The remake of the great classic British show, The Prisoner, will be aired in three parts on AMC starting November 15.

Ian McKellen is Number Two and Jim Caviezel is Number Six. Rover is back, and seems to be on steroids.

Really bad idea or a chance to re-imagine a classic for our times? We will see.

So far the only thing that I find appealing about it is the goofy gigantic Rover. His(?) size-changing ability seems fun.

I think Sir Ian was a good choice to play Number Two, but I am a bit disappointed that they're not switching Two's--for me that was one of the many pleasures of the original--seeing who'd be next.

The cinematography and the location look stunning, not so sure about the script. Bill Gallagher? Meh.

There's an interview with all the cast and crew at MovieWeb which, taken as a whole doesn't bode well for my liking it overmuch. Too much "We never saw the original/I never watched the show/I won't claim I was a fan" kind of thing--if you weren't a fan, then why get involved, other than a chance to make some scratch?

I'll be watching this with a highly critical eye, for sure.

Ditto, paddy. I fear they will dumb this down and drain it of all of its symbolic and allegorical weirdness. And I will complain yet again: putting that milquetoast Jim Caviezel opposite the much stronger McKellen just isn't gonna work. I will be much and pleasantly surprised if it does.

I will watch Ian McKellan do *anything*. I cannot wait for this and I have zero idea what the classic version is.

I think you will enjoy it if you don't have anything to compare it to. But those of us who are fans of the original are probably going to be hypercritical, because we are often VERY big fans of the McGoohan classic. I kind of wish I could be looking at it without the comparison, because the images are quite striking, from the little I have seen.

I have even been to Portmeirion, Wales, where they shot the original. It is a very strange and well, magical, place. Some wealthy guy had whole buildings transported to the area to create an Italian village in Wales. There are lots and lots of feral cats there.

What I think would have given this an interesting sort of twist is if they had Sir Ian play Number Six. He's a strong, individualistic, compelling actor to watch, and I think that said strength would have worked well in...well, in the character where those qualities are supposed to be the strongest.

Jim Cajesus is a very passive guy and for me he just can't be Six.

If they'd gone the other way round I think it might have been really neat. I also like the idea of the older man retaining his sense of individuality and the younger being the one who gives in. That's even if this version will be hitting those same notes in the same way. I keep having horrors of references to 9/11 and the like.

If you're going to bother to remake something that's such a product of its creator's personal beliefs, just, I don't know--mess with it all the way and do something extremely unique and strange--something that might have made this more compelling and must-see for those of us who love the real deal.

This is very worrisome. It's one thing to take old cheese (original version V or Battlestar Galactica) and try to improve it but The Prisoner came very close to perfection. The original never jumped the shark but trying to make that same magic happen all over again is tempting Fate.

Well, I'm in complete agreement with you there. I don't understand the need for a remake of the show, or a film of the show, or anything to do with it. My preference is that it should be left alone since the original is so very good on its own merits, but if there's money to be made, then it seems all bets are off.

I do know that I think Bill Gallagher is a donkey, which worries me.

OK, so I just saw the nine-minute trailer of the show for the first time. I don't think we are supposed to put stuff in previews in spoiler tags, but don't read on if you don't want to know anything about the show yet...

It looks like a lot of people in this desert village don't seem to know there is anything outside the village, which is an interesting twist that makes this one have a bit more of a scifi (versus cold war spy) flavor. I think that is very cool and I am glad they have made that choice. And it is a great comment on the limitations of ideology, which I hope is where they are taking that. Six talks about being a "free man" as does the original Number Six, but from the bits in this preview, it seems they are casting the idea of "freedom" into the context of illusion versus reality and away from the original frames of the individual in the community or the ability of the individual to have free choice (e.g., No. 6 as "unmutual"; No. 6 protesting he won't be stamped, pushed, briefed, debriefed, etc.;the finale and the suggestion about where "freedom" actually resides). And this shift towards an examination of illusion or delusion is completely relevant to our times, so I hope I am reading that right. They might also be looking at the idea of citizenship and the dangers of passivity in that area, but it is hard to tell from the preview about that.

So, if they take it where I think they might be, I might enjoy it on its own merits, because it will be telling a different kind of story and won't suffer as much by comparison. I am afraid to get my hopes up....but....there they go!

eta: however....I haven't seen anything to persuade me that Jim CaJesus (heh heh) isn't the weak link in the whole thing. He does not make a compelling Number Six, from what I have seen.

