) discussing as soon as I catch up with the
last 4 eps.
-Wendy
Mel
David Williams wrote:
more spoiler space....
> E
> S
> E
> E
> I
> N
> G
> Y
> O
> U
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
>
> 3. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the finale that I just watched.
> If I understood it correctly, the Village is a mental construct of #2's
> wife. So you can't change out #2 that easily.
>
> Regards,
> David W.
>
>
>
That's the way I understood it as well. Make people better through via
communal VR and drugs.
What I didn't understand is why Helen didn't die in real life when her
construct self was killed. And where was the real # 6 kept? Was he awake
and going about his business the whole time? The non-Village plot seemed
to take only a day and night, whereas inside the Village was several at
least.
And why did he decide to stay, to build a "better village"? To keep 313
from going insane? That doesn't seem to make sense because she could
stay even if he didn't.
Mel
David Williams
"Mel" <melb...@uci.net> wrote in message
news:39uv4r....@integratelecom.com...
>
>
> David Williams wrote:
>
>
>
> more spoiler space....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> E
>> S
>> E
>> E
>> I
>> N
>> G
>> Y
>> O
>> U
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>
>>
>
> from going insane? That doesn't seem to make sense because she could stay
> even if he didn't.
I think because he may have accepted the village's mission. And because he
had fallen in love with 313, and wanted to be there for her. My impression
is that she took the place of #2's wife as the Dreamer.
Regards,
David W.
David Williams
"Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t3u8g5h6h82ojrip9...@4ax.com...
> I've only seen the first episode, not sure if I'll watch the others.
> They've no replacement for the co-stars of the original, McGoohan and
> Portmeirion.
Have watched all the way through. It's an entirely different concept from
the original, so "replacement" of the actor wasn't necessary. IMO, you can
never REALLY "replace" a great original actor anyway. (How do you replace
Andreas Katsulas?)
As for replacing Portmeiron, if you watch the rest you'll see that would
also have been folly. This village needed to be much larger, and laid out
differently, for reasons that the plot will disclose to you.
> And they seem to have discarded every hint of the
> drollery, wit, pacing, individuality, character, suspense,
> intelligence, style,
...Yes and no. Which is why I chose to watch objectively. Attempting to
judge it on its own merits, with NO reference to the original. Do otherwise
and you will be 100% disappointed. And I mean "100%" in its absolute,
superlative, mathematical definition.
That said, I found the storyline more than a little frustrating. And it
really could have done with some levity. It's intensely dark pretty much
all the way through.
> and wild 60's imagination that characterized the
> original series.
Well, you say you've only watched the first hour. It does improve somewhat
as the story goes on... and the concept is somewhat imaginative, if not
entirely original within the larger genre of science fiction (...or if you
prefer speculative fiction). Can't say more without spoiling for you.
> The whole sorry affair reminds me of nothing so much
> as a dismal depressing government office in which one has to stand on
> endless queues only to be told in surly tones that the form one needs
> is at another window.
Are you sure you weren't watching "Brazil?"
> Plus the music sucks.
Yeah...... But I think it's more accurately scored considering where the
storyline takes you.
Don't let my criticism discourage you from watching the rest. I'm still
trying to digest it myself, and am not sure I'm satisfied with the taste.
(Kind of like uni...) But still think it's worth seeing at least once.
Regards,
David W.
Vince M Hudd
[...]
> Attempting to judge it on its own merits, with NO reference to the
> original. Do otherwise and you will be 100% disappointed. And I mean
> "100%" in its absolute, superlative, mathematical definition.
So my plan is probably a bad idea, then: to give the original another
viewing (first time in I don't know how long) in the run up to this version
being broadcast here.
David Williams
"Vince M Hudd" <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gemini.ktcupl0...@softrock.co.uk...
> So my plan is probably a bad idea, then: to give the original another
> viewing (first time in I don't know how long) in the run up to this
> version
> being broadcast here.
Well, watching the original is never a bad idea.
But I just want to nitpick... "this version" as you call it is not really
accurate. Again, I think it's best if you try to approach it as a
completely new story, with only some common elements in terms of premise.
