Lost vs. Alias - Uninterested In The Former Loved Early Latter
sandy
invest any more time in resolving the mystery ( heck I am more
entertained and interested in the Veronica Mars "mystery" ) and am
curious what you all are so riled up about. The reason I ask is
several fold since the creator of the aforementioned shows has given
me tremendous entertainment pleasure while watching early Alias ( pre
Super Bowl restructuring ) and I am still somewhat open to opinions.
And I was not weaned on video games and am not wont to instant
gratification though indeed as the years progress my attention span is
not what it used to be. And if one of the arguments is that Lost is
more erudite then other shows that won't wash with me since I
basically lost interest in Alias when it was "dumbed" down for
"America." So what is it about Lost that has you all so stoked. To me
it was as dull as dish water.
WQ
--- Don't feel so isolated. J.J. Abrams is a hack, a perfect example of
much ado about nothing. "Lost" lost me with the pilot, within the first
5 minutes in fact. The crash landing sequence right at the start of it
just went on too long and right away I knew that if it took that long
to get the point across that they were crash landing, then the series
itself was going to take forever to tell whatever story it has. Typical
Abrams excruciatingly convoluted plotting style. Personally, I find
none of the characters appealing or interesting in the slightest, aside
from Matthew Fox, but he had much better role in that short-lived UPN
"Haunted" series two seasons back. And I particularly don't care for
any of the characters' back stories as told through flashbacks. It may
all add up or tie in together in the end, but do I really care about
that if it plods along at the pace it does? Nope.
"Alias" grabbed my attention with the pilot, but not without noting a
few minor drawbacks in it. Overall, though, it laid the groundwork for
what at the time seemed like a potentially intriguing series, if in a
somewhat fanciful fashion. The tension between Sydney and her dad was
probably the glue that kept the show together very early on for me, but
as much as my interest in the series waned quickly, after just a few
episodes in fact, I still stuck with it because of that father-daughter
tension act. But by mid-season, Abrams decided to smooth that over,
which only subtracted the single reason that was left for me to watch
the show, because it certainly wasn't for the lamebrained plots or that
idotic Rimbaldi thing that I was watching it for, nor even Sydney in
whatever revealing outfits she wore [a bit butch I find her in those,
actually].
So, no, you're not alone. But some in this group would probably argue
that I being in your company on this could be very detrimental to your
health.
Melroseman
> --- Don't feel so isolated. J.J. Abrams is a hack, a perfect example of
> much ado about nothing. "Lost" lost me with the pilot, within the first
> 5 minutes in fact. The crash landing sequence right at the start of it
> just went on too long and right away I knew that if it took that long
> to get the point across that they were crash landing, then the series
> itself was going to take forever to tell whatever story it has.
So you wanted to see plane wreckage and then CUT to a built
civilization!? The world wasn't built in one day! Every episode covers a
certain time period and focuses more on characters and why these people
are the way they are. You're either interested or not. Accept it or move on.
> So, no, you're not alone. But some in this group would probably argue
> that I being in your company on this could be very detrimental to your
> health.
Why are you spending so much time and energy discussing a show you
obviously don't like?
Ryan
everyone I come across falls all over themselves praising it.
I watched the first half of the first season of Alias. By then the same
formula was used in every episode and I quit.
--
Ryan
Melroseman
You shouldn't expect to like everything that one person makes. Not
products, not food, not cars, not films... and certainly not TV shows.
Just because you enjoyed Alias, there's no correlation that you should
enjoy Lost. The ratings prove that.
I like both because they're something different on tv and I enjoy a
little intrigue. I don't watch any crime stuff CSIs, L&Os or any sitcoms.
sdfasa
>So, no, you're not alone. But some in this group would probably argue
>that I being in your company on this could be very detrimental to your
>health.
ain't that right....
the problem with you is you think you're a big shot critic and that by
writing this crap every time a new show is on the air, someone is
going to give you a job as a critic..it's getting tiring
Lost is the only hit show in the last few years that has strayed away
from the cop show formula and for that very reason, a lot of people
watch it
WQ
Melroseman wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Don't feel so isolated. J.J. Abrams is a hack, a perfect
example of
> > much ado about nothing. "Lost" lost me with the pilot, within the
first
> > 5 minutes in fact. The crash landing sequence right at the start of
it
> > just went on too long and right away I knew that if it took that
long
> > to get the point across that they were crash landing, then the
series
> > itself was going to take forever to tell whatever story it has.
>
> So you wanted to see plane wreckage and then CUT to a built
> civilization!? The world wasn't built in one day!
--- Yeah, well, I wouldn't want to sit around for 100 billion years to
watch it being built either. The crash sequence was needless. The fact
that they all woke up after the crash and realized that that's what
happened was all that was needed. Seeing them crash added absolutely
nothing to the plot. Nothing. A waste of 5 minutes of film time and
about a $100,000 in production costs.
Every episode covers a
> certain time period and focuses more on characters and why these
people
> are the way they are. You're either interested or not. Accept it or
move on.
--- I'm not interested and I did move on.
> > So, no, you're not alone. But some in this group would probably
argue
> > that I being in your company on this could be very detrimental to
your
> > health.
>
> Why are you spending so much time and energy discussing a show you
> obviously don't like?
--- Moral support for Sandy.
WQ
sdfasa wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2004 09:11:28 -0700, "WQ" <ri...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >So, no, you're not alone. But some in this group would probably
argue
> >that I being in your company on this could be very detrimental to
your
> >health.
>
> ain't that right....
>
> the problem with you is you think you're a big shot critic and that
by
> writing this crap every time a new show is on the air, someone is
> going to give you a job as a critic..it's getting tiring
--- I don't think I'm a big shot critic. I KNOW I'm a big shot critic.
And I guess I should be flattered that you would even apply the word
critic to me, makes me feel validated. And no, I don't expect a job as
one - no one can afford my price.
> Lost is the only hit show in the last few years that has strayed away
> from the cop show formula and for that very reason, a lot of people
> watch it
--- Well, "Desperate Housewives" is also a hit show, actually a bigger
one than "Lost," that has strayed from the cop formula. Hey, but I'm
glad you get a kick out of it. It doesn't mean I can't see it for what
it really is and express my views on it just because it'd only end up
ruffling someone's feathers. It's a free country.
Daniel Damouth
news:4183d21c$1...@netscape.ca:
> Just because you enjoyed Alias, there's no correlation that you
> should enjoy Lost. The ratings prove that.
