• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Prisoner (McKellan & Jesus)

Status
Not open for further replies.

adg1034

Member
Aug 5, 2006
7,058
0
0
Alphahawk said:
So are you saying Michael himself
was never in the village, just part of his contiousness was
that's intresting and would certaintly explain how
there were multiple versions of people in the village
I still like to think however that the village initial sole purpose was for
housing 11-12
and then maybbe later they discovered multiple aplications for it.

One thing I'm confused about is the final scene in the village showed bothed
Michel and 313 as concious when we know that to controll the village she needs to be asleep, perhapse they found away around that
Also
number 2's exit
was fuck awesome...
Actually, she
wasn't conscious
. At least, I don't think so.
She's already taken the pill, remember?
 

adg1034

Member
Aug 5, 2006
7,058
0
0
Jason's Ultimatum said:
What a freaking weird movie. So was Neo number 1 in the end or did we even know who number 1 was?
Well, everything started when Curtis's wife began exploring the inside of her own mind. I thought they were hinting at Michael's work being the cause of the higher-ups realizing that they could, in fact, send people there, but that's never made explicitly clear, just as it's never made clear what, if so, would have separated Michael's work from that of the rest of his floor. The people he sees "changing" are those who are in and of The Village, people for whom The Village has served/is serving its purpose.

A long-winded answer, but the way I see it, no, I don't think he was Number 1 from the start in that sense. If he was, he would have had to be the one to give Curtis and his wife the idea to bring people to The Village in the first place.
 

SpeedingUptoStop

will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
Feb 24, 2005
31,837
0
0
Michigan
www.google.com
Michael's job was selecting people, through surveillance and whatnot, to be in The Village. But only the people on the floor above him ever knew what he was selecting them for. He did the research and selected the people, but the floor above him were the ones who put them in The Village.

I think #1 is whoever is actually maintaining the image of the village, be it Curtis' wife or 313. The Villagers can never know who number 1 is though, or that she even exists, because they will begin to question their own reality, like 2's son did, and the illusion will be lost.
 

fireside

Member
Dec 26, 2008
1,791
0
0
adg1034 said:
Actually, she
wasn't conscious
. At least, I don't think so.
She's already taken the pill, remember?
She's wasn't conscious, but she knew everything that was going on. That's why she started crying. She loved Six because of his resistance to The Village, but in the end he turned into everything he hated.

Also, I'm confused on one point:

Did 11-12 actually kill his mom? It looked to me like he couldn't do it. He then killed himself, which caused his mom (who was number 1, IMO) to stop believing in The Village, which caused it to crumble (the holes), and only once 313 took the pills did she wake up. I think that makes more sense than 11-12 actually killing her.
 

adg1034

Member
Aug 5, 2006
7,058
0
0
SpeedingUptoStop said:
Michael's job was selecting people, through surveillance and whatnot, to be in The Village. But only the people on the floor above him ever knew what he was selecting them for. He did the research and selected the people, but the floor above him were the ones who put them in The Village.

I think #1 is whoever is actually maintaining the image of the village, be it Curtis' wife or 313. The Villagers can never know who number 1 is though, or that she even exists, because they will begin to question their own reality, like 2's son did, and the illusion will be lost.
That's a good point. The confusing aspect, for me, came from my perception of what his job actually is/was. It makes sense now that I think about it, in that the whole purpose of Summakor was to find people suitable for entry into The Village. Before, they made a big deal out of "But in my pointless surveillance work looking for Bad People, I noticed that some of them had... changed", which is what I focused on, but the big picture actually opens things up a lot.
 

pel1300

Member
Jan 11, 2006
2,376
807
1,530
The editing, music, dialogue, and camera work of this show all make it feel so slow paced.

It was painful to watch at times.
 

Buckethead

Banned
Jul 31, 2008
38,169
0
0
A Chicken Coop
Meh. Not a fan of the last episode. Or the last two really.

I'm fine with it being open ended and raising questions, but if logic is all we have why was it thrown out the window during the last half of the show?
There were too many simple questions they could and should have addressed. But oh well...

There's good stuff in there, not throwing the baby out with the bath water.
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Jun 8, 2004
31,509
0
0
SpeedingUptoStop said:
So why was he testing 6 all this time? To see if he was worthy of becoming 2?


And what's with the totalitarian type rule that Ian McKellan imposed? Was it just his way of running the village? and will 6 run it differently?
No matter how good the intentions began, that kind of totalitarianism would emerge in system based on shaping lives and protecting a fairly fragile foundation.

