AMC to remake The Prisoner for TV (1 Viewer)

[Lucia Duran]

I don't know. I thought parts were interesting, but overall I thought it was disjointed and strange. I am having a hard time seeing Caveziel as Six, but Ian as Two worked well for me. I don't like this new Village at all. Portmeirion was very cool , but this one just seems dingy to me. So many things I did not like here.

 

[Josh Dial]

Wow, that review is about as off the mark as I have read in recent memory.

I found the first two parts to the Prisoner remake to be quite excellent. I thought Caveziel was very strong in the 6 role, and I was quite sympathetic towards his character, and I found him easy to identify with (unlike the experience that reviewer had).

The episodes were delightfully surreal--from the lighting that would change from shot to shot while within the same scene, to the calliope-like music and the interesting set-dressing. Everything contributed to a palpable sense of both paranoia and confusion, which I felt helped to propel the plot along.

Regarding the "teen son," the linked review was so completely wrong that it leaves me to wonder if a) he even watched the show at all, or merely read a synopsis or IMDB entry, and b) understood the flickering images and "crazy noises" (that's called dialogue, Mr. Bianculli) his ears were hearing.

The whole thing felt like David Lynch meets The Thirteenth Floor, and indeed it was "strange," as Lucia says above. However, it is this strangeness that the remake draws much of its energy and appeal from, at least for me. All-in-all, I thought it was an effective opener (both episodes) for the mini-series, and I'll be tuning in this week for the rest.

My advice: ignore the (terrible) review linked above, and judge for yourself. Nobody wants to be "that guy" who dismisses a remake because of a shoddy review. Don't make me link the first Battlestar Galactica (they changed the freaking helmets!) thread

 

[TonyD]

i liked the first so far, strange indeed.

Seems they may be incorporating the World Trade Center into the show with the apparitions of the 2 towers in the desert.

Considering what the first series was probably really about I wonder on this one and the WTC......

 

[TonyD]

Well He asked the question tonight.
"who is number 1?"
And he was answered in a much different way from the original.

This show is very subdued so far, every one is practically whispering, hard to hear some things.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

Well that was a huge disappointment.

They took a nugget of an interesting idea stolen from The 13th Floor/ExistenZe/The Matrix/At least one anime I have seen, decided to use the nostalgia and set up of a cult favorite show and used the same episode names and some of the same plots, wrote it badly, and then put in a director who was more interested in showing the viewer how cool he or she was with the camera and style rather than telling a good story and we have the 6-hour miniseries that is The Prisoner. At least half the running time was wasted on the cool factor instead of advancing the story and mystery. There were so many WTF moments and jumping back and forth in time even when staying within The Village plot. Such a missed opportunity even if they stick with the overall plot and ending. If Six had known in the 3rd hour what was really going on and fought against it with some good back and forth between him and Two, it would have made the ending much more powerful. Instead they took what was essentially a 1 hour The Outer Limits episode and stretched it out to six hours by adding lots of fluff and style with no substance.

One good thing about it was that during the second 2 hours it was apparent what had to really be happening to make any logical sense even though there was no setup for it or how it was even possible but that was the real deal. They didn't come out of left field and undo everything you knew from the first 4 hours in the last 2 hours.

If you haven't watched any of it then I would suggest you just skip it and save those 6 hours to watch something else.

 

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey
If you haven't watched any of it then I would suggest you just skip it and save those 6 hours to watch something else.

Good advice.

Every creative decision in this remake is wrong
The film makers cut the heart and soul out of The Prisoner but fail to replace it with a new heart and soul.
They don't even know who the story is about or whose experience is being conveyed or what that experience is.
There is no vision here, just a confused, self-deluded, mis-guided shipwreck in the desert.
Since they changed everything that matters, why not change the title, too?
It is dishonest to call this mini-series "The Prisoner."
It violates its own rules, cheats the audience so often, reverses its own internal logic, promises one thing thing and then delivers another -- it's just garbage.

Jim Caviezel is a whiner and a baby and no substitute for Patrick McGoohan, who was like a force of nature in the original.
If I had an ounce of respect for Ian McKellan, it's gone now.
McKellan has always been an obtuse, pretentious, vacuous non-actor who gets by with an arsenal of English mannerisms.
Underneath all that poise, there's just more poise, but it's enough poise to coast a career on.

The whole shebang is monumental incompetence.

 

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Josh Dial

Wow, that review is about as off the mark as I have read in recent memory.

....