And yet, there is a certain similarity to the storytelling in both
shows, which I can't quite put my finger on. Something in both the
writing and the visuals.
-Dan Damouth
Grey Wolf
>--- Yeah, well, I wouldn't want to sit around for 100 billion years to
>watch it being built either. The crash sequence was needless. The fact
>that they all woke up after the crash and realized that that's what
>happened was all that was needed. Seeing them crash added absolutely
>nothing to the plot. Nothing. A waste of 5 minutes of film time and
>about a $100,000 in production costs.
>
It may not have served to move the plot, but it increased my
adrenaline level each time they showed clips from the crash. It gave
a little more meaning to the crash, how life can go from being fairly
safe and routine to "utter chaos". Sometimes it doesn't hurt to show
the obvious.
I also think the movie "Alive" had more of an impact to me by them
showing the plane crash. The movie itself was about the human spirit,
but without the plane crash, the movie would have been far less
interesting.
David
Omarichu
>me tremendous entertainment pleasure while watching early Alias ( pre
>Super Bowl restructuring )
Still sobbing like a little whore that Alias' second season was phenomenally
better after the Super Bowl than it was before it, eh? I'd have thought you'd
be used to having been so hysterically wrong by now, but idiotic posts like
this show your defeat continues to haunt you. Continue losing, buttfuck.
WQ
--- Maybe you'd have a point if there was a build-up to the crash, some
time invested in the characters so we could get a sense of who they
were and at what point in their lives they were at before the crash
happened caught in brief vignettes leading up to the take-off, after
which we, as the viewer, would also learn that some who we would've
liked to have seen survive the ultimately doomed flight, didn't. Then
the crash would have had an impact that would've went beyond merely a
mechanical malfunction, special effects and screaming to attest to
that. To practically begin the pilot episode and the series itself
with the crash, and to put so much emphasis on it without any of the
"emotional" investment mentioned preceding it, is to simply be
superficially sensationalistic. I had no sense of dread or fear for any
of the characters on board as they were taking a dive because I didn't
even know who they were and, as such, it really didn't matter who
survived and who didn't. As for the crash depicting how life can go
from being safe and routine to utter choas, well, that's kind of a
given, so who cares? There's only meaning to it when you have a sense
of who the characters are and what's at stake for them, otherwise it's
just a crash for crash sake.
P. Burrows
@hotmail.com says...
> So what little of Lost I have seen did nothing to pique my interest to
> invest any more time in resolving the mystery ( heck I am more
> entertained and interested in the Veronica Mars "mystery" ) and am
> curious what you all are so riled up about.
Reminds me of when i showed the Firefly pilot to someone i know. She
thought it was slow in the beginning but got better at the end. Which i
thought was funny, because i thought it was good at the beginning but
became less so at the end (when the action starts)
It depends on what you watch for. You probably waited for something i
doubt is comming. I don't think its about "the mystery" or the island,
or the crash etc. Those are just an excuse to get different people
together and tell their story. Ie, its stories about people not action
about planes and mysterious island.
From that view point i find myself amused :)
Rick
"Melroseman" <melro...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4183d21c$1...@netscape.ca...
It has something also that most shows don't have
Likable if that's a word characters.
Grey Wolf
>time invested in the characters so we could get a sense of who they
>were and at what point in their lives they were at before the crash
>happened caught in brief vignettes leading up to the take-off, after
>which we, as the viewer, would also learn that some who we would've
>liked to have seen survive the ultimately doomed flight, didn't. Then
>the crash would have had an impact that would've went beyond merely a
>mechanical malfunction, special effects and screaming to attest to
>that. To practically begin the pilot episode and the series itself
>with the crash, and to put so much emphasis on it without any of the
>"emotional" investment mentioned preceding it, is to simply be
>superficially sensationalistic. I had no sense of dread or fear for any
>of the characters on board as they were taking a dive because I didn't
>even know who they were and, as such, it really didn't matter who
>survived and who didn't. As for the crash depicting how life can go
>from being safe and routine to utter choas, well, that's kind of a
>given, so who cares? There's only meaning to it when you have a sense
>of who the characters are and what's at stake for them, otherwise it's
>just a crash for crash sake.
First, getting to know people in a pilot episode just for them to die
in the same episode is a waste of time, IMO, unless it serves to
develop the main characters. And how much time would you prefer we
spend with all of these characters previous to the crash? Moments
before (as were shown in the flashbacks) or hours, days or months
before?
Secondly, my god how boring would it be to have a show start with
"here's the characters on a beach that survived the crash" without
showing the crash? I thought it was well done, with each flashback
showing a little more detail, staying in the plane a little bit
longer, so the viewer can piece together what happened.
Finally, most importantly, finding out too much info about these
characters too soon would destroy some of the mysteries that we're
still discovering. I'd even argue that the whole format of the show
(as far as characterization and, to some extent the plot development
goes) depends on retrospective storytelling - from the first moment
(getting to see bits and pieces of the crash after it happened) to
where we are now, still learning bits and pieces about the various
main characters and their pasts. Instead of knowing who the
characters were before and seeing who they are now in a linear
fashion, we're knowing who they are now, and finding out who they were
before, in a retrospective fashion.
The crash was the impetus of who these characters are now and how they
react to one another... simply implying that there was a crash, to me,
would be skimping and not interesting enough.
David
The Babaloughesian
"Rick" <sigm...@yahoo.comxxx> wrote in message
news:y9-dnYsDF94...@comcast.com...
It's a word, but I don't really think it's something that most shows lack,
or for that matter, something that Lost has in spades. Lost's characters
are so far demonstrating rather annoying levels of stupidity, which hurts
their likability in my eyes.
WQ
--- The five minutes spent on the crash could've been spent on the
characters in the airport just about to board or while boarding and
whatever dialogue or even thoughts [through a character's voiceover]
are expressed would've given an insight as to who each of them were and
where they were in their lives and what expectations, if any, they had.
You may say that's impossible, I say it's all in the editing and quite
achievable. That's what effective editing is all about.
> Secondly, my god how boring would it be to have a show start with
> "here's the characters on a beach that survived the crash" without
> showing the crash? I thought it was well done, with each flashback
> showing a little more detail, staying in the plane a little bit
> longer, so the viewer can piece together what happened.
