PDA

View Full Version : The Prisoner -a remake



daggaz
2009-08-02, 05:11 AM
This one probably predates most playgrounders by a decade or two, but the theme is going to go down real well, so I am posting this here..

The classic 1960's critically acclaimed sci-fi/psychological thriller The Prisoner is being redone/remade/released upon the unsuspecting children of our modern age. Dont want to spoil things, so knock yourselves out on this great 9 minute trailer.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9yob6_the-prisoner-trailer-du-remake_shortfilms

EvilDMMk3
2009-08-02, 05:55 AM
My views moment by moment as the son of a Prisoner fiend.

Looks like a reimagining rather than a remake. I am not entierly sure why they made Number 6 american (I suppost it is because the yanks are paying) but anyway it looks good. They have kept several of the more awesome scenes, including the map. However I am concernred that they seem to have taken the why of the village, in the original series everone knew it was a prison camp, but here most people seem not to know the outside world exists.

I suppose that...

OMG ROVER! THEY KEPT ROVER! I HEREBY FORGIVE THEM FOR THE TWEAKS I WAS ABOUT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THEY KEPT ROVER!

Anyway they seem to have keep the physchout elements and the ability for the audience to decide for themselves what...

Why is that cafe in a pool? (See what I mean?)

Anyway number 2 looks rather good and the 415 seems to offer an interesting plot not explored in the original...

"My dear 6 it is a trap. I want to see if you are clever enough to subert it to your own advantage" = WIN.

Hang on, they are giving him the power to spy, oh that is interesting. Still it does not feel like old 6 would have done that.

Ugh. "I am not a number, I am a free man." That is the old line but the delivery in the trailer is BAD. It is the man's fierce declaration of his independance and defiance against the crushing order of the village, here is feels, almost lip-wristed.

All they need to do to make this work is to keep the answers vauge and ensure that the final episode leaves plenty of questions open, idealy more than there where before it aired. It seems they have abandoned the more open and rigid format of the older series for a more claustraphoblic and clandestine format, meaning we won't be seeing the likes of A, B and C or Checkmate, pitty realy.

I might watch, but it is very big boots to fill.

Tamburlaine
2009-08-02, 12:31 PM
Not directly related to the remake (which I am avidly awaiting), but the entire original series is up on amc's website for free. Good stuff.

daggaz
2009-08-02, 12:31 PM
About the village trap..

The idea that society in itself is a trap has become so vogue that I feel it is an acceptable, even necessary, modernization of that theme. Anything else would be outdated and might even feel... fake, in this day and age.

bosssmiley
2009-08-02, 12:42 PM
RAGE!!!!

:smallfurious::furious::smallfurious:

No. Just no! You do not remake the personal project of a respected actor. Particularly not in a decade which has no original ideas of its own.

May zombie Patrick McGoohan rise from his grave to crush those responsible under his dessicated, but still mighty, heel. His are boots that cannot be filled in these sad and sorry days.

"The trouble with Hollywood is... it's full of hacks!" :smallannoyed:


So, yeah. On the fence. A little.

Timeras
2009-08-02, 01:07 PM
Anyway number 2 looks rather good
Yes, I really like that one, but I also enjoyed when they had a different Number 2 for each episode or even changed him during an episode.

The new Number 6 is very different from the way Patrick McGoohan played the role. I liked the original more.

I missed an important Question: "Why did you resign?" and they should have kept the "somatic component" of the phrase "be seeing you".
But still it looks quite good.

Remmirath
2009-08-02, 11:29 PM
RAGE!!!!
:smallfurious::furious::smallfurious:

No. Just no! You do not remake the personal project of a respected actor. Particularly not in a decade which has no original ideas of its own.

May zombie Patrick McGoohan rise from his grave to crush those responsible under his dessicated, but still mighty, heel. His are boots that cannot be filled in these sad and sorry days.

I quite agree with this here.

Seriously, even beyond that, why would you remake something that was already great? I've never understood the point of that. It isn't as if the original drops off the face of the Earth a few decades after it's made. It is still out there. And it's still good.

I heard about this a while ago, but I was hoping the project would slowly die. Oh well. :smallannoyed:

Manicotti
2009-08-02, 11:39 PM
I quite agree with this here.

Seriously, even beyond that, why would you remake something that was already great? I've never understood the point of that. It isn't as if the original drops off the face of the Earth a few decades after it's made. It is still out there. And it's still good.

I heard about this a while ago, but I was hoping the project would slowly die. Oh well. :smallannoyed:

you'd think they'd have learned this before they tried to remake The Day the Earth Stood Still with Keanu "I Have the Runs And It's Not Funny" Reeves.

kpenguin
2009-08-02, 11:55 PM
Yeah, let's not remake anything. Ever. I mean, the new Battlestar Galactica is just stupid. So was Ocean's Eleven.

