Getting Stoked for The Prisoner Remake?

8 Comments

1. Derek C. F. Pegritz says:

   November 7, 2009 at 3:29 am

   I loved the original series, and I’m actually quite stoked for this one, as well–largely due to the presence of Ian McKellen. I don’t think I’ve ever seen McKellen in something I didn’t like.

   Reply
2. mwb says:

   November 7, 2009 at 8:57 am

   Ian McKellen is great, but the portrayal of Number 6 is just awful.

   The No. 6 is dangerous, fiercely intelligent and intimidating – and despite being a Prisoner strong enough to seem in control and a threat – this take is just whiny, confused and not remotely interesting.

   I suppose it is just the continual dumbing down of leads into incompetent everymans.

   Reply
3. Paul says:

   November 7, 2009 at 9:52 am

   I’m a big fan of the original series and contemplated, Once Upon a Time, a trip to Portmerion in England for the annual convention. 

   As far as this one, MWB has a point. Mckellen as #2 seems more compelling than Caviezel’s #6.  Which is twisted from the original (although there are a couple of #2′s from the original series, Leo McKern in particular, who are every bit the equal of McGoohan).

    

   Will I watch this?  You bet.

    

    

    

   Reply
4. Jeff says:

   November 7, 2009 at 11:49 am

   So is the whole season just the six episodes or will there be more?

   I wouldn’t mind if it was just a whole story ( begining, middle and end ) all done in 3 days!

   Reply
5. Matte Lozenge says:

   November 7, 2009 at 5:30 pm

   mwb is spot on. The original number 6 wouldn’t waste a moment whining, “You can’t do this to me!” And number 2 never explained the Village; he allowed number 6 (along with the viewing audience) to discover the situation for himself, under constant surveillance in case number 6 revealed anything important. In other words, the cat and mouse action started immediately, no conferences needed.

   Reply
6. John D. says:

   November 7, 2009 at 6:09 pm

   @Jeff: It’s more of a mini-series than a series.

    

   @Matte: Agreed — though it’s been noted that that was more from McGoohan making it up as he went along rather than foresight.

   Reply
7. Hal Duncan says:

   November 8, 2009 at 10:50 am

   Yeah, at least in this scene, Caviezel isn’t working for me.  Number Six is all about the subtextual warfare, Pinterian psycholinguistics, a constant probing in the undercurrents of even the most banal niceties.  He’s a fricking caged panther.  Caviezel’s kinda just coming across as a schmuck.  It is just one scene but… I’m not sold by a  long shot.

   I’m dreading the potential ruination, to be honest.  We’re going to learn that Number Six resigned because his actions accidentally led to the death of an innocent child or some such shite, I just know it.  Or that the Village is operated by some international cross-governmental super-secret blah blah blah.  I mean, in the original, the fact that these questions — why he resigned and who’s in charge — are *not* accessible to simple, reductive answers is a thematic foundation stone.  That the series refuses a literalist interpretation in favour of, well, McGoohan in a monkey mask is part of the whole sodding point. I really *really* hope they get that and don’t offer us some dumbass “explanation”.

   Reply
8. Mike L says:

   December 3, 2009 at 9:17 am

   I know I’m late to this discussion but I finally finished watching the new mini-series yesterday.  It really was a let down. I wanted to like it.  

   I can’t believe they spent to so much money and made a show that I could barely watch once.  I can watch the original Prisoner over and over and it just gets better each time.

   Reply