--- That's how "Gilligan's Island" started, with their being swept onto
the island recounted in the opening credits every week during the theme
song explaining what happened. And it worked, there was no need to
actually include being washed ashore in the pilot itself. But more
seriously, "The Prisoner" was an excellent example of a series that
didn't waste time on the obvious, recounting his capture and being
stranded on his island prison also during the opening credits each
week. The pilot of that series immediately had him waking up in an
unfamiliar environment and quickly beginning to try to understand his
situation in rapid-fire sequence, and this was a show that came on a
third of a century ago from which Abrams could've picked up on a lot of
pointers.
> Finally, most importantly, finding out too much info about these
> characters too soon would destroy some of the mysteries that we're
> still discovering. I'd even argue that the whole format of the show
> (as far as characterization and, to some extent the plot development
> goes) depends on retrospective storytelling - from the first moment
> (getting to see bits and pieces of the crash after it happened) to
> where we are now, still learning bits and pieces about the various
> main characters and their pasts. Instead of knowing who the
> characters were before and seeing who they are now in a linear
> fashion, we're knowing who they are now, and finding out who they
were
> before, in a retrospective fashion.
--- The retrospective telling of the characters' stories is an
interesting ploy, but it doesn't work on a long-term basis. It's an
excellent means of flashbacking for a 2-hour movie, especially if you
use "Kill Bill" as an example, but for a TV series that usually intends
to run at least 5 years, it only interminably drags things out. And
for it to even succeed, you had better have characters that are at
least interesting enough right from the start for you to want to get to
know, otherwise you're not going to invest that much time past the
first few episodes getting to know others if the ones you got to know
so far we're pretty blah. Again, none of the characters, save for
Matthew Fox's, and even then not that much, are at all interesting,
never mind that most of them don't even look physically interesting,
not even Evangeline Lilly who's just too pretty and too synthetic,
merely eye candy and little more.
> The crash was the impetus of who these characters are now and how
they
> react to one another... simply implying that there was a crash, to
me,
> would be skimping and not interesting enough.
--- Whether the crash is depicted or not, it still doesn't change the
supposed impetus. The crash happened, that's all you need to know, and
the impetus will still be there. You don't have to see the crash,
especially for the length of time it was shown, unless it's to
accentuate the unexpected, vis-a-vis the characters and who actually
survives it and who doesn't, because then a sense of something being at
stake for each of them becomes apparent to both them and the viewer
more so than not knowing anything about the characters as they're
crashing. You may enjoy seeing crashes, I do too, but for me, seeing a
crash has to make sense, otherwise it becomes just one big yawn.
Rick
"The Babaloughesian" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2ukvv2F...@uni-berlin.de...
though their not unlikable their really annoying the characters on 7th
heaven and Will and Grace.
Grey Wolf
>--- The five minutes spent on the crash could've been spent on the
>characters in the airport just about to board or while boarding and
>whatever dialogue or even thoughts [through a character's voiceover]
>are expressed would've given an insight as to who each of them were and
>where they were in their lives and what expectations, if any, they had.
>You may say that's impossible, I say it's all in the editing and quite
>achievable. That's what effective editing is all about.
>
I wouldn't think it's impossible, but I don't think it would serve the
storytelling style that "Lost" is trying to accomplish, especialy
concerning the mysteries involved. I think starting off with everyone
(and their motives) being completely unknown is what made the show so
interesting to a lot of people - or at the very least, to me.
Take the show "John Doe" for example. It started off with a character
waking up on an island with no memory of how he got there, let alone
who he was. Now, his identity-hunt was the central mystery of the
show, so of course they couldn't reveal that info, but even the fact
that he had no idea of how he got on the island was a pretty big hook.
How did he get there? Who is he? Who else was involved? These
questions vital in keeping people interested in the show. The show
would not have been as interesting if we'd known any information about
him prior to his waking up on the island. (And in fact I don't know
if they ever revealed any of these answers!)
I think those are the same kind of hooks that LOST is trying to
accomplish. Getting to know the characters before the crash just
isn't as thrilling as coming across them in the middle of an accident
and finding out (at the same time, narratively, that the characters
do) that nobody is who they appear to be. Knowing any of that up
front would lessen the 'payoff' when they have any kind of big reveal.
>> Secondly, my god how boring would it be to have a show start with
>> "here's the characters on a beach that survived the crash" without
>> showing the crash? I thought it was well done, with each flashback
>> showing a little more detail, staying in the plane a little bit
>> longer, so the viewer can piece together what happened.
>
>--- That's how "Gilligan's Island" started, with their being swept onto
>the island recounted in the opening credits every week during the theme
>song explaining what happened. And it worked, there was no need to
>actually include being washed ashore in the pilot itself.
LOL, Gilligan's Island was a comedy. It wasn't a show that was trying
to keep people clinging to the edge of their seat with anxiety, fear,
wonder or suspense... it was about trying to make people laugh.
>But more
>seriously, "The Prisoner" was an excellent example of a series that
>didn't waste time on the obvious, recounting his capture and being
>stranded on his island prison also during the opening credits each
>week. The pilot of that series immediately had him waking up in an
>unfamiliar environment and quickly beginning to try to understand his
>situation in rapid-fire sequence, and this was a show that came on a
>third of a century ago from which Abrams could've picked up on a lot of
>pointers.
>
Alas I've never seen the show, but it sounds interesting. Was the guy
a civillian? Why was he captured?
That brings up a question... LOST so far has not shown *any* kind of
opening sequence, whether it be one that is repeated week after week
or even a "title song" with credits. It's another thing that sets it
apart from most shows... presumably it's because any of the cast could
be "lunchmeat" at any time. If you indicate that certain cast members
are part of the ensemble cast, then you're eliminating them as
possible victims, and reducing the mystery.
>--- The retrospective telling of the characters' stories is an
>interesting ploy, but it doesn't work on a long-term basis. It's an
>excellent means of flashbacking for a 2-hour movie, especially if you
>use "Kill Bill" as an example, but for a TV series that usually intends
>to run at least 5 years, it only interminably drags things out.
Well, frankly I do share this concern. But seeing as I enjoy it right
now, I'm not going to worry about it. Even my favorite shows that go
past 5 years start to feel "mildly stagnant" to me... mostly due to
their familiarity. If "Lost" only lasts 2 seasons, I will be happy.
If they find a way to keep it going AND to keep it interesting, I'll
be even happier.
>And
>for it to even succeed, you had better have characters that are at
>least interesting enough right from the start for you to want to get to
>know, otherwise you're not going to invest that much time past the
>first few episodes getting to know others if the ones you got to know
>so far we're pretty blah. Again, none of the characters, save for
>Matthew Fox's, and even then not that much, are at all interesting,
>never mind that most of them don't even look physically interesting,
>not even Evangeline Lilly who's just too pretty and too synthetic,
>merely eye candy and little more.