The question is, does 6 change his name to 2? :lol
 
Jan 7, 2007
15,829
0
0
SpeedingUptoStop said:
Michael's job was selecting people, through surveillance and whatnot, to be in The Village. But only the people on the floor above him ever knew what he was selecting them for. He did the research and selected the people, but the floor above him were the ones who put them in The Village.

I think #1 is whoever is actually maintaining the image of the village, be it Curtis' wife or 313. The Villagers can never know who number 1 is though, or that she even exists, because they will begin to question their own reality, like 2's son did, and the illusion will be lost.
Holy fucking shit. I just had major deja vu reading this... and not the "It's just your brain thinking it has experienced it before". So weird... If only I could remember what I said in response.

So 'The Village' was Helen's creation and she operated as a central hub tying other broken minds into it? And the sole purpose of it was to heal other people?
 

SpeedingUptoStop

will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
Feb 24, 2005
31,837
0
0
Michigan
www.google.com
Napoleonthechimp said:
Holy fucking shit. I just had major deja vu reading this... and not the "It's just your brain thinking it has experienced it before". So weird... If only I could remember what I said in response.
Don't worry, I can read your original response here in The Village's internet archives. ;]


Be Seeing You.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Jan 1, 1970
12,504
0
0
Napoleonthechimp said:
Holy fucking shit. I just had major deja vu reading this... and not the "It's just your brain thinking it has experienced it before". So weird... If only I could remember what I said in response.

So 'The Village' was Helen's creation and she operated as a central hub tying other broken minds into it? And the sole purpose of it was to heal other people?
Yes.

One thing I missed from the original show was the hand gesture that went with Be Seeing You. It was in the shape of a six, like tipping a hat.

Incidentally, I don't think you can really push a lot back from this show to the original. And I, personally, feel that the crypticness of the original is overstated. It certainly got wacky at the end, but even in the wackiness it was pretty clear that what was happening was Number 6 being broken (in his accepting authority over the Village and taking a number -- Number 1).
 
Jan 7, 2007
15,829
0
0
I always saw the original 'The Prisoner' as existing in a real world where The Village's sole purpose was to break 6.

Despite being particularly brilliant this remake had nothing to do with the original. Also, what happened to that other woman? She jumped through the hole and then was somehow blown up in the real world? I really don't get that.
 

SpeedingUptoStop

will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
Feb 24, 2005
31,837
0
0
Michigan
www.google.com
Yea, I think this new one stands pretty well on it's own as a 'spiritual' successor. I roll eyes everytime somebody criticizes this new version just for missing things that were in the original. It's like Watchman fanboys all over again.
 

Jocchan

Ὁ μεμβερος -ου
Feb 16, 2007
17,255
0
0
Silent Hill
www.jocchan.com
Just finished watching this. Wow. My mind is completely blown.
I believe I'll be putting the pieces together for a long time.

I loved how, in one of the last scenes, the
mirrored Summakor logo looked like a 2.

EDIT: lulz.
 

buckfutter

Member
Aug 29, 2005
3,052
0
0
34
Melbourne, Australia
The primary themes of the original and the remake differ pretty greatly, too. I mean, they both highlight a few of the same aspects of society, but to different ends.

Where the original focussed on the struggle of individualism versus collectivism, and whether someone can ever truly be free when submitting in some way to authoritative control, the remake seems to be about being prisoners of apathy. Accepting the supposed freedom of modern life in a nation like the US, and in doing so turning a blind eye to the limits and contradictions of that world in order to remain content. Ignorance is bliss. Or something.

Which seems a fair update to the original concept; it was very much married to the political climate in which it was made, and so is the remake. Whilst of course both still speak to broader ideas as well.
 

Memles

Member
Jun 9, 2004
7,186
0
0
memles.wordpress.com
gdt5016 said:
Memles (at least from his twitter) didn't like it either.
True...but not for the same reasons as some critics (I, for example, have never seen the original).

I think, thematically, there's some interesting stuff here - the last hour was really intriguing, for example. However, as I spent 2500 words explaining this evening, the rest of the miniseries is so simultaneously vague and mundane that I can't recommend it. The conclusion, as interesting as it is, does not retroactively make Jim Caviezel a more engaging actor, nor 6 a more engaging character, nor does it fix the simultaneously too procedural and too serialized nature of the story.