I would have loved for Christopher Eccleston to get the part--though I do wonder if his manic style might have led to more direct comparisons to ol' PMG himself--but I still think Jim Caviezel is a relatively safe, if kind of neutral, choice. That's me, though.

Meanwhile: anybody else notice these apparent episode titles (per Wikipedia, but still):

1: Arrival
2: Harmony
3: Anvil
4: Darling
5: Schizoid
6: Checkmate

To quote The Dead Pool: it's not a ripoff--it's a homage...

Snippy, I too saw the nine-minute clip, but I saw it at Comic-Con. No one in my group of friends thought it was received well. Except for Rover, natch. Jim CaJesus (hee!) is deffo the weak link in all this. For my part, I have to be honest and say that I wasn't impressed with the bits of story we saw on screen. Because I do think that we see



or at least hints of that in PMG's work anyhow. Not to the degree which they seem to be presenting it here, but it's not a novel concept in terms of The Prisoner, IMO. The series lends itself so well to allegory and open interpretation that I'm positive they hit that note at least a few times, at least for me, anyhow! /grin

Still, I do agree that it may be an interesting take on things and certainly relevant to the present time.

redshirt--back in the day when this was first getting bounced around as a reality and not just more development hell--where I wish it would have stayed!--I too was very on board with Christopher Eccleston. I've loved him ever since I saw him in Danny Boyle's Shallow Grave and I think he would have brought the right kind of intensity to the role. He's a damned good actor, and I think he would have approached this with the utmost respect, as he seems to do with all the projects he works on.

As for those titles? If true? Excuse me while I reach for the vomit bucket.

Even after a night's sleep those titles (with the sole exception of Arrival) aren't sitting well with me. I can't decide if they were the result of blatant laziness on top of cribbing too hard from the source material or a wink-and-nod to the fans of the original show--"Okay, guys, you can probably guess what's going to happen in Anvil"--which might be kind of good or really bad depending on the episode.

Is anybody else dreading the possibility of a new version of the iconic "I've resigned..." speech? Just me?

Yikes, redshirt! I hadn't even thought of that. Now you've given me something else to be afraid of!

And if true? 'Darling' will make me positively murderous, since it will probably be entirely literal and obvious and annoying and...oh wait. I'm airing my initial concerns again. Still. That and 'Schizoid'. I'm going to be sitting on the couch, getting heartily drunk, screaming at the television set like a nutter, I just know it.

I have deeper concerns, but I won't know whether or not to worry about them until this whole thing's blown over.

Well I would wait until you've seen a full episode to start seriously hating it :-)

I will be interested to see how closely they follow the original storylines of those six episodes. Also if they do follow them closely and there are only going to be six, I'm sorry they picked "Living in Harmony" and "Do Not Forsake Me, Oh My Darling" to remake.

AMC ran a 10m promo/preview for this last night...I still haven't seen the SDCC trailer to compare it with, though no doubt they share some of the same material. There were some modestly surreal scenes in it, and overall it showed potential, but I couldn't help thinking that it might be being surreal only for its own sake.

Flip side: "I am not a number!" did pop up. It was (maybe deliberately, but still) less than awe-inspiring.

Beatrice, it's pretty much a given that I'll hate this. The only wiggle room is for how much I'll hate it.

paddy, I seem to be getting more optimistic as you are getting more pessimistic! heh heh. I am working hard to get rid of my overly high expectations so that I can try to enjoy this, despite the presence of CaJesus.

For one thing, the writer is from British TV, and that is a good sign to me! I haven't seen all of his stuff, but at least he is not like some US sitcom hack or something equally horrid. I am hoping that he will make this worthwhile for thinking, active viewers. He said in an interview that he saw parts of the show as a child, and the images have haunted him all his life. So if he is trying to achieve a haunting kind of tone and imagery, I think that will work.

I see some signs in the nine-minute clip that there are things to enjoy. In particular, I think the town they picked in Namibia is really just about as good a substitute for Portmeirion as they could have found. It can be both strange and fairytale-like, colorful and menacing. So that works well, I think.

I am just preparing myself for something quite different, something that only references certain parts of the original.