I.e. who #6 is, how and why he got there, the very nature of the village,
who runs it, what their purpose is, what their objectives are regarding #6,
etc., etc. These things are all very different.
OK... Just looked at ITV's website, and they decribe it as a "remake." Bad
marketing. That's setting up fans of the original for some serious
disappointment. Being an ITV production, I'm a little puzzled that the U.S.
got to see it before you.
Regards,
David W.
Josh Hill
<voxw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I watched the first night, and have the rest on TiVo, and will catch
>up on it when time allows later this week. I have MAJOR issues with
>some things that really have nothing to do with the original, but with
>common sense.
>
>It doesn't compare well with the original, either, in the first 2
>hours. (And I just finished rewatching the original as IFC had it
>running on Friday nights for the past 2 months). I am more than happy
>(and looking forward to!) discussing as soon as I catch up with the
>last 4 eps.
I tried to psych myself to watch the second tonight . . . no dice.
I'll probably get around to it, though.
Josh Hill
<kos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:t3u8g5h6h82ojrip9...@4ax.com...
>...Yes and no. Which is why I chose to watch objectively. Attempting to
>judge it on its own merits, with NO reference to the original. Do otherwise
>and you will be 100% disappointed. And I mean "100%" in its absolute,
>superlative, mathematical definition.
I'm OK with different and good in its own right . . . in fact, I'm not
sure that they could have done otherwise, this not being the sixties
anymore. Lots of decent remakes over the years, some improvements,
some not quite as good, but still decent. So far . . . well, I don't
want to prejudge what I haven't seen, but I'm having trouble psyching
myself to watch the second episode.
>> and wild 60's imagination that characterized the
>> original series.
>
>Well, you say you've only watched the first hour. It does improve somewhat
>as the story goes on... and the concept is somewhat imaginative, if not
>entirely original within the larger genre of science fiction (...or if you
>prefer speculative fiction). Can't say more without spoiling for you.
True. And thanks. I've been avoiding the spoilers.
>Are you sure you weren't watching "Brazil?"
The sets aren't as tony.
>> Plus the music sucks.
>
>Yeah...... But I think it's more accurately scored considering where the
>storyline takes you.
>
>Don't let my criticism discourage you from watching the rest. I'm still
>trying to digest it myself, and am not sure I'm satisfied with the taste.
>(Kind of like uni...) But still think it's worth seeing at least once.
I confess I never learned to like uni either . . .
Jon Schild
> "Vince M Hudd" <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gemini.ktcupl0...@softrock.co.uk...
>> So my plan is probably a bad idea, then: to give the original another
>> viewing (first time in I don't know how long) in the run up to this
>> version
>> being broadcast here.
>
> Well, watching the original is never a bad idea.
I have to disagree with that. I found the original pretentious and
completely lacking in any coherence or consistency. Couldn't keep myself
awake to watch all of it, but I did see 6 episodes.
voxwoman
> "Josh Hill" <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Brazil at least was funny in many places. And not just because I lived
in a house with plumbing like that.
>
> > Plus the music sucks.
>
> Yeah...... But I think it's more accurately scored considering where the
> storyline takes you.
>
> Don't let my criticism discourage you from watching the rest. I'm still
> trying to digest it myself, and am not sure I'm satisfied with the taste.
> (Kind of like uni...) But still think it's worth seeing at least once.
>
Uni was the most revolting thing I've ever placed in my mouth Never
trust a sea otter...
-Wendy
voxwoman
> "David Williams" <kosh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Attempting to judge it on its own merits, with NO reference to the
> > original. Do otherwise and you will be 100% disappointed. And I mean
> > "100%" in its absolute, superlative, mathematical definition.
>
> So my plan is probably a bad idea, then: to give the original another
> viewing (first time in I don't know how long) in the run up to this version
> being broadcast here.
I did that. It didn't help.
-Wendy
voxwoman
Well I finally sat through the rest of the miniseries.
spoilers below.
s
p
o
o
.
.
.
.
s
p
a
c
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
(hopefully enough?)