Link - Review: AMC's The Prisoner - I Know There's An Answer (But Ask Better Questions) - Cultural Learnings

It's a poorly executed mess of a miniseries that, had it been in better hands, could have been great with this thematic content. The most that it will ever accomplish is the kind of sociological applications of its thematics you've been doing in this thread, which could have been accomplished more effectively within the context of the show had they done some of the exposition up front. As a commenter on my post points out far better than I explained it, with a hat tip to Hitchcock even:

"It makes me think of Hitchcock’s example of the “bomb under the table” idea, that you can show ten minutes of two men having the most boring lunchtime conversation ever and BOOM, their table blows up. That’s a cheap thrill at the end of ten boring minutes. Or you could show the bomb under the table, then continue the exact same scene, boring conversation and all, except now it’s fraught with tension as you wait for the bomb to go off. The sixth episode is the bomb, at least in this example if not in modern lingo."
 

Aaron

Member
Apr 12, 2006
25,471
0
0
www.the-nextlevel.com
Napoleonthechimp said:
I always saw the original 'The Prisoner' as existing in a real world where The Village's sole purpose was to break 6.
I consider the original to be
all taking place in Number 6's head, especially with who Number 1 is. With the character he has, and the things he knows after quitting his top secret classified job, the only person who could put him through this torture again and again, trying to think of new ways to break him, is himself. That's mainly how I read the final bit of the door in his london flat with the automated action like the Village. He still hasn't woken up.
 

Jocchan

Ὁ μεμβερος -ου
Feb 16, 2007
17,255
0
0
Silent Hill
www.jocchan.com
Memles said:
True...but not for the same reasons as some critics (I, for example, have never seen the original).

I think, thematically, there's some interesting stuff here - the last hour was really intriguing, for example. However, as I spent 2500 words explaining this evening, the rest of the miniseries is so simultaneously vague and mundane that I can't recommend it. The conclusion, as interesting as it is, does not retroactively make Jim Caviezel a more engaging actor, nor 6 a more engaging character, nor does it fix the simultaneously too procedural and too serialized nature of the story.

Link - Review: AMC's The Prisoner - I Know There's An Answer (But Ask Better Questions) - Cultural Learnings

It's a poorly executed mess of a miniseries that, had it been in better hands, could have been great with this thematic content. The most that it will ever accomplish is the kind of sociological applications of its thematics you've been doing in this thread, which could have been accomplished more effectively within the context of the show had they done some of the exposition up front. As a commenter on my post points out far better than I explained it, with a hat tip to Hitchcock even:
Sorry, but I don't agree with you. You seem to want the whole point of the Village to have been clear from the beginning, but this would have actually made the series completely worthless: it's the fact we have no idea what's going on to make it interesting, and subtle hints to what's actually happening are thrown everywhere, throughout the whole show, to make you try and figure it out on your own. About the "bomb under the table" example:
"It makes me think of Hitchcock’s example of the “bomb under the table” idea, that you can show ten minutes of two men having the most boring lunchtime conversation ever and BOOM, their table blows up. That’s a cheap thrill at the end of ten boring minutes. Or you could show the bomb under the table, then continue the exact same scene, boring conversation and all, except now it’s fraught with tension as you wait for the bomb to go off. The sixth episode is the bomb, at least in this example if not in modern lingo."
I believe you're kind of missing the point here. We're not witnessing "two men having a boring conversation till the table blows up" at all, we are shown glimpses of their conversation while a schizoid camera shows apparently meaningless details (such as wires, timers or one of the two men sweating for no apparent reason) and a few flashbacks-that-might-not-be-flashbacks show how the two men ended up sitting at that table. Only then, after you've been trying to put the pieces together, the unexpected bomb goes off. It might look the same as your example, but there's a world of difference, and honestly I liked the approach they chose more. It made think me back about some scenes and notice how they finally made sense once I knew what was going on. This wouldn't have happened if I had known Bruce Willis was dead the whole time from the beginning.
 

Memles

Member
Jun 9, 2004
7,186
0
0
memles.wordpress.com
Jocchan said:
Sorry, but I don't agree with you. You seem to want the whole point of the Village to have been clear from the beginning, but this would have actually made the series completely worthless: it's the fact we have no idea what's going on to make it interesting, and subtle hints to what's actually happening are thrown everywhere, throughout the whole show, to make you try and figure it out on your own.
First off, don't apologize for disagreeing with me - that's the fun part. I'm not going to argue that what you suggest isn't a valid approach: it is, and more importantly it's one that can be very good if executed well. However, while the "Audience Engagement" you describe has some value, I personally want the show to be able to make a statement of its own as opposed to simply throwing together random bits here and there and expecting the audience to do all of their work for them and hope it distracts from the fundamental lack of interesting material beyond the oddity of it all. It's lazy writing that shows a lack of confidence in your vision, and I think The Prisoner suffers as a result.