Agreed. And based on the previews, I'm going to have a hard time watching the show without thinking how awesome Eccleston would have been as Number 6.

Well, if I were the betting kind, I would not put a lot of money on people being pleased with CaJesus. I, too, was completely pissed when I learned Eccleston was out. Anyone who has seen the wide range of his work knows that he is the perfect actor for the job.

I will admit that Caviezel is missing the sense of menace McGoohan was able to project (there's a reason he spent much of his career playing villains), but what I hope is that Caviezel can portray someone who can play on the level of McKellen. He doesn't have to be scary, just not dumb.

I had been trying to carve out the time to do a complete rewatch before the mini came out as it's been several years since I've seen the original. Now I think I'm glad that it won't be fresh in my mind. I suspect I will have fewer complaints this way.

Yeah, I'm not doing a rewatch beforehand, either. I fear there will be enough to enrage me without it. The casting of CaJesus instead of Eccleston, for example, has already made me grumpy (CE would've been fantastic!). All I can do is pray they don't screw it up too much.

I'm looking forward to seeing this and agree with watchergirl about Sir Ian. He could read the phone book and I would be happy to watch and listen.

Nitpicking here, but



Actually he spent very little of his career playing villains. He may be best remembered for them, but he also played straight up Walt Disney heroes (The Three Lives of Thomasina and The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh) good guys who are getting very messed with (Two Living, One Dead; The Quare Fellow, The Hard Way, Brand) kooks (Hysteria, All Night Long, Scanners) just plain old good guys (Nor the Moon by Night aka Elephant Gun, Best of Friends, Life for Ruth).

Arguably, his most famous television role besides Number Six is that of John Drake, an extremely moral good guy. He is likely most remembered for Braveheart because he gives a magnificent performance, but it's not all he did. If we went back to his days in the theatre we would see all good guys all the time. I could go on but I think I'd begin to bore everyone! In fact, I'm sure I already have! /grin

I am curious to see why Sir Number Two's wife seems to stay in a heavily drugged state in all the commercials and promos I've seen, and I would like to know Ruth Wilson's role. She was my favorite Jane Eyre ever in the most recent BBC redux, though she was the only good thing about it, IMO. I like her very much and am wondering what she'll bring to the story.

I was thinking of the 4 times he played murderers on Columbo, Roger Devereaux in Silver Streak, the Warden in Escape from Alcatraz, Felix Neumann in Of Pure Blood and of course, Longshanks. I'm a little too young for Danger Man.

No one is too young for Danger Man. It's available on netflix and is awesome.

More on topic, I'll be watching this but am not as excited as I was when Eccleston was being talked about. I'm also avoiding a rewatch this week so comparisons aren't so obvious.

Truer words never spoken.

Does anyone know what role Ruth Wilson plays in this? I'm wondering if she'll be a bit Jane Merrow in Schizoid Man--i.e. a sort of friend to Six who they'll then use against him.

Another concern for me is that I really like the somewhat ascetic nature of the original and I hope they don't spice it it up with too much romance, which to me isn't really the point.

Dude, we can never get enough praise of the dashing McGoohan, either. I have been wanting to see Danger Man for years. I have also been trying to find the highly praised The Quare Fellow.

At the Emmys this year, they had a clip of him in the In Memoriam segment, and my heart fluttered at the sight. He really had a magnetic screen presence.

eta: paddy, don't forget Ice Station Zebra! He is very cool in that.

That would be Dudette, if you please! Lots of hearts flutter at the sight--you'd be surprised! /grin

And I did forget Ice Station Zebra--another stellar good guy character who likes his whiskey.

When does this series start up again? When should I be prepared to bring the full-on heat of loathing to the boards? Joking!

Well. Kind of joking.

Next sunday (the 15th). I have no idea what time though. I'm in Arizona and nothing airs when it's supposed to.

8/7 Central. Two episodes back to back.

Any word if AMC (or Hulu) will have the episodes up for streaming the next day or after the whole mini airs? There's just no way I'm going to be able to watch this live with two kids in the house.

Thanks all!

Entertainment Weekly has a review up which makes me feel cheerful in that they didn't like it much--not terrifically spoilery, so I think you can read safely: yikes!

I tried watching the original and could not get past 15 minutes. The production values on the remake look amazing and I'm sure it will be at least watchable.