>
I felt that Jack's initial mystery (waking up to a dog), stumbling out
to the crash site (and getting through that dramatic scene) was enough
of a puzzler to keep me interested long enough for characters to start
interacting and revealing more mysteries.
As far as Kate is concerned, I think that they needed a pretty girl
for the twist to be felt. Here's this pretty young thing, who we'd
all expect to be some stereotypical sweetheart, and come to find out
she's possibly a hardened criminal. If Kate would've been played by
someone a bit rougher or tougher looking, the twist might have not
been as potent. (I'd say that Shannon, the blonde chick, is so far
more eye candy, though from her manipulative efforts with Charlie, I
have a feeling this will come into play during the storyline too.)
So far, the only character who hasn't seemed at least a little
interesting, to me, is Hurley the obese guy.
>> The crash was the impetus of who these characters are now and how
>they
>> react to one another... simply implying that there was a crash, to
>me,
>> would be skimping and not interesting enough.
>
>--- Whether the crash is depicted or not, it still doesn't change the
>supposed impetus. The crash happened, that's all you need to know, and
>the impetus will still be there. You don't have to see the crash,
>especially for the length of time it was shown, unless it's to
>accentuate the unexpected, vis-a-vis the characters and who actually
>survives it and who doesn't, because then a sense of something being at
>stake for each of them becomes apparent to both them and the viewer
>more so than not knowing anything about the characters as they're
>crashing. You may enjoy seeing crashes, I do too, but for me, seeing a
>crash has to make sense, otherwise it becomes just one big yawn.
I thought the way they showed the crash was clever. Starting off with
everyone on the island, and parts of the machinery strewn about... and
then, as the survivors start to come out of their shock and
remembering about what happened, we get to see their memories. Each
time they showed a little bit more of the crash, from a different
character's perspective.
To me it helped turn Jack into a likeable character, because he was
kind to the black lady sitting next to him. (Plus it set up a
possible story regarding alcohol.) Charlie's version had to be shown
so that we could see that he had stashed his drugs in the loo. The
fact that he was so nervous, and that he was on the verge of being
found out, sets up some possible conflicts for his character. And
Kate's scenario with being cuffed and sitting farther back by the tail
section allowed for us to see that she was a supposed criminal, how
she survived, and that she was also kind enough to get a mask down for
the 'marshal'. (From a thriller standpoint, showing the back part of
the plane ripping off was scary and heart-pumping!)
IMO, the crash scenes (there was more than one) did help to set up the
characters - at least three of the characters. I can see how one
might think they were overlong (taken in sum)... but they were done
from different POV's and did reveal parts of the characters... so to
me, it did make sense to show it.
I won't deny that the show is trying to thrill the audience with
action, special effects, and pulse-pouding music. I happen to like
it, because I do think it is being done well and in service to the
particular storytelling method that they're trying to pull off.
David
Melroseman
> IMO, the crash scenes (there was more than one) did help to set up the
> characters - at least three of the characters. I can see how one
> might think they were overlong (taken in sum)... but they were done
> from different POV's and did reveal parts of the characters... so to
> me, it did make sense to show it.
I loved Boomtown, so I was thrilled to see them doing the different POVs
on Lost.
WQ
--- At least it succceeded with its buffoonery, certainly through its
first season. "Lost" is a far cry from any sort of suspense tale for
me. Maybe a large part of that could be due to the uniformly
lackluster characters, I don't know, but even as I glimpse it every now
and then, it still doesn't grab me in the slightest.
> >But more
> >seriously, "The Prisoner" was an excellent example of a series that
> >didn't waste time on the obvious, recounting his capture and being
> >stranded on his island prison also during the opening credits each
> >week. The pilot of that series immediately had him waking up in an
> >unfamiliar environment and quickly beginning to try to understand
his
> >situation in rapid-fire sequence, and this was a show that came on a
> >third of a century ago from which Abrams could've picked up on a lot
of
> >pointers.
> >
> Alas I've never seen the show, but it sounds interesting. Was the
guy
> a civillian? Why was he captured?
--- As they say in the show, "That would be telling." It's definitely
worth seeking out. In a nutshell, a nameless spy, played to
temperamental and paranoid perfection by Patrick McGoohan, is kidnapped
and brought to a fairy tale-like island village of unknown location
where other nameless spies are housed as its beningly happy residents,
all there to extract information or, in most cases, have information
extracted from them. It's smart, cynical, sarcastic, allegorical,
surreal, fanciful, nightmarish, Orwellian, replete with witty, clipped
dialogue, offbeat and original brash and jazzy music, clever twist
endings, and all neatly told in 17 unrelated but nevertheless very
loosely interconnected episodes. If you can, find a place that
specializes in renting VHS or DVD copies of old TV shows, you might be
lucky enough to get it from there. Of course, you can always buy the
DVD set if you're willing to part with at least $100. Adding to the
eccentricity of the series is the episode order of it: it was aired in
one order in Britain, an altered order in the U.S., but after viewing
it yourself, you can easily find disagreement with both orders and
create your own order of it - it all depends on how you read between
the lines of the series, and there's a lot to read in it. But clearly,
the first and final two episodes of it are the first and final two
episodes. After watching "The Prisoner," you might end up wondering
what you really saw in "Lost" in the first place. Just don't expect
anything resembling a soap opera out of "The Prisoner," which "Lost"
tends to lapse into, otherwise you'll be disappointed.
> That brings up a question... LOST so far has not shown *any* kind of
> opening sequence, whether it be one that is repeated week after week
> or even a "title song" with credits. It's another thing that sets it
> apart from most shows... presumably it's because any of the cast
could
> be "lunchmeat" at any time. If you indicate that certain cast
members
> are part of the ensemble cast, then you're eliminating them as
> possible victims, and reducing the mystery.
--- You could have a point there about the absence of credits. Or it
could also be that Abrams just wants to save money by not producing
any.
> >--- The retrospective telling of the characters' stories is an
> >interesting ploy, but it doesn't work on a long-term basis. It's an
> >excellent means of flashbacking for a 2-hour movie, especially if
you
> >use "Kill Bill" as an example, but for a TV series that usually
intends
> >to run at least 5 years, it only interminably drags things out.