About the "bomb under the table" example:

I believe you're kind of missing the point here. We're not witnessing "two men having a boring conversation till the table blows up" at all, we are shown glimpses of their conversation while a schizoid camera shows apparently meaningless details (such as wires, timers or one of the two men sweating for no apparent reason) and a few flashbacks-that-might-not-be-flashbacks show how the two men ended up sitting at that table. Only then, after you've been trying to put the pieces together, the unexpected bomb goes off. It might look the same as your example, but there's a world of difference, and honestly I liked the approach they chose more. It made think me back about some scenes and notice how they finally made sense once I knew what was going on. This wouldn't have happened if I had known Bruce Willis was dead the whole time from the beginning.
First off, thanks for ruining the Sixth Sense for me (kidding). Second off, I don't think any writer in their right mind should take cues from M. Night, especially considering his overall track record. The Sixth Sense is an example of a film where this works exceedingly well, but the film didn't HINGE on that reveal to be interesting. It was a compelling character drama otherwise, which The Prisoner wasn't in the least. Sure, Ian McKellen was interesting, but are we really going to argue that 6 was an interesting character?

Our difference of opinion isn't that one of believes in the inherent value of mystery and audience engagement with narrative construction and the other does not, but rather that you feel it is capable of elevating this particular material and I disagree. While it made me think back to some scenes, those scenes were so much in the minority that they couldn't possible elevate the entire miniseries beyond a convoluted if intriguing mess.
 

Jocchan

Ὁ μεμβερος -ου
Feb 16, 2007
17,255
0
0
Silent Hill
www.jocchan.com
Memles said:
First off, don't apologize for disagreeing with me - that's the fun part. I'm not going to argue that what you suggest isn't a valid approach: it is, and more importantly it's one that can be very good if executed well. However, while the "Audience Engagement" you describe has some value, I personally want the show to be able to make a statement of its own as opposed to simply throwing together random bits here and there and expecting the audience to do all of their work for them and hope it distracts from the fundamental lack of interesting material beyond the oddity of it all. It's lazy writing that shows a lack of confidence in your vision, and I think The Prisoner suffers as a result.
I suppose we simply appreciated several scenes differently, and I admit I found a lot of stuff interesting before watching the ending (I'll tell you more, I even liked episodes 1 and 2 considerably more than 3 and 4, where I felt the plot was slowing down and stalling on a few unnecessary developments) so I had no problem keeping my interest level high throughout the whole show.

Memles said:
First off, thanks for ruining the
Sixth Sense
for me (kidding). Second off, I don't think any writer in their right mind should take cues from M. Night, especially considering his overall track record. The Sixth Sense is an example of a film where this works exceedingly well, but the film didn't HINGE on that reveal to be interesting. It was a compelling character drama otherwise, which The Prisoner wasn't in the least. Sure, Ian McKellen was interesting, but are we really going to argue that 6 was an interesting character?
I didn't tell you which movie it was, so I technically didn't ruin anything :lol
It was obviously just a popular example for a plot twist strong enough to change your perception of everything you saw before (another example could have been the biggest plot twist - if you saw the movie you'll know what I'm talking about - in Fight Club), regardless of the quality of the particular example I chose.
I agree that Caviezel's 6 wasn't interesting. He was pretty much an empty shell with little to no personality and little to no backstory (besides
what happened to his brother
). I believe this was intentional, to let the audience identify themselves in him a bit more, though.

Memles said:
Our difference of opinion isn't that one of believes in the inherent value of mystery and audience engagement with narrative construction and the other does not, but rather that you feel it is capable of elevating this particular material and I disagree. While it made me think back to some scenes, those scenes were so much in the minority that they couldn't possible elevate the entire miniseries beyond a convoluted if intriguing mess.
I agree. To me, many scenes ended up being interesting from the get go and quite a few more became so retroactively. This is probably why I appreciated this series more than you, even though I reckon our opinions aren't theoretically that far apart.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Jan 1, 1970
12,504
0
0
I'm not sure why anyone was expecting a strong character out of 6. It's not like McGoohan's was really very deep either, though he was certainly more forceful. We learn more about this one than the old one.
 

ZoddGutts

Member
Jul 18, 2009
9,230
3
685
Los Angeles
Enjoyed this mini-series. Haven't seen the original series only seen it been references in other shows like the Simpsons, gonna watch the original series sometime. Overall give this mini-series a 9/10.
 

adg1034

Member
Aug 5, 2006
7,058
0
0
Costanza said:
Amazon has the original series Blu-ray for $40.99 today. Guess I'll get it with my credit...
Yeah, I was going to say. Not quite as good as the DeepDiscount deal, but go for it, people.
 

