I see nothing original in this. They borrowed the bone trappings of the original series and grafted the whole thing on "Dark City", merely sans Sci-Fi elements--right down to the little boy remembering the beach and trying to get back to it. Rufus Sewell - if he is watching - must be suffering flashbacks!

In an effort to give you "more" the make the story wholly unbelievable. That was the believability of the first series--it was controlled environment of confused adults in a tiny village. This is not a village, it's a massive metropolis, completely with scads of children (What? Did they kid nap them and brainwash them, too?)

They have equated Number 2 to domineering father figure with the dysfunction family. Poor Number 2. The paranoia of the cold war, does not shift to the vague "commercial" venue, and the wee homage to McGoohan, at the start with the only man in the old Number 6's clothing still trying to escape, was weak at best.

Guess what, AMC - nice try...but I won't "be seeing you." The first two episodes was boring enough.

I watched the original series actually twice when I first saw it in the early 70's. What made it brilliant was that it compared to nothing else on TV at the time. Watching it for the third time this past summer I still held it in high esteem and thought it quite good. It was a very harrowing psychological drama and the politeness that abounded in the narrative made it that much more so. I watched the new version and I am not in the least bit disappointed. It maintains the original in terms of a harrowing psychological dimension with a polite front. But it adds other dimensions. Not once in McGoohan's versions do you doubt 6. By the time the first installment was half over I was starting to doubt the sanity of Caveizels 6. Meanwhile McKellan's 2 is absolutely terrifying. Well done. I'm getting paranoid.

I had a chance watch the old series. It was ok not great; I felt that it never lived up to its potential. But 60's shows of that time never quite handled drama well in my opinion. Now with this new cast i'd be expecting good things but this will only be as good as its script, and I wasn't impress with the extended preview clip.

p.s. Jeremy - it's maybe not a big deal, but i too enjoyed the whole "number 2" thing.

I saw the original series. I don't know about the great acting, I just didn't like the story. I might sample the new one, since I like J. C.

you keep saying Number 2 and Number 6 .... you know they dropped the prefix "Number" in the new one right? yes. they made that small change for no real reason at all. they are known as "2" and "6" in the new mini-series for no good reason.

Well, I am old enough to remember the first run of the Prisoner. The look of the series in the sixties was kind of new for television, not new for the real world. Maybe it was less "trippy" for England, but it decidedly odd for the USA.
I am waiting for the AMC version with an open mind.

"While in the original series, Number 2 was often overshadowed by McGoohan's Number 6, and even replaced a couple of times, it's nice to see a Number 2 that's so commanding and powerful."

I'd like to know your definition of "a couple of times"!

"More than 17 different actors appeared as holders of the office during the 17-episode series (some episodes featured more than one "Number Two", most notably "It's Your Funeral" which featured two Number Twos in major roles and images of two others)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_Two_(The_Prisoner)

The original had a couple of themes that ran through it. One of the biggest was who was Number One. Taken in that context, the role of Two was completely opposite of what this version looks like it's going to be headed.

As for the "very bizarre and trippy" aspect of the original... that's the part that IMHO is outdated. As in it's a relic of the style of the late 60s cinematography.

Looking forward to this!

Presumably, you mean November 15, not October 15...
I am really looking forward to it, though; I love Sir Ian.