>
> Well, frankly I do share this concern. But seeing as I enjoy it
right
> now, I'm not going to worry about it. Even my favorite shows that go
> past 5 years start to feel "mildly stagnant" to me... mostly due to
> their familiarity. If "Lost" only lasts 2 seasons, I will be happy.
> If they find a way to keep it going AND to keep it interesting, I'll
> be even happier.
--- That's the trick for your sake, to try to keep it going and keep it
interesting. I don't know, maybe Abrams has a few surprises up his
sleeve, but I guess I'm not patient enough to stick with the show at
this point to find out what it ultimately could be.
--- I think he'll end up being the cannibal of the lot.
--- Well, you see, that's what I didn't like about it. It was enough to
see that they had crashed as evidenced by all the debris, but to keep
flashbacking to different characters' p.o.v. of the crash landing,
that's what bored me to tears. The point of contention is this: which
would've better? Having glimpses of who the characters are prior to or
while boarding the plane and then after the plane takes off, it fades
out to black for a few seconds, after which it slowly fades in to the
post-crash opening sequence, or leave it as is? I think - and this is
a personal p.o.v., of course - it would've added more of a sense of
mystery by going to black and then fading in because it would've
instilled and emphasized an element of a missing period of time and/or
unknown exact cause of the crash that could gradually be explained in
bits and pieces as the series progressed. This way, both the
characters and the viewers are literally in the dark about that missing
segment and both would learn at the same time what really transpired.
But to just repetitively watch each charaacter react to the crash,
well, that was just a yawner, it did nothing for heightening the
premise. Maybe your blood pressure, but not the premise in and of
itself.
> To me it helped turn Jack into a likeable character, because he was
> kind to the black lady sitting next to him. (Plus it set up a
> possible story regarding alcohol.) Charlie's version had to be shown
> so that we could see that he had stashed his drugs in the loo. The
> fact that he was so nervous, and that he was on the verge of being
> found out, sets up some possible conflicts for his character. And
> Kate's scenario with being cuffed and sitting farther back by the
tail
> section allowed for us to see that she was a supposed criminal, how
> she survived, and that she was also kind enough to get a mask down
for
> the 'marshal'. (From a thriller standpoint, showing the back part of
> the plane ripping off was scary and heart-pumping!)
--- You see, like I say, all that could've been included it in the
pre-crash and blackout boarding sequence without losing any of those
characteristics you saw in the characters. And I'm glad you enjoyed
the special effects of the crash and managed to survive it yourself as
well, but special effects don't impress me unless they're absolutely
integral in a way that a scene or sequence couldn't be done without
them within the context of whatever the story or premise is.
> IMO, the crash scenes (there was more than one) did help to set up
the
> characters - at least three of the characters. I can see how one
> might think they were overlong (taken in sum)... but they were done
> from different POV's and did reveal parts of the characters... so to
> me, it did make sense to show it.
>
> I won't deny that the show is trying to thrill the audience with
> action, special effects, and pulse-pouding music. I happen to like
> it, because I do think it is being done well and in service to the
> particular storytelling method that they're trying to pull off.
--- Give "The Prisoner" a try, and then we'll see what your pros and
cons really are for both.
Grey Wolf
OK, I've added the first 4 eps to my NETFLIX queue. It's going to be
a while before they come up, as I've got other movies that I've been
waiting on for some time and I've promised others I would watch them
next... but once I get a chance to watch them, I will try to remember
to post my thoughts about them.
One thing I'd like to mention, though, is that it sounds with "The
Prisoner" you pretty much know the guy is a spy and has some special
training right from the getgo. So it would make sense that he starts
off trying to figure everything out right from the beginning. I'd
argue that the people on "Lost" are just average joes... so of course
they're not going to be as quick on their feet.
>> So far, the only character who hasn't seemed at least a little
>> interesting, to me, is Hurley the obese guy.
>
>--- I think he'll end up being the cannibal of the lot.
>
That is one thing that's missing, a good sense of dark humor. But
then, it would be a different show. Charlie and Sawyer are just about
the only ones on the island with any sarcastic dialogue or dark humor,
and even then it's pretty mild. And the show is definitely not witty
or irreverent.
>
>--- Well, you see, that's what I didn't like about it. It was enough to
>see that they had crashed as evidenced by all the debris, but to keep
>flashbacking to different characters' p.o.v. of the crash landing,
>that's what bored me to tears. The point of contention is this: which
>would've better? Having glimpses of who the characters are prior to or
>while boarding the plane and then after the plane takes off, it fades
>out to black for a few seconds, after which it slowly fades in to the
>post-crash opening sequence, or leave it as is? I think - and this is
>a personal p.o.v., of course - it would've added more of a sense of
>mystery by going to black and then fading in because it would've
>instilled and emphasized an element of a missing period of time and/or
>unknown exact cause of the crash that could gradually be explained in
>bits and pieces as the series progressed. This way, both the
>characters and the viewers are literally in the dark about that missing
>segment and both would learn at the same time what really transpired.
>But to just repetitively watch each charaacter react to the crash,
>well, that was just a yawner, it did nothing for heightening the
>premise. Maybe your blood pressure, but not the premise in and of
>itself.
Your idea isn't any better or worse than what they did on "Lost", IMO.
It's just a different style. Both ways could give us the same
identical information about the various characters, but your way would
be much more minimalistic than what they went with.
I think "Lost" attempts to try a "you are there" type of narrative,
where we are up close and personal with the shaky camera and running
through the jungle, as well as the times when we find out information
from their past as the characters themselves are experiencing the
memories. Using that method as a foundation to perform all of your
storytelling, I think the only way to actually go to black and then a
fade in is if all the characters blacked out during the crash... or to
introduce only one character before the crash, and then have that
character black out. Instead, we're introduced to one person who
blacked out after the crash, who ends up introducing us to more
characters, and then we flash back.
In that respect, perhaps it's more subtlety that you crave and less of
the mainstream "action sequence hit-you-over-the-head" theatrics that
they do on "Lost"? I definitely see your point, but I don't regard
one method as being any better than the other, just different. "Lost"
has a few actors that I enjoy watching, and is just different enough
than anything else on TV at the moment, so it feels fresh and fun even
if it's not the smartest or most subtle show out there.
>--- Give "The Prisoner" a try, and then we'll see what your pros and
>cons really are for both.
Thanks for the recommendation, WQ. Growing up I didn't have access to
a lot of channels, so my TV viewing was pretty limited. As such, I
missed out on a lot of classic TV shows that aired prior to the 80's.