My advice: ignore the (terrible) review linked above, and judge for yourself. Nobody wants to be "that guy" who dismisses a remake because of a shoddy review.

I just watched a playhback of the new miniseries, and judged it for myself, and then I read the review linked above, and I would say the review is accurate and right on the money.
The only thing I would criticize the reviewer for is he over-rates the two stars and he is much kinder to writer / producer Jim Gallagher than he deserves.

The crowd who made this piece of crap will probably give each other lots of awards for it..

 

[Josh Dial]

Originally Posted by Richard--W




I just watched a playhback of the new miniseries, and judged it for myself, and then I read the review linked above, and I would say the review is accurate and right on the money.
The only thing I would criticize the reviewer for is he over-rates the two stars and he is much kinder to writer / producer Jim Gallagher than he deserves.

The crowd who made this piece of crap will probably give each other lots of awards for it..

Given the tone of this comment (and the one above), I highly doubt you actually watched the entire mini-series, and most likely gave up during the first episode (or perhaps skimmed aheard for a bit).

After watching the entire 6-episode series, I thought it was well-done, but perhaps a little too "high-concept" for the bulk of viewers. During the big reveal, which comes only in the final episode (of course), the show sticks with its surreal, jumbled (but in a good way, in my opinion) manner of story-telling, and you really have to pay attention to grasp it all.

 

[RickER]

I love the original. I did not like the remake, and stopped watching after the first 2 hours. Life is to short.

If some of you guys liked it, fine.

But please dont say you have to be smart to get it, cause i got it.

The people that remade this classic...I dont think THEY got it.

 

[Josh Dial]

Originally Posted by RickER

I love the original. I did not like the remake, and stopped watching after the first 2 hours. Life is to short.

If some of you guys liked it, fine.

But please dont say you have to be smart to get it, cause i got it.

The people that remade this classic...I dont think THEY got it.

How could you even remotely "get it" during the first two hours, before the show reveals what "it" is (because it's not the same as the original)?

 

[RichM]

Well I didn't "get it", so can you spoilerize what it was?

 

[TonyD]

I watched all of it and didnt see it's point. All I could figure was the village was in 2's wifes mind. Maybe something about terrorism and paranoia.

 

[IanD]

Originally Posted by Richard--W




If I had an ounce of respect for Ian McKellan, it's gone now.
McKellan has always been an obtuse, pretentious, vacuous non-actor who gets by with an arsenal of English mannerisms.

Did you actually respect him to begin with? And what's wrong with English mannerisms?

 

[Josh Dial]

Originally Posted by RichM

Well I didn't "get it", so can you spoilerize what it was?

Sure thing:

The premise is that through the use sophisticated drugs, the subconscious can be made just as real as the waking consciousness. Further, the subconscious realm of an individual can be populated with the subconsciousness of others who are also under the influence of the drugs.

Two's wife's mind is the "home" of the village.

Together, Two and his wife start Summakor, and are using the village as a form of psychiatric treatment for people in the real world. Those people are given the drug, which propels their subconsciousness into the village, while still conscious in the real world. The village essentially "heals" those people (albeit slowly, it seems) by getting them back to the basics of life: family, love, honest work, holidays, civic pride, et cetera. Having one's mind in the village seems to have a calming effect on the person in real life, as seen in Sara (313) and 147 (the car driver).

Those who are sent to the village are not volunteers, however. Michael's (Six in the real world) works for Summakor as a "scout" of sorts, using high-end surveillance to spy on people, determine if they have "problems," and select them for the village. For a long time (until the end of the show, actually), Michael doesn't know the true purpose of his job. However, he eventually becomes suspicious and resigns. The catch is that nobody resigns from Symmakor, given the nature of the company (essentially kidnapping peoples' minds against their will), and Michael is sent to the village, too.

Of course, Michael isn't truly sick, though he admits he has problems like anyone, and he rebels against joining the village.

Through the course of the show, we meet 11-12, Two's son. The issue here is that 11-12 was "made" in the village, and has no real life counterpart. He eventually figures this out, and kills himself.

Since Two's wife is the anchor of the village, she can only be woken periodically, and even then, she only wakes in the subconscious realm, not the real world. When she wakes (Two gives her the black pill on the bottom shelf), holes literally start appearing in the village, since there is no longer an anchor for it. Before killing himself, 11-12 kills his mother in the village, and the entire thing starts to crumble (holes appear everywhere).

