Hello, I feel the need to stand up for the 2009 version, even though my first instincts are to not like it. I reserved judgement until seeing all 6 episodes, and i think they did a good job, even though it took until episode 4 to start being intrigued by it.

Any "copy" of the original would always be doomed by purists, and i think there were enough subtle references in the remake to make it a homage rather than a blasphemy. (93 perhaps being the exception)

2009 didn't have Lew Grade demanding more episodes than the originally planned for seven. This short series hung together as a whole, not like the original, a serial treading water for its paymasters.

They have helped make more sense of the original's ending; an ending i'm pretty sure after many years of on and off interest in the subject, was made up once the project was well into progress. In 2009 6 becomes 1 and we can try that out as a/the, conclusion of the original. The original's finale, let us remember, had the public shouting abuse at McGoohan (RIP) in the street shortly after it aired.

I have seen the McGoohan interviews, and read all (last time i looked) books on the subject, including fan material. I have a map of the village i purchased from Max Hora, the gentleman who ran the Prisoner souvenir shop in Portmerion, framed and hanging in my house with a shelf beneath solely for the Prisoner and Prisoner related material i have gathered over the years. I proposed to my wife in Portmerion too. I hope this helps show that i have more than a little passing interest.

However the original was just McGoohan expressing his own life situation on camera. He felt Prisoner to the dictates of his "Dangerman" star lifestyle, and only ever really had half an idea for his new show. The attraction to the show lies in its location, its costume, colour, typography, some good themes and plots, and, removed from its historical context, its quaintness. It was a high minded project serving commercial interests. Of this last accusation 2009 is also guilty, as is most TV.

2009 gave us trainspotters stuff to catch during the show, and a plot we didn't know where would end up. I've only watched it the once, and i don't think i got it all -which i'm glad for and means that i'll watch it all again in the near future. And the end made some sense... or not. Just like the original.

The whole thing would certainly not have worked so well if they didn't have McKellan on board- well played sir! Shame it had an American star and was set in USA which is my main gripe (serving the market just like the original). Thought it somewhat political with the two towers stuff- particularly if you are a 911 truther like myself. Dream states of existence, manipulation of public consciousness, etc. you're either singing from the same hymnbook or you're not

2009 is a prisoner for today; it doesn't replace the 60's one which i don't think will be easily forgotten;

Be Seeing You

Great post, I agree with you on most of it.

I am not sure it was "set" in the USA.

Spoiler Warning.
Please kindly be advised that the following post contains ‘spoilers’. Although the 2009 series has already been transmitted in various parts of the world and much info is now freely available in the public domain, there are those who may not have seen the series yet and therefore, may not wish to read this post etc.

Yes, an excellent post, mrminimoke!

I have just finished watching the new 2009 series and I do not have a conclusive ‘take’ on it yet. Anyway, here are a few initial thoughts:

Firstly, I also think that it is difficult to compare the new series to the original 1967 series. Although there are similarities here and there, the respective storyline concepts are too totally dissimilar for me to make an easy ‘apples to apples’ common ground comparison. For example; the new series story has a definite ending, whereas, the original series ending has always been questionable.

In my humble opinion, I feel that although the production values are quite impressive, the new series falls a bit short in terms of continuity, storyline and character development. Although I think the concept of the series is good, without appearing to be obtuse, I found that much of the ‘heady’ imagery and the ‘quick-take’ disjointed ‘mind-game’ passages in the story were invariably dealt with on a cursory level. Whilst this often left me confused, I would probably dislike it if the series attempted to expose all and told the story in a more detailed, explanatory and conventionally paced manner.

Apart from a few minor criticisms, I think the acting is generally good with Sir Ian McKellen as 'Two' / 'Curtis' in top form. With regard to location filming, Swakopmund - located on the edge of the Namib desert was a surprisingly good choice as the setting for ‘The Village’. With the effective use of additional pastel coloured exterior stage sets, we see a curious and bizarre ‘Village’ community - surrounded by a vast desert wasteland that perfectly befits the story.
I also like the many references and images featured in the series that respectfully and effectively pays tribute to the original series. I don’t consider them as pastiche or being out of place in any way. The ‘Penny Farthing’ bicycle suspended above the bar in the village action bar, a Herculean ‘Rover’, the ‘Village Shop’ and the ‘Village Map’ are just a few good examples.

If not totally rewarding, I found the new series interesting and challenging to watch; on the whole - a bit of a ‘Curate’s Egg’. I definitely want to watch the series again and after a second viewing, I may warm to it more and revise my thoughts.

In response to Chloe’s comment - and hopefully I'm on the right track here; whereas the ‘real-time’ storyline is supposed to be set in New York (Cape Town was actually used to represent New York), my understanding is that the ‘subconscious’ storyline for ‘The Village’ creates the situation where the setting for ‘The Village’ is indeterminable. This is because ‘The Village’ exists purely on a mentally therapeutic and enigmatic level in the dream-scape created by Curtis’s wife. On the other hand, Curtis’s wife might well have had Swakopmund and the Namib desert in mind – from past holiday experiences etc.
Just to throw in another 'curved ball' here as a suggestion, perhaps as part of the the series storyline, Curtis's wife clearly remembers the original 'Prisoner' TV series and uses it as inspiration to create her idea of 'The Village' community in her dreams?
This idea could well be substantiated when we see: the bearded escapee - as seen at the start of the first episode wearing the ‘Piped Blazer’, ‘Rover’, the ‘Penny Farthing’, the 'Village Shop’ with the ‘Village Map’(as previously mentioned above) and of course - No.2 and No.6 etc.?

Much analysis and many ‘in-depth’ studies have been undertaken by devotees of the original series - over the last 40 years or so. The new series has only just been released and already, many questions have been asked and answered.
I just wonder if this new series will attract a similar interest level and achieve a large cult following as seen with the original series. If so, we may well look forward to seeing some good postings with regard to many thought-provoking aspects of this series.

Finally, if any member feels that I have 'missed the mark' with regard to the new series in any way, please kindly advise - thanks.

BCNU

I'm not one to cling on to the past, but this remake was just a cheap attempt to cash in on other similar shows such as 'Lost' and 'Flashback'. I wasn't expecting a word for word remake, but this 1st episode was turgid drivel.

I have to assume that the bearded guy (93)that 6 found in the desert was the escaped McGoohan character as he was wearing the piped blazer. You'll note that when they searched 93's cottage it had the same bedroom round entrance as in the origional series. A drawing of Big Ben probably relates to the scene where McGoohan drives past Big Ben in the opening sequence of the old series. Plus 9-3 =6, or am I reading too much into this? A subtle piece of homage to the origional perhaps.

The new 6 finds himself in the desert, but why would he have been dumped out there and not to wake up in the village, put there by his abductors? The origional 6 was drugged and kidnapped and woke up in the village. The new 6 miraculasly wanders off, luckily in the right direction and finds the village by chance!!!

No questions from 2 as to why he resigned, which was the main plotline of the origional. Number 2 got the sack each episode due to being unable to find out why 6 had resigned, but in this version we seem to have a cake chomping Mckellern acting like a dictator of a Bannana republic.

Everyone seemed as clueless as 6 as to why they were in the village. English actors with dubious American accents and the main character haming up his anger at his predicament with a plotline going nowhere.

I'm all for revamps and looked forward to this, although with a little trepidation, but my analysis is that the American makers of this series just don't get it in terms of the origional. No wonder McGoohan backed out of appearing in a cameo role.

I doubt we'll have to endure a 2nd series.