I'm a big fan of the original, and thanks to IFC for re-running it (still) Friday nights. The fun of re-watching those eps will, I hope, make up for the invariably sad comparison. But as the EW article mentions, it's a different day, albeit, not necessarily a better one. I'm looking forward to seeing the new Village, Rover, and Number 2. After that, be seeing...whatever.

eta: It was McGoohan's wit and style that made Not!Six so swell (the latter-day John Drake). JC's not giving off those vibes in the previews (having seen little of his previous work, I never noticed either of those traits in him). So yeah, worrisome.

Really? That's even before any of the really weird stuff starts to happen. 15 minutes would take you about up to the initial "WTF am I doing here?" point, right?

I like the idea of updating the series, changing the theme from Cold War paranoia to mega-corporate paranoia, etc. I'm not sure if I like the idea of making #2 a fully fleshed-out character, although it could be interesting with Sir Ian. I have no opinion of Jim Caviezel, but I don't blame him for not watching McGoohan's performance. I wouldn't advise anyone tackling that role to let himself be influenced by a powerful, iconic performance like that one. To me, the character of #6 needs to be stubbornly, almost suicidally individualistic, though, so it's hard to imagine taking the character in another direction. Either way, the remake (they aren't calling it a 'reimagining' are they?) will have to have a lot more going for it than just higher production values to hold my interest.

Looks like those titles you posted are right, redshirt, though not sure if they're based on the actual episodes or just jumping off points for whatever.

A clip from 'Harmony' is here, and again I'm not thrilled by what I see.



That sounds about right, xii.

More lack of fire and excitement from Mr. Passive Jesus Guy himself if you feel like checking out a San Diego AM news interview right over here.

That clip didn't blow my socks off either, paddy, though stuff like this was probably inevitable the minute TPTB decided that Number Two needed to do more than just intone "We want informaaaation!" (Even if we weren't asking for it.)

Watching the various other video snippets on AMC's website, I'm worried that Caviezel's Six may be stuck on "stoic" for most of this. Not that that is bad by itself, just that it's kind of bad for this show... We'll see in two days...

I haven't seen this show, but on Fresh Air today there was a scathing review of this that referenced the title of this thread - the critic says that Ian McKellen's Two is far more interesting and likable than Jim Caviezel's Six and that the whole thing tanks because you sympathize with the wrong person.

Ooh, I wish I had heard that, honeybee. Got a link, by any chance?

As a matter of fact, Fresh Air is great about uploading itself.

I was thinking I should get off my duff and search for it, but thanks tons honeybee!

Just hearing that opening still makes me feel squeeful. Such good telly.

And a rather scathing review--for NPR standards, anyhow! I love that he mentions how much there is to be irritated about. Sounds like our concerns about Jim CaJesus being too low-key were right on the money.

The reviews at a glance
http://www.metacritic.com/tv/shows/theprisoneramc?q=prisoner

(most critics are either underwhelmed or hating on it)

Wow. What kind of dust was the reviewer at the NYT smoking? That was a pretty glowing review, but it was also kind of stupid, IMO. There's been a lot of talk--on AMC's website for this, in that weird CaJesus/Bowers interview, and now there--that the original is 'dated'. In terms of it being made in the sixties? Sure. But dated doesn't mean bad, and yet I feel like they're throwing it around as though it's a dirty word.

My read on all this is that we get amusing bits of psycho-babble instead of story, but I suppose I have to watch at least the first hour if only to crystallize my rage. Then again, part of me really is beginning to wonder 'why bother', since I do love the original so much and really have no desire to see it remade anyhow.

I didn't think it was terrible, but I am wondering what the point of it all is. It seems a mistake to simply make 6 a data analyst. I would think you'd need a bigger skill set to take on 2. Speaking of whom, my favorite part was when he was dicking with the Village shrink(s). There was no reason for that except to amuse himself.

Wow, that sucked! Making Number 6 such a victim (and repeatedly just calling him 6, instead of the more formal Number 6) was so many kinds of wrong. Part of McGoohan's greatness in the role was his refusal to play the game on their terms.

I was definitely underwhelmed. I think it was a mistake to play two eps consecutively. I certainly wasn't on the edge of my seat at the end of the first.

Another grandly boneheaded mistake I caught was having Caviezel's Six reveal the general reason he left to the girl, Lucy. The whole point of the real Prisoner's stay in the Village was his refusal to reveal why he resigned -- it was not the reason that mattered, but the refusal.