Oh, and let's not have any plays be produced in theatres more than once. After all, every time a production of a play is made, its essentially a remake of the first production, isn't it? Besides, its just not Hamlet unless Richard Burbage is leading.

Let's especially not update anything at all to our audience. After all, West Side Story is a suxxor version of Romeo and Juliet, and so is Romeo+Juliet. Don't read Ulysses folks, its just the Irish version of the Odyssey. Oh, and forget about the Magnificent Seven. Go watch Seven Samurai instead. Steve McQueen is a hack.

littlequietguy
2009-08-03, 12:00 AM
Oh come on. I got interested and discovered the original series and video game YESTERDAY.

If the world was a lie designed to keep me happy it ISN'T EVEN TRYING to keep it a secret.

chiasaur11
2009-08-03, 12:09 AM
Oh come on. I got interested and discovered the original series and video game YESTERDAY.

If the world was a lie designed to keep me happy it ISN'T EVEN TRYING to keep it a secret.

It gets worse.

You know Jack Kirby?

He did a Prisoner comic.

One issue. Never published.

This is a total and complete outrage.

Salvonus
2009-08-03, 03:29 AM
@kpenguin - Are you fishing? That's a bit of a strawman, there. :smallconfused:


Yeah, let's not remake anything. Ever.

Nobody in this thread said that.



Anyway, I have to admit that the trailer/preview/whatever looks a bit rubbish to me. I turned it off halfway through, to be honest.

Overall, it seems to have a very different atmosphere to the original. Of course, I do have a natural bias... I absolutely adore the original series - I think it actually beats out The Avengers as my all-time favourite drama tv series. :smalltongue:

*shrug* I'll certainly give it a miss. Sir Ian's Number 2 seems reasonably well-done, but I have no love for Number 6. The repeated "America" references also bother me - there's no subtlety in pictures of the statue of liberty. That scene, to me, seemed a little bit "rah rah statue of liberty = freedom" to me, which is something that I notice in many American-produced movies. I can't say that the idea of a "son of Number 2" or whatever that strange lad was supposed to be.

Well, I'll always have the originals. :smallsmile: It's a shame that people might end up knowing of the re-imagining rather than McGoohan's version, but I'm hardly inclined to fly into a rage over it. People that are seeking higher-quality television will always be able to find it, I believe.

So, in summation, while this trailer makes me go "ugh" and I completely lost interest halfway through, I'm hardly going to fly into a rage over it. I far prefer snide-dismissal-by-disapproving-glance while sipping a glass of fine wine. :smallamused:

(I'd be fair to it and give it a chance, but I very rarely watch any TV/movies. Judging by the trailer, it's gutted some of the best parts and "Americanised" far too many portions. Given that I'm perfectly happy with my originals, I'm inclined to "miss the chance of a lifetime" and ignore the existence of this remake. :smallwink:)

kpenguin
2009-08-03, 03:49 AM
@kpenguin - Are you fishing? That's a bit of a strawman, there. :smallconfused:


Yeah, let's not remake anything. Ever.

Nobody in this thread said that.


With all due respect, this comment was quite similar:


Seriously, even beyond that, why would you remake something that was already great? I've never understood the point of that. It isn't as if the original drops off the face of the Earth a few decades after it's made. It is still out there. And it's still good.

Just replace "anything" with "great" and my post would directly address this, although I felt inclined to use "anything" because not every one of my examples would be considered to be "great." Several other comments were to the effect that remakes are bad.

I'm simply irritated when a remake or adaption is announced and the immediate cries are "They're ruining it!" or "Doesn't Hollywood have any originality?" or simply "Remakes are bad"

Salvonus
2009-08-03, 04:07 AM
While I do think that you took a bit of a leap, I can understand why you interpreted that comment in such a manner. Heck, I even can sympathise with your upset at immediate dismissals of remakes, even though I've never really found one that I liked.

However, I might propose that a fitting response would be to explain the way you feel, rather than embark on a sarcastic rant. In fact, you didn't even make any comments on the actual subject of the topic. :smalleek: It has the feeling of a knee-jerk response to a perceived knee-jerk response, rather than an explanation of how remakes are not always a bad thing. Generally, opening statements that immediately put potential responders into a defensive state are not particularly conducive to a respectful exchange of thoughts.

I apologise for my implication that you might be fishing, mate. I hadn't interpreted the comments in this thread in quite the same way as you, so the tone of your post seemed like a bit of a hook. No hard feelings? :smallsmile:

Remmirath
2009-08-03, 04:47 PM
Yeah, let's not remake anything. Ever. I mean, the new Battlestar Galactica is just stupid. So was Ocean's Eleven.