David
WQ
Grey Wolf wrote:
> On 1 Nov 2004 20:52:10 -0800, "WQ" <ri...@email.com> wrote:
>
> OK, I've added the first 4 eps to my NETFLIX queue. It's going to be
> a while before they come up, as I've got other movies that I've been
> waiting on for some time and I've promised others I would watch them
> next... but once I get a chance to watch them, I will try to remember
> to post my thoughts about them.
>
> One thing I'd like to mention, though, is that it sounds with "The
> Prisoner" you pretty much know the guy is a spy and has some special
> training right from the getgo. So it would make sense that he starts
> off trying to figure everything out right from the beginning. I'd
> argue that the people on "Lost" are just average joes... so of course
> they're not going to be as quick on their feet.
--- Yes, you know he's a spy, but that's only incidental to the overall
premise of the series. His being a spy actually facilitates the show
in exploring its broad allegorical themes. In "Lost," you have the
main character being a doctor who you know is a doctor, but it just
doesn't go beyond that mere fact or permeate into the series premise.
And just because "The Prisoner" is a spy, it also really doesn't make
his job any easier to learn exactly what's going on, as you'll see.
--- True, but then I often subscribe to the less is more approach.
> I think "Lost" attempts to try a "you are there" type of narrative,
> where we are up close and personal with the shaky camera and running
> through the jungle, as well as the times when we find out information
> from their past as the characters themselves are experiencing the
> memories. Using that method as a foundation to perform all of your
> storytelling, I think the only way to actually go to black and then a
> fade in is if all the characters blacked out during the crash... or
to
> introduce only one character before the crash, and then have that
> character black out. Instead, we're introduced to one person who
> blacked out after the crash, who ends up introducing us to more
> characters, and then we flash back.
--- In the fade out scenario, all the characters would've blacked out
at the same time for sure. It could've faded in still focused on just
one of the survivors, though not necessarily, but which one I would've
picked, I'm not sure. It's too easy to go for the doc, I might've gone
for someone more unexpected.
> In that respect, perhaps it's more subtlety that you crave and less
of
> the mainstream "action sequence hit-you-over-the-head" theatrics that
> they do on "Lost"? I definitely see your point, but I don't regard
> one method as being any better than the other, just different.
"Lost"
> has a few actors that I enjoy watching, and is just different enough
> than anything else on TV at the moment, so it feels fresh and fun
even
> if it's not the smartest or most subtle show out there.
>
> >--- Give "The Prisoner" a try, and then we'll see what your pros and
> >cons really are for both.
>
> Thanks for the recommendation, WQ. Growing up I didn't have access
to
> a lot of channels, so my TV viewing was pretty limited. As such, I
> missed out on a lot of classic TV shows that aired prior to the 80's.
--- Well, if there is any one pre-80s series that's a must-see, "The
Prisoner" is the one. It was quite ahead of its time. If the first
four episodes you ordered are "Arrival," "Chimes of Big Ben," "A.B. &
C.," and "Free for All," then it would be according to the U.S. airing
of the series in its original run.
Grey Wolf
>--- Well, if there is any one pre-80s series that's a must-see, "The
>Prisoner" is the one. It was quite ahead of its time. If the first
>four episodes you ordered are "Arrival," "Chimes of Big Ben," "A.B. &
>C.," and "Free for All," then it would be according to the U.S. airing
>of the series in its original run.
I just checked it out... disc one contains "Arrival", disc 2 has "Free
For All", disc 3 has "Checkmate" and "The Chimes of Big Ben".
Is this out of order?
David
WQ
--- Certainly begin with "Arrival."
"The Chimes of Big Ben" was the second episode aired in the series, but
it actually takes place six months after The Prisoner's arrival.
"Checkmate" aired as the 9th episode in Britain and the 11th in the
U.S., while series star-creator Patrick McGoohan stated he would've run
it as the 4th out of the 7 he considered as episodes that "really
count." Going by what you have, it would be an appropriate second
episode to watch, though clearly a few more episodes would've had to
have elapsed for it to work fully on one of its levels.
"Free for All" aired as the 4th episode in both Britain and the U.S.
and appears as the second on McGoohan's ideal order list. Whether 4th
or 2nd, it seemed to me to still be an episode better suited in the
middle or latter part of the series' run.
Knowing what I know about the episodes and the abstract chronological
sequence of the series as a whole, what order would I view the ones you
have? Most likely in this order: "Arrival," "Checkmate," "Free for
All," and "The Chimes of Big Ben." How the last episode ends will
definitely make you salivate for more.
Grey Wolf
>--- As they say in the show, "That would be telling." It's definitely
>worth seeking out. In a nutshell, a nameless spy, played to
>temperamental and paranoid perfection by Patrick McGoohan, is kidnapped
>and brought to a fairy tale-like island village of unknown location
>where other nameless spies are housed as its beningly happy residents,
>all there to extract information or, in most cases, have information
>extracted from them. It's smart, cynical, sarcastic, allegorical,
>surreal, fanciful, nightmarish, Orwellian, replete with witty, clipped
>dialogue, offbeat and original brash and jazzy music, clever twist
>endings, and all neatly told in 17 unrelated but nevertheless very
>loosely interconnected episodes.
Hey WQ,
I finally got the first disc of "The Prisoner", which contained
"Arrival" and an alternate version of "The Chimes of Big Ben".
However, the alternate version wasn't as touched up/restored as
"Arrival" was. I tried to watch the alternate version but became
annoyed because I couldn't make out some of the character's words and
it wasn't set up with subtitles. So I skipped it. And, I figure I'd
better not see an alternate version until I'd seen the origna
episode..
My thoughts on "The Arrival"?
It ain't bad at all. In fact, I think it's just as watchable today as
it was when it was filmed. That's a good compliment, I think. The
rolling "security" ball was a bit weird though. :-)
It is definitely much more of an interactive show. Rather than having
12 main characters who are all thrown into the mix at the same time,
The Prisoner clearly has someone (or more likely, an organization of
someones) in control of the place. Because there's only one
protagonist, the viewer can easily identify with that person. With
LOST, especially at first, the characters were so man that it was hard
to identify with any of them.
I liked that he thought he was getting away in the helicopter, but it
was controlled remotely and brought him back to the village. Also I
thought the twist at the end was great, where his spy buddy (who he'd
thought had fallen (or was pushed) to his death while escaping the
hospital) was actually alive and possibly a willing member of the
shadow organization behind the scenes.