Honestly, I think they could have told this story without any
reference to "The Prisoner" at all. This had only passing resemblance
to the original series. It was much more coherent, for one thing,
especially taken in its entirety.
What annoyed the crap out of me in the first 2 hours was the circular
logic and the fact that there were words for things that didn't exist
in that "universe" - if nobody ever saw an ocean - why would they have
a WORD "ocean"?
That, and where did the food come from? Those things hinted to me that
this was all some sort of "Matrix"-style reality, and I figured out
that Mrs 2 was the "dreaming God" in a leGuinesque sense.
One thing that occurred to me: in the original series Number 6 (whose
name we never knew), was offered the job of Number 1, but he turned it
down for his freedom at the end (and the "ambiguity" of the automatic
door on his old flat isn't really much of one, since it seemed to me
from watching the last episode that his old flat is now the new
residence of the short fat man, and that Number 6 went off in his
fancy sports car). In this case, he took on the role as the new Number
2, and the old 2 retired along with his wife. It seems that the
village requires a pair to run the place.
I thought the best scene was with 2 and the shopkeep, when they were
talking about cigarettes. It had the best writing and the best acting
of the entire 6 hours.
I don't feel like I wasted 6 hours of my life, but I woudn't watch it
again (whereas I would watch the original again and more than once,
because there's just too much to figure out in it).
BCNU
-Wendy
Patty Winter
In article <ebb2101d-82a9-4886...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
voxwoman <voxw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Honestly, I think they could have told this story without any
>reference to "The Prisoner" at all. This had only passing resemblance
>to the original series.
I have a theory about that. Because this series was based on "The
Prisoner," if they had *not* called it that, people would have been
up in arms about it plagiarizing from the earlier series. So they
had to call it that--thus exposing the writers to complaints that
it isn't *enough* like the original. If I'm right, it was a no-win
situation. :-(
Patty
David Williams
"voxwoman" <voxw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebb2101d-82a9-4886...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
I've mulled it over and come to the exact same conclusion
> This had only passing resemblance
> to the original series.
I'll admit to smiling at some of the passing references. For example when
#2 visits the underground club and has to duck his head around the bicycle
hanging from the ceiling. OTOH I did not appreciate the not-so-passing
references, such as the map-purchase scene with the shopkeeper, the Rovers,
Be Seeing You... The show is so utterly different that these became
outright distractions.
> It was much more coherent, for one thing,
> especially taken in its entirety.
Which I did appreciate. I don't expect to be spoon-fed, but I do appreciate
having some coherence to hang my hat on.
> What annoyed the crap out of me in the first 2 hours was the circular
> logic and the fact that there were words for things that didn't exist
> in that "universe" - if nobody ever saw an ocean - why would they have
> a WORD "ocean"?
> That, and where did the food come from? Those things hinted to me that
> this was all some sort of "Matrix"-style reality,
Yeah that's one of the things that bothered me. It just seemed like WAY too
much of a stretch to expect the entire village to accept the alternate
reality as the only reality. And what about the children? Are they also
participants in the alternate reality, or constructs thereof?
> and I figured out
> that Mrs 2 was the "dreaming God" in a leGuinesque sense.
Have only recently started reading sci-fi (spec-fi) again. Started with The
Left Hand of Darkness. Can you recommend any other of her work?
> I thought the best scene was with 2 and the shopkeep, when they were
> talking about cigarettes. It had the best writing and the best acting
> of the entire 6 hours.
YEAH!!! THAT was a GREAT scene!!! If ONLY the rest could have been that
well-written...
> I don't feel like I wasted 6 hours of my life, but I woudn't watch it
> again
I don't know that I'd make a *point* of watching it again, but might leave
it on if stumble on it.
> (whereas I would watch the original again and more than once,
> because there's just too much to figure out in it).
Saving up $ to buy a Blu-Ray player so I can buy the Blu-Ray set.
Regards,
David W.
David Williams
"Patty Winter" <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote in message
news:4b078da6$0$1637$742e...@news.sonic.net...
I don't know the Hollywood legal tangles involved, but I think they could
have simply said something like "Inspired by..." ...or "Based on a concept
by..."
Regards,
David W.