D4Danger

Unconfirmed Member
Dec 5, 2008
25,320
0
0
That was amazing and very confusing. The posts by gdt5016 helped me understand it but I still don't get how people go to The Village.

Is there a lab where they get drugged or something? I don't get it. I don't really understand how a person can contiune to live in the real world and have a life in The Village without them knowing.
 

Ripclawe

Banned
Jun 6, 2004
18,609
0
0
www.narbosa.com
gdt5016 said:
Yeah, she definitely wasn't conscious at the end. She barely blinked and had this blank stare in her eyes.
That is her in the village world, does it mean she is lucid in the real world or most likely like the Ian's wife when we saw her in the real world
 

SpeedingUptoStop

will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
Feb 24, 2005
31,837
0
0
Michigan
www.google.com
D4Danger said:
That was amazing and very confusing. The posts by gdt5016 helped me understand it but I still don't get how people go to The Village.

Is there a lab where they get drugged or something? I don't get it. I don't really understand how a person can contiune to live in the real world and have a life in The Village without them knowing.
You know how you have a subconscious? Or rather, you have an id, ego, superego? Basically, these unconscious desires that lie within you? Well, imagine if there was more to that. A part of your make up that you don't quite understand that it exists (but the people on the show have discovered). Now imagine if it could be visualized, manipulated so it could better (or worsen) the real person, you. that's basically where The Village is. No one is transported or drugged or anything. You really don't even know you're there, much like those random moments in life where you don't quite understand even your own motivations for doing them. The only reason 6 knew he was there and no one else did is because his problem is that he resists. Which is partially why he was brought to the Village and why his story basically ends with him giving in.

You picking up what I'm laying down?

Ripclawe said:
That is her in the village world, does it mean she is lucid in the real world or most likely like the Ian's wife when we saw her in the real world
Yea, she's just as catatonic IRL, doomed to hold the image of The Village in her mind without ever really being able to interact with it (unless given the right pills).
 

D4Danger

Unconfirmed Member
Dec 5, 2008
25,320
0
0
SpeedingUptoStop said:
You know how you have a subconscious? Or rather, you have an id, ego, superego? Basically, these unconscious desires that lie within you? Well, imagine if there was more to that. A part of your make up that you don't quite understand that it exists (but the people on the show have discovered). Now imagine if it could be visualized, manipulated so it could better (or worsen) the real person, you. that's basically where The Village is. No one is transported or drugged or anything. You really don't even know you're there, much like those random moments in life where you don't quite understand even your own motivations for doing them. The only reason 6 knew he was there and no one else did is because his problem is that he resists. Which is partially why he was brought to the Village and why his story basically ends with him giving in.

You picking up what I'm laying down?
Not really.

The woman (McKellen's wife) in the real world appears to be dreaming. She has The Village in her mind(?) and in order for her to go back to being a normal person she had to pass that on to 313 (a mentally disturbed person in real life who I assume is now in a dream like state like she was)

right so how did the taxi driver get to The Village for example? If The Village is something deep within our mind then how do so many people share the same experiences? Wouldn't each person create a different village? Wouldn't each person be in a dream like state like McKellen's wife?

It's like she's the host and everyone is connecting to her village.

I'm confused.
 

jason10mm

Member
Feb 3, 2009
1,381
336
945
I think the Village requires a human brain to power it, that was 2's wife, and now it is 313 after she took the pills from 6. Exactly how folks from the "real" world get into the Village is never adequately explained, but it seems to require some level of intervention by 2 and the company, but whether or not you have to be physically tied in at all times is questionable. I bet it is "wireless" to an extent, allowing folks to tap into it when they are asleep in the "real" world. These people are slowly healing their psychic damage, but some don't buy into the Village completely, they recall fragments of their waking life as "dreams" in the Village.

So the Village must police themselves to isolate and remove these dreamers as their presence is distressing to the others. Seems like 2, or his wife, also has an ability to reconstruct things in the Village, like the diner that blew up. A lot of the paranoia and fear in the Village was created by 2 and his particualr management style. 6 thinks he can run it better, but since he was basically seduced by 2, I have my doubts, as does 313, evidenced by her tears at the end.

Anyway, the backstory and technology of the Village is incidental to the focus of the show, to have interesting adventures in a surreal world. Whether they suceeded is up to you.
 

