The whole point of The Prisoner is that it's not "the big action spectacle of modern Hollywood films" -- it's ultimately not about what's going on outside, but what's going on inside. It's very much a psychological & philosophical program, one that doesn't simply break down into basic binaries of Good Guys & Bad Guys -- after all, who is finally revealed as Number One? Who is the ultimate jailor of the individual?
What you call a cult audience is in fact a thoughtful, contemplative audience, one whose horizons extend far beyond the painfully narrow, lowest-common-denominator sort of entertainment that predominates today. Why does such entertainment appeal worldwide? Precisely because they make it as accessible as possible to everyone, which invariably means lowering the bar. There may be a sop or two of introspective moments thrown to the masses, but just enough to provide a superficial veneer of being deeper than it really is. Because it's not.
And one more thing: when The Prisoner was created & aired, it was taken for granted that high quality entertainment could & should challenge the viewer. Why? Because its creators took for granted that their audience was smart & certainly capable of tackling difficult material -- in fact, that they wanted such material.
What's the current complaint about so many films & intelligent TV shows from decades ago? "Too slow" -- "boring" -- "not enough action" -- and so on. What did JJ Abrams say about the original Star Trek when making his dumbed down Trek CGI action films? The original series was "too cerebral" for him. Strangely enough, it wasn't too cerebral for TV audiences in the 1960s, though.
Finally, the only possible reason to remake The Prisoner is if it could be considerably improved upon ... but could it? Not if remade as you propose. If for no other reason than the fact that one man's vision was largely responsible for its brilliance: Patrick McGoohan. Anything made for worldwide appeal today is invariably made by committee, with everything planned & factored in to ensure the largest possible audience. Which means that they'll almost always play it safe, rather than risk losing viewers. The Prisoner was McGoohan's passion; he put his heart & blood & soul into it. It was his deeply personal vision & expression. Nothing made for widespread audience appeal today would ever allow for that. A small independent film made on a shoestring, perhaps. But nothing that costs a fortune & must make even more back.
And what's wrong with simply watching the original, anyway? Is it that younger viewers will scoff at the simpler effects, or find it lacking in action, or find it too talky & philosophical? I suggest that the only problem lies with such viewers, not the series. Walt Whitman once wrote that a great poem demands a great audience. It's up to such unsatisfied viewers to go beyond their very comfortable, spoon-fed little boxes & meet the material as it deserves. They may even find the results of their effort quite rewarding.
reply
share
amyghost
9 years ago
Owlwise, what a wonderful post...I could not have made those points better than you did, or emphasize more clearly the deep divide between the original series and the 'improved' version of same that would be all too likely to come from the current crop of Hollywood geniuses. You said a mouthful, beautifully.
And if the OP but knew it, it's more he/she who suffers from the narrow mind, since apparently that mind can't appreciate the original for the small masterpiece that it is, and can't look at a masterpiece that predates his/her entertainment milieu without needing to 'improve' it with all the garish bells and whistles of today tacked onto it.
reply
share
Owlwise
9 years ago
amyghost, you've hit on something that puzzles me as well. Today viewers have the option of seeing damn near everything ever made with the click of a button. The entire range, depth & breadth of film & TV is available to all. Viewers can explore every style of acting, writing, cinematography, etc.; they can get a real idea of other times, other worldviews, other approaches to life.
And yet so many choose an increasingly narrow rut of entertainment, only what's familiar & comfortable to them, rather than stepping across their self-imposed boundaries. Even that wouldn't be so bad in itself -- you watch what you want to watch, after all -- but so many also judge everything else from their own limited viewpoint, unwilling or unable to step outside of it for even an instant. At the very time when horizons are wider than ever, they stick to a very tiny fraction of what's possible. And congratulate themselves for it!
Essentially, of course, they're simply doing what they've been programmed to do ... how very Village-like.
As for all those bells & whistles they love -- the best special effects are still what they always were -- good writing, good acting, good cinematography, good direction. I'll take a strong Twilight Zone episode with a special effects budget of $1.98 over just about any contemporary TV episode with CGI & non-stop action.
reply
share
amyghost
9 years ago
As for all those bells & whistles they love -- the best special effects are still what they always were -- good writing, good acting, good cinematography, good direction. I'll take a strong Twilight Zone episode with a special effects budget of $1.98 over just about any contemporary TV episode with CGI & non-stop action.
With that, you just said it all.
And for the rest of your comment, yes--just look over most of the boards. 75% of the users on this site appear to think nothing existed on television or film prior to Breaking Bad, Lost and the Sopranos. The Nineties are already ancient history to them, entertainment-wise. And the little prior to that narrow span that they may have had some passing acquaintance with invariably must be graded by today's standards. It's like Victorian morality applied to films and tv--
we are the apex of what can be envisioned and produced in the medium, and all that falls short of this exalted standard must certainly be wanting and deficient.And yet, there's an incredible range of options to choose from now, the absolute cream of many eras available to be sampled--but this poor yardstick excludes many from the enjoyment and appreciation of a mind-blowing spectrum of works, performances, actors, stories that were far superior to 99 percent of what's around currently.
To paraphrase Auntie Mame: there's an entertainment banquet out there, and most of these poor suckers are starving to death.
reply
share