Joseph DeMartino
>
> Have only recently started reading sci-fi (spec-fi) again. Started with The
> Left Hand of Darkness. Can you recommend any other of her work?
"The Lathe of Heaven". Excellent stuff. There was a PBS TV
adaptation in the 70s that was pretty good and reasonably faithful to
the novel. Unfortunately it is not available on any form of home
video that I know of, and isn't even available for rebroadcast. Some
kind of byzantine legal tangle over the rights, IIRC. The TV version
from a few years ago bears less resemblance to LeGuin's book than the
AMC "Prisoner" does to the orignal - and has less artistic merit on
its own terms. Avoid like the Swine Flu.
> Saving up $ to buy a Blu-Ray player so I can buy the Blu-Ray set.
I lose track of who posts from where, but if you're in the States, and
don't mind getting up early, there are going to be a bunch of Black
Friday and Cyber Monday deals on Blu Ray players. If you're in teh
market for a new or second TV, several places are giving away Blu Ray
players with the purchase of one. (Along with a disc or two.) Best
Buy will have a couple of name brand players below $200 (I seem to
recall a Samsung or two and a Sony at around $150.) Their "house
brand" Insignia entry-level player (no internet connectivity for Blu
Ray live, but otherwise a decent player) will be going for $99, with
the next model up costing $120. And I remember reading about a no-
name brand being sold in some stores for $88. (Also older Blu Ray
titles are going for $10 and under at a bunch of places.) Check the
papers this week, you may find you've already saved up enough to buy a
player <g>
Regards,
Joe
Amy Guskin
(in article
<ebb2101d-82a9-4886...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>):
> answering myself...
>
> Well I finally sat through the rest of the miniseries.
>
> spoilers below.
> s
> p
> o
> o
> .
> .
> .
> .
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> (hopefully enough?)
>
>
> One thing that occurred to me: in the original series Number 6 (whose
> name we never knew), was offered the job of Number 1, but he turned it
> down for his freedom at the end <<
And this, I think, is the greatest travesty of this re-imagining: #6 would
never, EVER have cheerfully stepped into the job of permanent #2 (remember,
he did _run_ for 2 once, and won -- I even sometimes manage to insert "6 for
2! 6 for 2!" into conversation). That was the heart of the original series:
they did NOT manage to break him. This version, I think they did.
>> (and the "ambiguity" of the automatic
> door on his old flat isn't really much of one, since it seemed to me
> from watching the last episode that his old flat is now the new
> residence of the short fat man, <<
The butler? Or Leo McKern's #2? Technically, they're both short and sort of
fat. Which do you mean? I've never heard of a character referred to as "the
short fat man."
>> I thought the best scene was with 2 and the shopkeep, when they were
> talking about cigarettes. It had the best writing and the best acting
> of the entire 6 hours. <<
Part of why that was good is why the rest of the series failed, IMHO. Many
of the actors were doing very stylized performances (rather than speaking
conversationally, like people do in Aaron Sorkin vehicles). So you had #2
and the shopkeeper dropping that kind of theatrical, more stylized acting,
and switching to something conversational and conspiratorial. For me, it was
the sharp contrast that sold that scene.
Caviezel acts more like he's in a Sorkin ensemble. It felt (to me) like he
was performing in a police procedural, while all the rest of these people
were in a different production. I think I would have preferred a more
theatrical actor in the role, just because of the nature of the material.
But I realize that may just be me.
>> I don't feel like I wasted 6 hours of my life, but I woudn't watch it
> again (whereas I would watch the original again and more than once,
> because there's just too much to figure out in it). <<
I was really angry about the end, which seemed to totally pervert the point
of the original.
>> BCNU <<
You know, all the nods to the original, and they couldn't get _one person_ to
hold his fingers up in a 6-like shape when they said this??
Blair Leatherwood
> You know, all the nods to the original, and they couldn't get _one person_ to
> hold his fingers up in a 6-like shape when they said this??
>
Wow--Forty years on, and that's the *first* time I realized that was a
6! Thank you, Amy!