Reese-015

Member
Nov 20, 2006
2,267
0
0
36
Goddamn it why was there not more hype around this? This was AWESOME.

I thought it was pretty damn good but a bit too slow at first... But now that I saw the whole thing and know how well thought-out everything is and how awesome the concept behind the whole thing really is, I'd love to watch it again. I just wasn't sure that there was that much to it at the start so I didn't really care for the slow buildup, but the ending shows that it was all done with great care rather than just throwing 'filler' into the eps. LOVED it.
 

Raydeen

Member
Jan 21, 2009
2,223
0
0
UK, England
Not as good as the original (what is) but a decent stab at a reimagination. The 50's Americana bakerlite look was inspired...shame they didn't run with it to the max. Nice to see they made it a miniseries though, instead of a 6 episode later cancellation and no closure.
 
Jun 7, 2004
14,637
0
1,605
43
I've watched 1-3 so far and it just feels like I'm missing something in every episode. By which I mean it's like there are scenes missing because we're focusing on this so strongly and suddenly 2's wife wakes up and for no reason goes catatonic again. Look! A big hole in the ground. Let's not explain it. Or hey, a flashback to New York that lasts 2 seconds.

At this point I'm watching the rest of the episodes to see if it all makes sense in the end because I'm getting little enjoyment from the story itself, or whatever it thinks the story is.

edit: I'm not reading the thread past the episodes I've watched so if it changes and you've discussed it, great. I'll be back when I finish 4-6.
 

Reese-015

Member
Nov 20, 2006
2,267
0
0
36
allegate said:
I've watched 1-3 so far and it just feels like I'm missing something in every episode. By which I mean it's like there are scenes missing because we're focusing on this so strongly and suddenly 2's wife wakes up and for no reason goes catatonic again. Look! A big hole in the ground. Let's not explain it. Or hey, a flashback to New York that lasts 2 seconds.

At this point I'm watching the rest of the episodes to see if it all makes sense in the end because I'm getting little enjoyment from the story itself, or whatever it thinks the story is.

edit: I'm not reading the thread past the episodes I've watched so if it changes and you've discussed it, great. I'll be back when I finish 4-6.
I *slightly* had the same problem... But when I then found at the end that everything has so much significance, it fixed it all and I'm now even rewatching it and thoroughly enjoying it all!

Also, Summakor's 'viral' site helped me put together the last pieces after watching everything and putting most of it together myself: www.summakor.com .

I'm astounded by how well scripted this series is, it is so damn well thought out...

Some explanation for when you've seen it all: (spoilers)
The Prisoner was about a biotech company that had created an exclusive mental health facility where patients were being treated with first class rehabilitation. Six had been working for the company by recruiting patients, until one day he started thinking that the biotech company was not acting ethically. He wanted to quit, but instead was given a chance to experience the Village to see that all actions taken were in the best interest of their patients.

The relationship between The Village and the real world is, that they run in parallel. Everyone (except for Number Two's son exists in both worlds). Number Two's wife could not bear children in the real world, but can in the Village. But it isn't real except through the administration of the drugs. When she is awake the whole fabric of the Village begins to break down (literally). 313 cries because she has come to realize that only she can keep the Village alive by taking over Helen's place. She sacrifices a love for Six that can never be realized as she must stay in a coma. Six realizes that in the Villages reality he must become the new Number Two. He still exists as Michael in the real world and has returned to his job with a new understanding as to why Summakor's tactics may be necessary to ensure the continued existance of his own world. We now know why Number Two in 'Arrival' is carrying a Grenade. He always meant to kill himself so he could return to the real world. He did not fear death by the evil Six in 'Schizoid' because it would have been an 'escape'.
(got this from theprisoneronline.com forums, most of it makes a lot of sense to me)

And there's still so much more depth to it... It's fuckin' brilliant.
 

Reese-015

Member
Nov 20, 2006
2,267
0
0
36
allegate said:
Well I'm glad to see that it makes sense at the end...gives me more hope for the next three episodes.
Well, it gets very revealing towards the ending but it never gets 'easy', you have to piece a lot together yourself but they do give you almost all the info you need to do that.
 