It'd definitely piqued my interest, I will rent the rest of the disks
available in the series. I'll probably end up spreading them out over
time, one disk every 10 or 15 dvd's or so. I do that with B5 too, so
I don't get too burnt out.
So far, I like it! And that music, it was quite jazzy!
Now... how does it compare to LOST?
Well... it moved faster than LOST is moving, for one. I think you had
mentioned that previously. With LOST, whoever or whatever is behind
the mysteries, are not directly interacting with the character's
lives. With The Prisoner, they actually invite him to their house
(Number Two's house) and talk to him directly. So he knows nearly
right off that he's in a bit of a hostage situation; whereas on LOST,
they think they've just survived a plane crash and are getting by on
their own merits. (We don't yet know if the island is manipulating
them, but now we know at least that Ethan is operating with someone
because of what Charlie said.)
LOST has the advantage in that it's set in Hawaii and is modern. Plus
it has a larger scope (at least, so far that I can tell of only
watching one episode of The Prisoner) with a larger cast of characters
that, over time, I've become attached to and want to see more of.
I think I enjoy LOST too much to give an objective comparison between
it and another show I'm not that familiar yet with. Maybe that will
change as I watch more episodes of The Prisoner.
David
Rick
"Grey Wolf" <phony...@phonyemail.com> wrote in message
news:vnvmr0lpnqc28lbu1...@4ax.com...
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
I wish the Prisoner could have a better ending or an ending at least.
Mark Nobles
<sigm...@yahoo.comxxx> wrote:
Who is Number 1?
You are Number 6.
^
,
Rick
"Mark Nobles" <cmn-n...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:141220041455269363%cmn-n...@houston.rr.com...
every one off. It's also unusual that NBC aired it the same time it was
aired in Britain which hardly ever happens.
Bill Bonde
Rick wrote:
>
> SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
>
> I wish the Prisoner could have a better ending or an ending at least.
>
What was wrong with the ending?
--
Opening her own letter Dorothea saw that it was a lively continuation of
his remonstrance with her fanatical sympathy and her want of sturdy
neutral delight in things as they were—an outpouring of his young
vivacity which it was impossible to read just now. -+George Eliot,
"Middlemarch"
Rick
"Bill Bonde" <std...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:41BFCE9E...@mail.com...
>
>
> Rick wrote:
>>
>
>> SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
>>
>> I wish the Prisoner could have a better ending or an ending at least.
>>
> What was wrong with the ending?
>
>
Did you see the ending?
When No 6 rips the mask off of the ape
i.e. No 1 he sees himself what does that mean?
It means their is no ending.
Bill Bonde
Rick wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde" <std...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:41BFCE9E...@mail.com...
> >
> >
> > Rick wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
> >>
> >> I wish the Prisoner could have a better ending or an ending at least.
> >>
> > What was wrong with the ending?
> >
> >
> More spoilers
>
> Did you see the ending?
>
If I had not seen it, I wouldn't be asking what was wrong with it, would
I?
> When No 6 rips the mask off of the ape
> i.e. No 1 he sees himself what does that mean?
> It means their is no ending.
>
So Number Six is also Number One. When this is generally known, the
system breaks down and he ends up out on the M20 heading back to real
life and perhaps power or perhaps to call others on it.
Rick
>
>
> Rick wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde" <std...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:41BFCE9E...@mail.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Rick wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >> SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
>> >>
>> >> I wish the Prisoner could have a better ending or an ending at least.
>> >>
>> > What was wrong with the ending?
>> >
>> >
>> More spoilers
>>
>> Did you see the ending?
>>
> If I had not seen it, I wouldn't be asking what was wrong with it, would
> I?
>
>
>
>> When No 6 rips the mask off of the ape
>> i.e. No 1 he sees himself what does that mean?
>> It means their is no ending.
>>
> So Number Six is also Number One. When this is generally known, the
> system breaks down and he ends up out on the M20 heading back to real
> life and perhaps power or perhaps to call others on it.
>
Why?
Eramon1
>So he was keeping himself prisoner all that time?
>
>Why?
It's a metaphor!!! gol dang it!!! I wish we lived in the time when I could
challenge you to a duel.
-Eric
WQ
> Hey WQ,
> I finally got the first disc of "The Prisoner", which contained
> "Arrival" and an alternate version of "The Chimes of Big Ben".
> However, the alternate version wasn't as touched up/restored as
> "Arrival" was. I tried to watch the alternate version but became
> annoyed because I couldn't make out some of the character's words and
> it wasn't set up with subtitles. So I skipped it. And, I figure I'd
> better not see an alternate version until I'd seen the origna
episode..
--- Good to see you finally got around to it. But yeah, the alternate
“Chimes of Big Ben” would’ve been better viewed after having
watched the whole series, as a kind of bonus feature. It was actually
a “test preview” episode, before they finalized it, that was
offered to press screenings at the time. It also experimented with a
different musical score which, thankfully, wasn’t used throughout the
rest of the series. Even though it was the second episode aired [the
finalized one, that is], it’s still better seen later in the series.
But do watch the “official” version of that episode just the same,
because the regularly used music adds so much more to it, gives it a
different feel and flavor, delivers more of an effect than the
experimental music in the alternate version. It’ll at least for you
be a stark education on how two different kinds of musical arrangements
can make the same episode come across okay with one arrangement and
terrific with another arrangement.
> My thoughts on "The Arrival"?
>
> It ain't bad at all. In fact, I think it's just as watchable today
as
it was when it was filmed.
--- Even back in the late ‘60s, the show was way ahead of its time in
terms of style, cinematography and editing, being very much in tune
with today’s rapid music video approach of filming. Incidentally,
that village is an actual real village called the Portmeirion Resort in
Wales, built by an eccentric millionaire in the 1920s, I believe, and
used at the time, and maybe still is, as a retreat for artistes of
every stripe.
That's a good compliment, I think. The
rolling "security" ball was a bit weird though. :-)
--- That would be Rover.
> It is definitely much more of an interactive show. Rather than
having
> 12 main characters who are all thrown into the mix at the same time,
> The Prisoner clearly has someone (or more likely, an organization of
> someones) in control of the place. Because there's only one
> protagonist, the viewer can easily identify with that person. With
> LOST, especially at first, the characters were so man that it was
hard
to identify with any of them.
--- That’s the difference between shows back then and shows today.
Back then, they were leaner, meaner, more focused vis-à-vis plot and
characters, had none of the fat that comes with the more soap-laden
structures of current shows.