Blair
Vince M Hudd
I've never cottoned onto that, either. How annoying. :)
Patty Winter
In article <02a28c83-ce8f-45d1...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph DeMartino <jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"The Lathe of Heaven". Excellent stuff. There was a PBS TV
>adaptation in the 70s that was pretty good and reasonably faithful to
>the novel. Unfortunately it is not available on any form of home
>video that I know of, and isn't even available for rebroadcast.
No longer true! WNET sorted out the music rights nearly a decade
ago, so the movie was rebroadcast on some PBS stations and also
made available for sale. I have a VHS tape of it that I got in a
pledge drive at the time (2000). It's also available on DVD.
(Hmmm, you've just given me an idea for my Christmas list...)
Here's their website about the show:
The Resources section has links to some news articles about the
rerelease, including this one on Space.com that's still available:
http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/tv/lathe_heaven_000527.html
And this one that explains why the Beatles' original version of
"With a Little Help from My Friends" isn't in the rerelease:
http://www.current.org/prog/prog008loh.html
The sections of WNET's "Lathe" site with wallpapers and video
clips are still active, too.
Patty
voxwoman
> "voxwoman" <voxwo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I chuckled at the bicycle hanging in the underground club, too. I also
was amused at the embiggening of the rovers.
>
> > It was much more coherent, for one thing,
> > especially taken in its entirety.
>
> Which I did appreciate. I don't expect to be spoon-fed, but I do appreciate
> having some coherence to hang my hat on.
>
> > What annoyed the crap out of me in the first 2 hours was the circular
> > logic and the fact that there were words for things that didn't exist
> > in that "universe" - if nobody ever saw an ocean - why would they have
> > a WORD "ocean"?
> > That, and where did the food come from? Those things hinted to me that
> > this was all some sort of "Matrix"-style reality,
>
> Yeah that's one of the things that bothered me. It just seemed like WAY too
> much of a stretch to expect the entire village to accept the alternate
> reality as the only reality. And what about the children? Are they also
> participants in the alternate reality, or constructs thereof?
>
> > and I figured out
> > that Mrs 2 was the "dreaming God" in a leGuinesque sense.
>
> Have only recently started reading sci-fi (spec-fi) again. Started with The
> Left Hand of Darkness. Can you recommend any other of her work?
Um, all of it. But certainly read "The Lathe of Heaven"
At least the older stuff. I haven't been able to get into her more
recent work (i.e. Lavinia).
>
> > I thought the best scene was with 2 and the shopkeep, when they were
> > talking about cigarettes. It had the best writing and the best acting
> > of the entire 6 hours.
>
> YEAH!!! THAT was a GREAT scene!!! If ONLY the rest could have been that
> well-written...
>
> > I don't feel like I wasted 6 hours of my life, but I woudn't watch it
> > again
>
> I don't know that I'd make a *point* of watching it again, but might leave
> it on if stumble on it.
>
> > (whereas I would watch the original again and more than once,
> > because there's just too much to figure out in it).
>
> Saving up $ to buy a Blu-Ray player so I can buy the Blu-Ray set.
Costco's selling a Phillips brand for 140 (after rebate). I'm not in a
hurry to start switching to blu-ray. I have too much invested in DVDs
at this point, and I think after 50 one tends to not be an early
adopter anymore, but I am getting sad about the added content
available on BluRay.
-Wendy
voxwoman
> On Nov 21, 1:51 am, "David Williams" <kosh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Have only recently started reading sci-fi (spec-fi) again. Started with The
> > Left Hand of Darkness. Can you recommend any other of her work?
>
> "The Lathe of Heaven". Excellent stuff. There was a PBS TV
> adaptation in the 70s that was pretty good and reasonably faithful to
> the novel. Unfortunately it is not available on any form of home
> video that I know of, and isn't even available for rebroadcast. Some
> kind of byzantine legal tangle over the rights, IIRC. The TV version
> from a few years ago bears less resemblance to LeGuin's book than the
> AMC "Prisoner" does to the orignal - and has less artistic merit on
> its own terms. Avoid like the Swine Flu.
Agreed. I thought they rebroadcast the original at least once. And I
think my off-the-air copy of it is on BETA. Bruce Davidson was great
as George Orr. It was an excellent adaptation.
