So, uh, really? I like that Eccleston guy well enough, and the spirit of our times, if you will, almost screams out for an intensely bizarre show about complete paranoia. But, you know; lightning in a bottle and all that.
I've thought that someone could probably get a lot of milage out of a more realistic and cohesive version of the story, but at the same time how much of the charm (and power?) of the original lies in its dense surrealism? I mean, you have to make up your own narrative for it, really, and I'd be surprised if a new version maintained this. . . fractal quality. (Which was probably not even intentional in the original, considering how its run was expanded only to be abruptly cut short.)
(Also, how much of its neatness is due to the groovy 1960s design, which has, I think, passed through kitsch to become weirdly unsettling?)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course, they said similar things about Doctor Who.
Okay, not all of it. But still.
Yes.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:"Like 24, the new series will entrap you from the opening scene."
"...and then attach electrodes to your gonads insisting you tell them what they want to know while it shows you a video-uplink of your crying family with ducktape covering their mouths and vividly tense men in ski-masks pointing submachine guns at them."
I'm skeptical, but that's prolly because for all it's non-narative folly, the McGoohan is so very close to my heart.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