Jocchan

Ὁ μεμβερος -ου
Feb 16, 2007
17,255
0
0
Silent Hill
www.jocchan.com
Why won't anyone talk with Bruce Willis? It doesn't make any sense!!!11!!!
EDIT: Lol, didn't see the latter posts, I've left this tab open for a while ;p
 
Jun 7, 2004
14,637
0
1,605
43
SpeedingUptoStop said:
You know how you have a subconscious? Or rather, you have an id, ego, superego? Basically, these unconscious desires that lie within you? Well, imagine if there was more to that. A part of your make up that you don't quite understand that it exists (but the people on the show have discovered). Now imagine if it could be visualized, manipulated so it could better (or worsen) the real person, you. that's basically where The Village is. No one is transported or drugged or anything. You really don't even know you're there, much like those random moments in life where you don't quite understand even your own motivations for doing them. The only reason 6 knew he was there and no one else did is because his problem is that he resists. Which is partially why he was brought to the Village and why his story basically ends with him giving in.

You picking up what I'm laying down?
I actually think I get it now, thanks.
jason10mm said:
I think the Village requires a human brain to power it, that was 2's wife, and now it is 313 after she took the pills from 6. Exactly how folks from the "real" world get into the Village is never adequately explained, but it seems to require some level of intervention by 2 and the company, but whether or not you have to be physically tied in at all times is questionable. I bet it is "wireless" to an extent, allowing folks to tap into it when they are asleep in the "real" world. These people are slowly healing their psychic damage, but some don't buy into the Village completely, they recall fragments of their waking life as "dreams" in the Village.

So the Village must police themselves to isolate and remove these dreamers as their presence is distressing to the others. Seems like 2, or his wife, also has an ability to reconstruct things in the Village, like the diner that blew up. A lot of the paranoia and fear in the Village was created by 2 and his particualr management style. 6 thinks he can run it better, but since he was basically seduced by 2, I have my doubts, as does 313, evidenced by her tears at the end.

Anyway, the backstory and technology of the Village is incidental to the focus of the show, to have interesting adventures in a surreal world. Whether they suceeded is up to you.
I thought this as well considering the diner was completely rebuilt in the next episode. Also, it seemed that #2 could spy at will, like he was everywhere at once.

See, I don't think 6 was a recruiter. He says that he "found something out" and laid it out in his report, the response to which was "stop it". I know 2 said that 6 was finding these people, but I don't think he was doing it consciously: I think he was researching people and the tech firm used said info for their recruits.

I'm still thinking and trying to parse some stuff.
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
Oct 8, 2006
19,067
0
0
Just finished the third episode.. so far im not really liking it. im almost curious why the creators of this show decided to make it a Prisoner remake.. its so very different it should be its own thing.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Jan 1, 1970
12,504
0
0
I think it makes quite a lot of sense as a remake. Especially compared to, say, Battlestar Galactica which had nothing in common with its namesake except names.
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
Oct 8, 2006
19,067
0
0
maharg said:
I think it makes quite a lot of sense as a remake. Especially compared to, say, Battlestar Galactica which had nothing in common with its namesake except names.
Well im only halfway through but there seems to be only slight ties to the theme of the original. Almost the entire of the original series is about the Village and the various Number Twos trying to break 6 just to find out why he quit. With the new series it seems to be more about 2 and the Village than 6.. it seems to be almost what happened with the Austin Powers sequels. One of the things about the original i enjoyed is the mystery surrounding 6 himself. In the old series the main question i had in the back of my head is "why did 6 quit and why is he so determined to keep it to himself?" Here the question is "wtf is the Village?"

As ive said i havent watched the entire run yet so there may be some kind of payoff, but so far there are enough differences that it could have been its own series.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Jan 1, 1970
12,504
0
0
Interesting. The 'reason' 6 quit in the original always seemed like a MacGuffin to me. The Prisoner was, to me, about cold war paranoia and the world of espionage it created. What you're talking about is plot, not theme.

The new one is not about that, simply because that's not a relevant concern right now. But it is about a more modern issue (that I don't think is entirely clear by the third episode) that's pretty close to it in nature.

Using the original as a jumping off point makes sense in that context and I honestly think it was done with quite a lot of respect for the original. If it were just a straight remake it would be worthless. If it were as divergent as BSG, it would be insulting and/or an attention grab (and whatever BSG became, it started off as both those things to fans of the original). It walks a fine line by bringing the concept into modernity.
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
Oct 8, 2006
19,067
0
0
Well i knew the "reason" was something that wasnt really important.. it was just a mystery in the back of my head that made 6 endearing. What would drive someone to be so angry and defiant where they would not relent no matter what? And then there was the flip-side to this where why was the reason so important that whoever was behind the Village would go to such lengths to extract it? The mental cat and mouse between 6 and 2, who was 1 and why was everyone so terrified of them, etc. How it all panned out in the original kind of made sense how it was a mind in anguish trying to reconcile its actions with its reasoning.. at least thats how i interpreted it.