Didn't mean it to sound that way, dude. Sometimes it makes sense to do so. Now, in all honesty, I have never seen Ocean's Eleven, but I do quite dislike the new Battlestar Galactica and think the old one was much better.
It is all just a matter of opinion, though.


Oh, and let's not have any plays be produced in theatres more than once. After all, every time a production of a play is made, its essentially a remake of the first production, isn't it? Besides, its just not Hamlet unless Richard Burbage is leading.

That's part of the difference between plays and TV shows/movies/books/almost anything else. Every single show of a play is going to be at least slightly different, and it's impossibile to always have the same cast and crew. That's part of what makes it interesting. Also, if you watch the same movies in 1960 and then again in 2009, nothing will have changed about it, but if you try to get the same actors in 1960 and then in 2009, well, they'll have changed quite a bit.


Let's especially not update anything at all to our audience. After all, West Side Story is a suxxor version of Romeo and Juliet, and so is Romeo+Juliet.
Don't read Ulysses folks, its just the Irish version of the Odyssey. Oh, and forget about the Magnificent Seven. Go watch Seven Samurai instead. Steve McQueen is a hack.

While I don't know what a lot of those are, I must say that isn't what I meant at all. I believe those are more along the lines of being inspired by the original or being a translation of the original, neither of which I have any problem with at all.
By a remake I mean things that are trying to be exactly like the original, but with a few fairly minour changes. Those are what I don't see the point of.

If the changes are as majour as in the case of Battlestar Galactica, I would have much less of a dislike of it if they had just called it something different and had different character names. The characters aren't the same, and the setting isn't truly the same (especially the Cylons), so why call it the same thing? That's my point of view on it.

On the subject of this particular trailer, maybe I'm wrong (since I had the sound off, I could've missed something) but when I watched the trailer it seemed to me that it was trying to follow the original very closely, basically only changing the time period and Americanising everything, and that's the kind of thing I don't like. It is, I admit, hard to tell from a trailer, but it also seemed to be missing quite a bit of what I liked about the original series.



I'm simply irritated when a remake or adaption is announced and the immediate cries are "They're ruining it!" or "Doesn't Hollywood have any originality?" or simply "Remakes are bad"

Yes, I can certainly see how that would be annoying. I appologise if my comments came off like that. I was partly annoyed about it, yeah, but I'm also partly honestly curious why someone would want to remake something in a case like that.

And yeah, I don't like it when movies are adapted from books either. It's just the way I feel, I guess. I probably wouldn't care about any of those things if I didn't love the original, but that can't really be helped. If people like it, then hey, good for them.

Part of the reason that some people at least are annoyed about remakes or adaptations is that a lot of people will jump at them, latch on to them, and practically (or actually) forget the original existed. I have actually heard people say that they 'didn't know they made books out of The Lord of the Rings', and that's rather trying to listen to.

And this post has gotten way too long. If there's anyone who watches both versions and ends up liking the new one better, then fine; they certainly get to. Hopefully they'll make it easier for people to get a hold of the original series if they want to, not harder. (Which is part of what annoys me personally about remakes and adaptations. They tend to make it much more difficult to find the original thing.)

I'm afraid that wasn't as coherent as it might have been, but hopefully it clears things up a bit. :smallsmile:

Jalor
2009-08-03, 06:09 PM
No. Just no! You do not remake the personal project of a respected actor. Particularly not in a decade which has no original ideas of its own.

May zombie Patrick McGoohan rise from his grave to crush those responsible under his dessicated, but still mighty, heel. His are boots that cannot be filled in these sad and sorry days.

Agreed. Remaking Battlestar Galactica was one thing; the new one is a reimagining of an older series, with many similar story elements (robots versus humans, only one surviving human military ship) but a different tone and approach ("Anyone Can Die" military/political drama). Also, the old one was mediocre and the new one is amazing.

The Prisoner, on the other hand, was a vehicle for McGoohan's views and his excellent acting. It's way too personal to remake, let alone remake badly.

comicshorse
2009-08-03, 06:23 PM
I
t gets worse.

You know Jack Kirby?

He did a Prisoner comic.

One issue. Never published.


D.C. did a Prisoner comic mini-series 'bout 15 years ago.

Flame of Anor
2009-08-07, 09:40 AM
This thread is being derailed!

On that note, trains! Let's talk about trains!
kidding

Dervag
2009-08-07, 10:46 AM
Someday, they will make a remake of Star Wars with Wookiees in place of Ewoks, as Lucas originally intended.

The remake will add enough intrinsic awesome to Return of the Jedi that any and all other objections to it will be overruled.