It just goes along with jdshadforth's observation that Caviezel's Six is a victim, and how much that damages the show. He's clearly outmatched by Number Two alone, which the Prisoner never was (even in outright traps and brainwashings like "Free for All" or "A Change of Mind," it takes everything the Village has to bring the Prisoner to heel -- and even that doesn't last.) This chump Caviezel plays would, at best, turn out like the Rook in "Checkmate."

Caviezel was slightly less wooden than I expected, but not much. Plus, taking cinematography straight from a Tarsem Singh movie didn't help: It felt almost forced in its weirdness, whereas the Ur-Village didn't feel forced at all (since it was a real location and needed no fancy camerawork or set dressing, I expect.)

The quick nods to the original that were scattered through the first two episodes felt like a waste: Besides people like me who adore the original and weren't expecting much from the remake, but who have nothing better to watch on Sunday nights and are too flu-ridden to change the channel, who would catch them? Certainly they wouldn't affect people watching this who hadn't seen the original. They only annoyed me, anyway.

McKellen was good, but that's a baseline, not a compliment. I did like the way his non-son looked like Alexis Kanner with an emo haircut. Those are the only two positives I can offer, though.

Well.

I'm trying to temper this as much as I can, being...you know.

It is shot beautifully. I'll give them that much. Props to the cinematographer. Whoever they were, they did a lovely job.

I did not appreciate the shout out to what was ostensibly supposed to be PMG in the first ten minutes. Methinks that was the role they offered him which he subsequently turned down. That man had more sense than most, and thank god for it. Still, because of this very obvious connection between 93 and PMG's Number 6, I thought the mentions of him being dead of a heart attack played in pretty poor taste. Also, I did not dig the fake Number 6 house with the lava lamps and the door which is...the door from the OG series. Complete with round arched room separator for the sleeping area, natch.

The sort of weak, whinging tone Jesus-Six takes with Sir Two was basically what I was expecting, but even I wasn't prepared for how bad that first scene played. Much of the dialogue between Jesus-Six and Sir Two struck me as painfully pretentious. "There is no way out, there is only in." "If I open my mind to you, you'll take it away. Yes, but we'll always give it back." Whatever. I don't get this struggle on any level and though I am trying to care, I don't. The absolute most cringe-worthy line was "In his mind, Six knows that Six is Six." Yeah, sure. Okay. Whatever.

Not interested in the other Villagers very much.

What's with the Emerald City-style design that represents the Village? I prefer pennyfarthings.

The bombing victims--the towers--I knew there was going to be some kind of shout out to the WTC tragedy in here, I just knew it, and I was dreading it. I had an issue with its use in the US version of Life on Mars, and I have issues with it here. For me, use of the Towers or referencing them in such a heavy handed way is quick and dirty emotional manipulation of an audience, and I really dislike it when writers fall back on it. It feels like a copout to me. It's like kicking a dog to get the response you want. It almost always has the opposite effect on me. Not a cry of 'too soon', more like a cry of 'cheap shot'.

Ruth Wilson is likable, but it felt as though she was struggling with the portentous dialogue.

Boy, I do not like Jim CaJesus at all. I'm glad Christopher Eccleston wasn't in this. It's pretty bad.

God, the bleedthroughs of 'real world Manhattan' on the radio--is this going to be more Life on Mars than the US Life on Mars was? If it ends up that Six is dead and suffering in heaven/hell/purgatory? Wow. Waste of my time.

Dare I say it, Caviezel (thus far) actually is giving some good paranoia. (Shame it's being buried under the nonstop mind-whammies.) Making his Six an intelligence analyst...I suppose I'm okay with it in an Everyman sense, though having to wait nearly ninety minutes before we got to it and the why-is-he-important bit was a bit much. And yeah--even hinting at the why behind his resignation felt wrong, IMHO.

I agree that this show is a little too deliberately weird and surreal for its own good--though it does work at times, like with Rover and 16 at the beach. And it looks beautiful, in a severe way. But, as mentioned, it would be really great if Six got to do something besides be Two's psychological chewtoy (here's hoping tomorrow's Anvil truly lives up to its predecessor).

What kills me, though, is that throughout these first two hours the one thing that really stuck in my head was: why the hell is Two drugging his wife?