Anyways.. going to try and finish the rest of series up.
 

Aaron

Member
Apr 12, 2006
25,471
0
0
www.the-nextlevel.com
Number 2 said:
Well i knew the "reason" was something that wasnt really important.. it was just a mystery in the back of my head that made 6 endearing. What would drive someone to be so angry and defiant where they would not relent no matter what? And then there was the flip-side to this where why was the reason so important that whoever was behind the Village would go to such lengths to extract it? The mental cat and mouse between 6 and 2, who was 1 and why was everyone so terrified of them, etc. How it all panned out in the original kind of made sense how it was a mind in anguish trying to reconcile its actions with its reasoning.. at least thats how i interpreted it.

Anyways.. going to try and finish the rest of series up.
As in the first ep, the people who run the Village know everything about number 6... everything but why he resigned. Their business is entirely driven around knowing secrets, and this particular one is the key to number 6. If they can force it or con it out of him, they'll break him, and make him one of their own. While number 6 is a man who doesn't want to be broken.
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
Oct 8, 2006
19,067
0
0
Aaron said:
As in the first ep, the people who run the Village know everything about number 6... everything but why he resigned. Their business is entirely driven around knowing secrets, and this particular one is the key to number 6. If they can force it or con it out of him, they'll break him, and make him one of their own. While number 6 is a man who doesn't want to be broken.
Thats just the thing though.. the last time any kind of inquiry like that ended with the twins doing the talking therapy in the first or second episode. Since then its been dropped. Other stuff like holes appearing in gardens, 2s wife and her pills, the son having an affair with an older man... all this other stuff is fine and well but the only question i have is wtf is going on.

i dont know if its the crazy ass editing or what but everything seems so jumbled, its hard to make out whats happening or when it happened. For example, in episode 4 there is the hole in the garden. One minute the mother is looking at a patch of ground where there is no hole.. the next 6 is asking 2 while looking down the hole if he can save the girl. A couple minutes later 6 is having a conversation with the cabbie father who is digging up where the hole was with a kitchen knife. Then there is a shot of a poster about pigs purifying the air as we see the cabbie and 6 next to his cab. Later on we see the cabbie about to jump into the hole thats reappeared while 6 is getting oranges in NYC. im taking it that it will make sense in the end but its disorientating and im not finding it very engaging atm.
 

Aaron

Member
Apr 12, 2006
25,471
0
0
www.the-nextlevel.com
I was talking about the original. I didn't really care for this... whatever you like to call it. Not a remake or a sequel obviously. Though that's mainly because I had a very different idea how the series could be remade to avoid the ending they took that I thought was way too predictable in the
post-Matrix
world.
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
Oct 8, 2006
19,067
0
0
Aaron said:
I was talking about the original. I didn't really care for this... whatever you like to call it. Not a remake or a sequel obviously. Though that's mainly because I had a very different idea how the series could be remade to avoid the ending they took that I thought was way too predictable in the
post-Matrix
world.
Oh.. i thought you were talking about the remake with the "first episode" part. In the original series its brought up about ten times an episode with a recap during the new Number 2 introduction :lol
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
Oct 8, 2006
19,067
0
0
Finished the mini-series up... i should have stopped when my gut told me to. The story itself is pretty straightforward but is presented in an almost nauseating way with all the crazy quick cuts and the jumping around. On top of that the story itself is just uninteresting (maybe thats why its edited the way it was.. to make it more engaging or something).

Before i finished watching i was curious as to why the people behind the show used the Prisoner name and likeness. The reason i discovered is the show is not strong enough to stand on its own. The only thing that was used in any meaningful capacity from the 60s show was the name of the setting and the numbering of the inhabitants. The only other nod from the original show is Rover which in the new series has zero explanation for being there other than fan service.

i also find it interesting that the show is not centered around Number Six. i didnt time it but id estimate that half of the show revolves around Number Two, his son, the cabbie and his family, and the doctor. Although the original was mainly the exploits of Six as he overcame the obstacles made by the Village to break him, the new direction with stronger secondary characters is not a bad idea. In some ways it helps to not follow an almost flatlined Caviziel Number Six around all the time.. the problem is nobody else is interesting either. Two i thought had something exciting going on but as short as the series is his quasi-philosophical ponderings gets old quickly.

There is the possibility that my love for the original series is marring my enjoyment of the remake. As it is though i cant recommend this to anyone. Not only was it a disappointment but it was a waste of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.