Two has a plan, though, and shows Michael why they bring people to the village. Michael is taken to Sara (313), and finds she is suffering from serious mental trauma stemming from something in her childhood (we are given a few hints as to what). So, to save Sara (he is in love with 313), he volunteers to become the new "dreamer," that is, to take over the role as anchor for the village. At this moment, 313 decides she will do it instead, and takes the drugs needed to be sent into the anchor state. Two kills himself in the village, freeing his subconscious, and returns home in the real world to find his wife awake from her long dreamstate as the anchor, and they live happily ever after. Michael becomes the new leader of Summacor, and takes over as Two in the village, promising to make it better than before.
A lot more things happen, but that's the gist Did I leave anything important out?

 

[TonyD]

Josh that is acrtually a very very good summary.
This really is a good idea for a series I just didn't like the execution.

Guess I'll watch again to try and pick up on all this better.

 

[RickER]

Originally Posted by Josh Dial




How could you even remotely "get it" during the first two hours, before the show reveals what "it" is (because it's not the same as the original)?

See, that's just it Josh, they left entire bits of dialog EXACTLY the same, as the original, and then felt the need to "fix" other things. They could have just as easily called it Total Recall 2 by your synopses, instead of The Prisoner.

 

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Josh Dial

Given the tone of this comment (and the one above), I highly doubt you actually watched the entire mini-series, and most likely gave up during the first episode (or perhaps skimmed aheard for a bit).

After watching the entire 6-episode series, I thought it was well-done, but perhaps a little too "high-concept" for the bulk of viewers. During the big reveal, which comes only in the final episode (of course), the show sticks with its surreal, jumbled (but in a good way, in my opinion) manner of story-telling, and you really have to pay attention to grasp it all.

I will ignore the accusations and grant you permission to doubt whatever suits you.
If you'd been paying attention, you'd know the miniseries was broadcast in three segments lasting two hours each, not in six episodes.
I knew where it was going and how it would end mid-way through the second two-hours, not because I was paying attention, but because I know something about storytelling, and there was nothing here I haven't seen on the page and the screen before.

Your synopsis-spoiler is correct, however, and what you fail to comprehend is that if one word of your synopsis is correct, this remake is not The Prisoner. It is something else, something different.

Patrick McGoohan's The Prisoner is a specific concept requiring a specific approach.
This flaky remake that you think so highly of does not "play the scene."
A remake infers an obligation to be faithful to the original.
For examples of remakes that are faithful to the original programs, which "play the scene" while simultaneously contributing something new, check out the feature film versions of The Addams Family and The Flintstones, both good examples although in a different genre.
In contrast, the producer / writer of this flaky remake has an entirely different concept that is demonstratively at odds with the very subtext, substance, and concept of the original The Prisoner.
He inserts a few references to The Prisoner to justify stealing the title and to piggy-back his program on the commercial viability of the original.

Bill Gallagher and company do not respect the original nor do they feel obligated to be faithful to all the things that made it special. Instead, they simply exploit it for their self-aggrandizement. Their contempt for the original even extends to the promotion, as evidenced by Ian McKellan's remarks:

"I thought it was camp, frivolous, something without substance, an entertainment without any weight or bottom to it .... It was all designed to intrigue and delight. But what was under the surface? Was there something?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/arts/television/11prisoner.html?_r=2

He is, of course, really talking about himself and this "remake."

If AMC had removed the unnecessary and irrelevant references to The Prisoner, and perhaps called their mini-series The Village or Zardoz or Solaris or Alice Through the Looking Glass or whatever, I would have more respect for this cynical, exploitive, and essentially dishonest undertaking. They may have purchased the legal right, but the end result is ethically and creatively bankrupt.

If you want to see the brilliant, ingenious, and authentic The Prisoner, watch Patrick McGoohan's original.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Richard--W


If you'd been paying attention, you'd know the miniseries was broadcast in three segments lasting two hours each, not in six episodes.

Three segments lasting two hours each is six episodes.

 

[Josh Dial]

Originally Posted by TravisR





Three segments lasting two hours each is six episodes.

Indeed. They even each had their own title card. But I guess I wasn't paying attention...

 

[RichM]

Josh:

Thanks for the detailed summary, it raises a few questions in my mind:

How are people given the drugs who are in the Village?
Why are there children in the Village and are they real?
What happened when the child on the bike fell into hole?
Why did Lucy jump into the hole, is it because she was killed in real life?

I found the sound quality pretty poor so I am sure I missed a ton of dialogue, maybe I will have to re-watch with subtitles on.

Rich