http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1245862
Anyone here giving it a go? I might catch it on ITV player.
Its on at 9.30
Anyone here giving it a go? I might catch it on ITV player.
Its on at 9.30
The prisoner on ITV1 tonight.
- Thread starter Captain Shaw
- Start date
Drink plenty of caffeine when you watch it, in order to stay awake.
I was hugely disappointed. They managed to make Number 6 so completely nondescript that I couldn't really give a damn about anything he did.
The cinematography and design are wonderful, but what the characters actually do--or DON'T do--make the whole exercise incredibly dull for me. I really, really wanted to like it, too.
As bizarre as the original was, especially the ending, it was, at the very least, interesting.
I was hugely disappointed. They managed to make Number 6 so completely nondescript that I couldn't really give a damn about anything he did.
The cinematography and design are wonderful, but what the characters actually do--or DON'T do--make the whole exercise incredibly dull for me. I really, really wanted to like it, too.
As bizarre as the original was, especially the ending, it was, at the very least, interesting.
Didja notice that the theme was the inverse of the original?
That was fun. Made it almost worth slogging through the 90% of it that was boring.
Based on the first episode, the remake is missing the driving thrust of the original that were made clear right from the opening. Why did Number Six resign? Who built the Village? Who is Number One? (That none of these questions were ever really answered is irrelevant. 
)
With this, though, everything is vague and woolly. Number Six is... some guy who worked for some company. That's a lot less interesting than him being a spy from the start. McGoohan's Six was angry, but right off the bat was resourceful and entirely dedicated to escaping. The new Six is bewildered half the time, petulant the rest, and rather bumbling and lost. And there isn't really much sense of menace yet - Six is obviously there against his will, but there's no real feeling of danger, no "by hook or by crook" threat that Two and company are determined to find out why he resigned, using any means necessary.
And Caviezel doesn't really come across as someone with secrets worth finding, or a person who could resist attempts to obtain them. It's pretty obvious that he was cast because, after all, he was Jesus. But against McKellen, he's completely outclassed; he's just some guy. (Maybe they should have gone with Christopher Eccleston after all. Righteous fury is something with which Number Six should be overflowing.)
I'll keep watching to see if things pick up in the new couple of weeks, but I'm getting the uneasy feeling that they've whiffed the entire premise already.
)With this, though, everything is vague and woolly. Number Six is... some guy who worked for some company. That's a lot less interesting than him being a spy from the start. McGoohan's Six was angry, but right off the bat was resourceful and entirely dedicated to escaping. The new Six is bewildered half the time, petulant the rest, and rather bumbling and lost. And there isn't really much sense of menace yet - Six is obviously there against his will, but there's no real feeling of danger, no "by hook or by crook" threat that Two and company are determined to find out why he resigned, using any means necessary.
And Caviezel doesn't really come across as someone with secrets worth finding, or a person who could resist attempts to obtain them. It's pretty obvious that he was cast because, after all, he was Jesus. But against McKellen, he's completely outclassed; he's just some guy. (Maybe they should have gone with Christopher Eccleston after all. Righteous fury is something with which Number Six should be overflowing.)
I'll keep watching to see if things pick up in the new couple of weeks, but I'm getting the uneasy feeling that they've whiffed the entire premise already.
^They have. They absolutely have. I'm afraid it just gets worse as it goes.
Just a few comments from someone who saw and enjoyed the AMC showing back in the fall.
I'm a huge Prisoner fan going back more than 25 years, so I was concerned when they said they were doing a remake. But I was pleasantly surprised by what they came up with.
Is it as fast-moving as the original? No, it isn't. Instead it is a rather leisurely-paced, cerebral series. I can't say too much without spoiling, but they go in interesting directions with the story. It is NOT a remake. It's a reinterpretation. It isn't even a case of them going in similar directions as, say, nuBSG did with the original. There's a bit of that in the first episode, but it takes a different bunch of turns.
I didn't care for Caviezel at first, either, but he grew on me, especially when I realized he's supposed to be more an average Joe than McGoohan's No. 6.
I also like how they handled the two female characters played by Ruth Wilson and Hayley Atwell. I honestly can't say any more without spoiling, but they're fascinating to watch.
If you're tuning into the new series expecting something that's fast-moving and action-packed, you're watching the wrong show. In fact I'd say that about the original as well. Action and fast-moving scenes were not the point of the original. The pace and the feel of the new series is closer in spirit to episodes such as Dance of the Dead (I choose that example on purpose), and The General as well, not so much, say, Checkmate or Chimes of Big Ben.
Alex
I'm a huge Prisoner fan going back more than 25 years, so I was concerned when they said they were doing a remake. But I was pleasantly surprised by what they came up with.
Is it as fast-moving as the original? No, it isn't. Instead it is a rather leisurely-paced, cerebral series. I can't say too much without spoiling, but they go in interesting directions with the story. It is NOT a remake. It's a reinterpretation. It isn't even a case of them going in similar directions as, say, nuBSG did with the original. There's a bit of that in the first episode, but it takes a different bunch of turns.
I didn't care for Caviezel at first, either, but he grew on me, especially when I realized he's supposed to be more an average Joe than McGoohan's No. 6.
I also like how they handled the two female characters played by Ruth Wilson and Hayley Atwell. I honestly can't say any more without spoiling, but they're fascinating to watch.
If you're tuning into the new series expecting something that's fast-moving and action-packed, you're watching the wrong show. In fact I'd say that about the original as well. Action and fast-moving scenes were not the point of the original. The pace and the feel of the new series is closer in spirit to episodes such as Dance of the Dead (I choose that example on purpose), and The General as well, not so much, say, Checkmate or Chimes of Big Ben.
Alex
Only the first part has aired so far, so it'd be hard to spot that just yet.
Caviezel said that he didn't watch the original as he didn't want to be influenced by it. As it is, his portrayal just sucks the life out of the whole thing. I'm bailing now. I'll read some spoilers and do something useful with my time instead.
I'd have to disagree with that writer's analysis.
In the original, it was The State (government, Fascism, Communism, etc.) vs. The Individual.
In the remake, it's more like the Internet vs. the Postal system.
I'd have to disagree with that writer's analysis.
In the original, it was The State (government, Fascism, Communism, etc.) vs. The Individual.
In the remake, it's more like the Internet vs. the Postal system.
The theme ends up being more like
the shallow and unsatisfying cult of individuality vs. the innate human need to belong to a society. I liked the fact that it flipped the usual theme on its head - how many times do we see a TV show or movie argue for less individuality? But does the ever increasing individuality of our existence really do us any good? Humans are a social species, after all.