> I liked that he thought he was getting away in the helicopter, but it
> was controlled remotely and brought him back to the village. Also I
> thought the twist at the end was great, where his spy buddy (who he'd
> thought had fallen (or was pushed) to his death while escaping the
> hospital) was actually alive and possibly a willing member of the
shadow organization behind the scenes.
--- Note: The name Cobb, for the spy buddy, is actually an acronym for
the title of the second episode, “Chimes of Big Ben.” And so the
puzzle thickens.
> It'd definitely piqued my interest, I will rent the rest of the disks
> available in the series. I'll probably end up spreading them out
over
> time, one disk every 10 or 15 dvd's or so. I do that with B5 too, so
I don't get too burnt out.
If you’re going to go ahead and watch them all, then you should be
aware of the episode order, both as aired and as best viewed. There
was a haphazard approach to the way they filmed the series and it
didn’t seem that much thought was given to the order the episodes
should be aired, especially since the Britain airing order was
different than the U.S. one. Below is the original U.S. aired order.
“Living in Harmony” was never aired on CBS in the original run.
Also, there is the Best Viewed Order, so you take your pick as to which
way you want to go.
ORIGINAL AIRED ORDER: BEST VIEWED ORDER:
Arrival Arrival
The Chimes of Big Ben Checkmate
A. B. and C. Schizoid Man
Free for All The General
Schizoid Man A.B. and C.
The General The Chimes of Big Ben
Many Happy Returns Dance of the Dead
Dance of the Dead Free for All
* Do Not Forsake Me, Oh My Darling Many Happy Returns
It’s Your Funeral The Girl Who Was Death
Checkmate It’s Your Funeral
* Living in Harmony A Change of Mind
A Change of Mind Hammer into Anvil
Hammer into Anvil Once Upon a Time
The Girl Who Was Death Fall Out
Once Upon a Time * Do Not Forsake Me, Darling
Fall Out * Living in Harmony
In both the original and best viewed orders, “Once Upon a Time” and
“Fall Out” should be seen as the last two episodes. The asterisk
episodes “Do Not Forsake Me…” and “Living in Harmony” sort of
throw monkey wrenches into either order as both are not exactly needed
in the series and seem somewhat out-of-sync with it as well. If you
are to watch them, then they would be best viewed just about anywhere
between “Free for All” and “Once Upon a Time” in the best
viewed order. On the other hand, they could be saved as bonus features
after you’ve seen the other 15 episodes and you really wouldn’t
miss anything by doing so.
So far, I like it! And that music, it was quite jazzy!
--- Yeah, the music is excellent in that series. You don’t hear
stuff like that anymore.
> Now... how does it compare to LOST?
>
> Well... it moved faster than LOST is moving, for one. I think you
had
> mentioned that previously. With LOST, whoever or whatever is behind
> the mysteries, are not directly interacting with the character's
> lives. With The Prisoner, they actually invite him to their house
> (Number Two's house) and talk to him directly. So he knows nearly
> right off that he's in a bit of a hostage situation; whereas on LOST,
> they think they've just survived a plane crash and are getting by on
> their own merits. (We don't yet know if the island is manipulating
> them, but now we know at least that Ethan is operating with someone
> because of what Charlie said.)
>
> LOST has the advantage in that it's set in Hawaii and is modern.
Plus
> it has a larger scope (at least, so far that I can tell of only
> watching one episode of The Prisoner) with a larger cast of
characters
> that, over time, I've become attached to and want to see more of.
>
> I think I enjoy LOST too much to give an objective comparison between
> it and another show I'm not that familiar yet with. Maybe that will
> change as I watch more episodes of The Prisoner.
>
--- Well, give each a fair run and see where things stand by the end of
the season. At least you should be done with “The Prisoner” by
then, quick and clean; but you might have to put up with “Lost” and
all its tortured meanderings for another five years.
Captain Infinity
To Talk Of Many Things...
Number 6 is Number 1. Number 2 tells him this at the beginning of every
episode:
"Who is Number 1?"
"You are, Number 6."
The ape is symbolic of Man's unrestrained Id. The image of the insane
Number 6 is symbolic of Man's unrestrained Ego.
>It means their is no ending.
It has a perfectly good ending. Number 6 returns to his flat. The door
opens automatically, exactly as doors did in The Village. This
symbolizes that even though Number 6 has escaped the limited confines of
The Village, he is still a prisoner of the larger human society.
**
Captain Infinity
William December Starr
"Rick" <sigm...@yahoo.comxxx> said:
> Maybe because he had a hard time getting the show on TV he wanted
> to piss every one off. It's also unusual that NBC aired it the same
> time it was aired in Britain which hardly ever happens.
I don't know about any simultaneity, but the U.S. network that aired
"The Prisoner" was CBS, not NBC.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Rick
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cpu0j3$s4g$1...@panix1.panix.com...
>
The Wretched Spirit of Ole Ian J. Ball
"Rick" <sigm...@yahoo.comxxx> wrote:
> "William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:cpu0j3$s4g$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> > In article <abKdnXfBP4E...@comcast.com>,
> > "Rick" <sigm...@yahoo.comxxx> said:
> >
> >> Maybe because he had a hard time getting the show on TV he wanted
> >> to piss every one off. It's also unusual that NBC aired it the same
> >> time it was aired in Britain which hardly ever happens.
> >
> > I don't know about any simultaneity, but the U.S. network that aired
> > "The Prisoner" was CBS, not NBC.
>
> I wonder if I should keep hoping for a Prisoner movie.
The answer is "No!"
If there's one TV show that should *never* be made into a movie, it's
"The Prisoner". The odds of Hollywood (or even London) getting it right
are about *zero*.
--
All of the things that have gone wrong in my life, and now
in my death, I blame on Hole. And W.D. Starr, of course.
- The Wretched Spirit of Ole Ian J. Ball
http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV.html
ANIM8Rfsk
<< It has a perfectly good ending. Number 6 returns to his flat. The door
opens automatically, exactly as doors did in The Village. This
symbolizes that even though Number 6 has escaped the limited confines of
The Village, he is still a prisoner of the larger human society. >>
Which is enforced by Rover, the balloon like manifestation of which is just the
exposed tip of the Village's guardian giant invisible robots -- with tentacles.
Phil Brown
Actually the key to the entire series is spelled out in the dialog in the
intro. Just be a little inaginitive with the punctuation.
Phil Brown