-Wendy
voxwoman
> >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:43:46 -0500, voxwoman wrote
>
> (in article
the Butler.
>Or Leo McKern's #2?
> Technically, they're both short and sort of
> fat. Which do you mean? I've never heard of a character referred to as "the
> short fat man."
I didn't think of him as a butler, for some reason.
>
> >> I thought the best scene was with 2 and the shopkeep, when they were
> > talking about cigarettes. It had the best writing and the best acting
> > of the entire 6 hours. <<
>
> Part of why that was good is why the rest of the series failed, IMHO. Many
> of the actors were doing very stylized performances (rather than speaking
> conversationally, like people do in Aaron Sorkin vehicles). So you had #2
> and the shopkeeper dropping that kind of theatrical, more stylized acting,
> and switching to something conversational and conspiratorial. For me, it was
> the sharp contrast that sold that scene.
>
> Caviezel acts more like he's in a Sorkin ensemble. It felt (to me) like he
> was performing in a police procedural, while all the rest of these people
> were in a different production. I think I would have preferred a more
> theatrical actor in the role, just because of the nature of the material.
> But I realize that may just be me.
yeah, now that you mention it, it does seem like Caveizel was in a
different production from the rest of the cast...
>
> >> I don't feel like I wasted 6 hours of my life, but I woudn't watch it
> > again (whereas I would watch the original again and more than once,
> > because there's just too much to figure out in it). <<
>
> I was really angry about the end, which seemed to totally pervert the point
> of the original.
Well, think about it. We, as a society, are a whole lot more
complacent with the status-quo than we were in 1968. We seem to be
choosing security over freedom, so yeah, the point is different. But
is that because our society is different now?
>
> >> BCNU <<
>
> You know, all the nods to the original, and they couldn't get _one person_ to
> hold his fingers up in a 6-like shape when they said this??
>
I know. And I missed the umbrellas.
-Wendy
Amy Guskin
(in article
<4659d99b-e5c4-4b00...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 21, 9:32 am, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>
>> The butler?
>
> the Butler.
>
>> Or Leo McKern's #2?
>> Technically, they're both short and sort of
>> fat. Which do you mean? I've never heard of a character referred to as
>> "the
>> short fat man."
>
> I didn't think of him as a butler, for some reason. <<
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0026474/
>>> You know, all the nods to the original, and they couldn't get _one person_
>> to
>> hold his fingers up in a 6-like shape when they said this??
>>
>
> I know. And I missed the umbrellas. <<
I missed the stylized, somewhat uniform clothing, too (everything with either
thick contrasting piping, or stripes). Especially because in the first
episode of the original, when they managed to get rid of his old clothing and
replace it with the suit-with-piping (which kind of cemented the fact that he
was indeed imprisoned)...and the straw boater...it was just so...so...so
cheerfully menacing. Ya know? A lot of this production was missing that
cheerful menace of the original that made it so damned creepy.
Charlie E.
<voxw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 21, 1:51 am, "David Williams" <kosh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "voxwoman" <voxwo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>> Saving up $ to buy a Blu-Ray player so I can buy the Blu-Ray set.
>
>Costco's selling a Phillips brand for 140 (after rebate). I'm not in a
>hurry to start switching to blu-ray. I have too much invested in DVDs
>at this point, and I think after 50 one tends to not be an early
>adopter anymore, but I am getting sad about the added content
>available on BluRay.
>
>-Wendy
>
>
I wanted one, but since I have been basically unemployed for two
years, when my DVD player went out a year ago, I just bought a new
Sony HDMI DVD player. I will probalby wait until : 1 - I get a really
good job, and so have extra spending money or 2 - LotR comes out in a
new, super-special blu ray release!
Charlie
David Williams
"Charlie E." <edmo...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:6pjgg5tr0rb8c39v8...@4ax.com...
> 2 - LotR comes out in a new, super-special blu ray release!
Charlie,
Hate to break it to you, buddy. But I don't think Legend of the Rangers
will ever come out in BluRay...
David Williams
> Blair Leatherwood <bleath...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Amy Guskin wrote:
>
>> > You know, all the nods to the original, and they couldn't get _one
>> > person_ to hold his fingers up in a 6-like shape when they said this??
>
>> Wow--Forty years on, and that's the *first* time I realized that was a 6!
>> Thank you, Amy!
>
> I've never cottoned onto that, either. How annoying. :)
Allow me to add my voice to that. Never noticed it before either.
Do you think it was intended to be a 6?
Mac Breck
<snicker> I somehow doubt that's the LotR that Charlie meant.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Galen (to Gideon): "I've been penalized before for helping other
people. I've been trying to decide whether or not I should risk it
again."
Mac Breck
> On Nov 21, 1:51 am, "David Williams" <kosh...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> Saving up $ to buy a Blu-Ray player so I can buy the Blu-Ray set.
>
> Costco's selling a Phillips brand for 140 (after rebate). I'm not in a
> hurry to start switching to blu-ray. I have too much invested in DVDs
> at this point,
You *can* buy a Blu-Ray player without immediately replacing all of the
stuff you have on DVD, you know. :-) I have tons of stuff on DVD (so
much that it's going to be a royal pain putting it all into DVD
Profiler. I haven't updated my collection in DVD Profiler for 2 or 3
years.), but have no qualms about buying a new Blu-Ray player, both on
the new Laptop PC and a standalone for the A/V room. Then, whatever new
movies or TV series I buy, I'll tend to go for the Blu-Ray version, and
replace DVD with Blu-Ray only for my absolute favorite stuff.
> and I think after 50 one tends to not be an early
> adopter anymore,
True, but Blu-Ray has been the winner in the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray war for
awhile now. If you bought a Blu-Ray player now, you'd hardly be an
"early adopter."
> but I am getting sad about the added content
> available on BluRay.
Be happy. Look at what you have to look forward to! :-)
Mac Breck
> And I
> think my off-the-air copy of it is on BETA.
Nothing wrong with that. ;-) I'm still using one of my old Sony
Super-Betas (SL-HF600) for timeshifting.
Amy Guskin
(in article <he9q7l$1bk$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
I assume so. Geez, I thought _everyone_ who watched the show knew that!
Blair Leatherwood
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:39:49 -0500, David Williams wrote
> (in article <he9q7l$1bk$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
>> "Vince M Hudd" <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:gemini.ktgtrd0...@softrock.co.uk...
>>> Blair Leatherwood <bleath...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Amy Guskin wrote:
>>>>> You know, all the nods to the original, and they couldn't get _one
>>>>> person_ to hold his fingers up in a 6-like shape when they said this??
>>>> Wow--Forty years on, and that's the *first* time I realized that was a 6!
>>>> Thank you, Amy!
>>> I've never cottoned onto that, either. How annoying. :)
>> Allow me to add my voice to that. Never noticed it before either.
>> Do you think it was intended to be a 6? <<
>
> I assume so. Geez, I thought _everyone_ who watched the show knew that!
>
> Amy
Which is why the original is worth watching again--to see things that
are there but we haven't noticed before! And why we keep doing
Shakespeare, etc...
Blair
David Williams
"Blair Leatherwood" <bleath...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hea5a9$v64$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> And why we keep doing Shakespeare, etc...
I shalt see thee anon.
Wes Struebing
...anon, anon, anon...
(ekshully, David, shalt is second person singular. Zounds! Thou
still requirest "shall"!)
;-)
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
David Williams
"Wes Struebing" <str...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cesjg5lo8409f3auu...@4ax.com...
> (ekshully, David, shalt is second person singular. Zounds! Thou
> still requirest "shall"!)
Yeah... I was just being silly. But it didn't scan right, and after a
hectic day I was nearly brain-dead, and couldn't figure out why.
Thou shalt receive (or is that receiveth?) my regards,
David W.
David Goldfarb
No, "-eth" is a third person form.
--
David Goldfarb |"...encountering useless and ephemeral information
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |through compulsive science fiction reading and the
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |use of prodigious memory faculties for the arcane
|and irrelevant somehow strikes me as borderline."
| -- Edwin Thorpe