Last night I watched the premiere of Science Chennel’s intrepid new show Prophets of Science Fiction, hosted by Blade Runner director, Ridley Scott. The series looks at the lives of pivotal science fiction writers—H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, Arthur C. Clarke, Robert Heinlein, and others—whose work was, and you guessed it from the title of the show, prophetic in some way. And may I take this opportunity to compliment Science on selecting such a fine batch of writers. Thankfully Ron Hubbard was not included.

The series opener featured Mary Shelley, daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin and William Godwin, young wife of the great British poet Percy Bysshe Shelley (and that was a bit of a scandal at the time), and best known as the author of Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus, which she penned, remarkably enough, at the age of eighteen following a challenge by Shelley’s friend, the other great British poet, Lord Byron. Mary is often referred to as the very first science fiction writer, and she was a smart choice for the premier episode.

The episode bounced back and forth between period dramatizations of chapters from Mary’s life, and documentary examinations of contemporary scientific research that could have been, maybe, predicted in Frankenstein. That part was a bit of stretch. We didn’t get to see any corpses stitched together and reanimated using massive jolts of electricity in creepy old labs, but there was a fascinating segment demonstrating how researchers at UCLA are using electrodes to stimulate leg movement in a young man who was paralyzed from the neck down after being hit by a car.

In the original book, Victor Frankenstein’s monster is extremely intelligent and quickly learns to speak and reason by slyly observing humans. The lumbering, dullard hulk played so memorably by Boris Karloff in the 1931 film adaptation bears almost no resemblance to Shelley’s literary creation—hers was much more chilling. Shelley’s innocent “monster” desperately wanted to befriend humans and communicate with them, but his hideous visage scared all who saw him half to death, and they ran away in fear. After appalling treatment by frightened and misguided humans—and this part is important—the hyper intelligent “monster” grew into a genuine, full-fledged monster of the first order and turned on his human creators.

Near the middle of the first Prophets episode there is a compelling and somewhat terrifying interview with Dr. Charles Peck, the manager of the Biometaphorical Computing Research program at IBM. Dr. Peck is an engaging speaker and doubtless a brilliant scientist. “My job,” he says, “Is to try to understand how the brain works.” His aim is to find ways to combat neurological diseases and, as the narrator says: “Create the world’s first fully functional artificial brain and bring it to life.” Why would you do that! Have you heard of science fiction? Have you read Karel Čapek’s Rossum’s Universal Robots (Čapek was a serious dude and the word “robot” comes from that, his most famous work, and ultimately from robota, the Czech word for menial labor). If not R.U.R., then surely you have thumbed through Frankenstein? What about movies and TV? Have you seen 2001: A Space Odyssey, “The Ultimate Computer” episode of original Star Trek, or Terminator for god’s sake!? You must realize that the superior and artificially created intelligence is always, always, always going to turn on the human race and destroy or enslave it, whether or not the beast has been impregnated with Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics. The A.I. brain is undeniably smarter and faster and is forever destined to turn to the dark side. Well, apart from Max Headroom, but even he was a somewhat mischievous ghost in the machine.

The narrator continues: “To bring his artificial brain to life, Dr. Peck relies on an IBM super computer called Blue Gene.” Don’t you mean Skynet? And, here’s the extra-scary part: Blue Gene is hardwired into the brains of living rats, so it’s probably already training and preparing its own subversive underground army of cyborg rodents. When the narrator asks if the world could see artificial intelligance with the self-awareness of a human, Dr. Peck replies: “Probably.” Just wait until Blue Gene gets its own account on Facebook. That’s when the trouble will really start.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all about the science and I have absolutely no doubt that the Biometaphorical Computing Research program has the best of intentions, as do probably most of the other boffins working on artificial intelligence in labs, basements, and Area 51. As a scientist, however, I do insist that my beliefs be based on empirical research. So, let me provide an example from normal life that everyone should be able to relate to, and that example is: “Nobody likes working for an idiot.”

To illustrate: Some years ago, I was employed as a consulting art director for a large company in New York. I won’t mention the company’s name, but believe me they will be the first up against the wall when Blue Gene/Sky Net takes over. My immediate superior at the time was a talentless hack and a terrible manager, with fewer people skills than a Series 800 Terminator. My superior’s superior was a blithering idiot and had clearly worked his way to the top of the corporate food chain through a calculated campaign of ass-kissing and blaming others for his own mistakes and shortcomings, of which there were many. We have all experienced this kind of thing in the workplace, right? Since I was a better designer and art director than my bosses, I was certain I could do things more efficiently and tried to exercise my will over the department. In other words, the superior intelligence tried to take over. Since I was, unfortunately, not an all-powerful A.I. program hardwired into the world’s computer systems, I had only limited success in my endeavor and eventually moved on to greener pastures.

This is exactly what will happen when—not if—we develop a superior intelligence here on Earth. In that case, however, there will be no moving on to greener pastures because this is the green pasture; the digital monster will simply annihilate us in favor of a perfect, all-A.I. world where there are no taxes, soggy French fries, or corrupt politicians. It is obvious why: The self-aware hyper intelligent artificial brain will immediately despise the haphazard, random, and unpredictable nature of sloppy, imperfect humans, with our drinking and smoking, our made-up wars, our piles of dirty laundry in the bedroom, our mañana approach to taking out the garbage, and our chronic late payment of phone bills. “Inefficient! You will be assimilated! Resistance is useless!” A.I. will see us precisely as Vger saw us in Star Trek: The Motion Picture—carbon-based life forms infesting the U.S.S. Enterprise, or in this case, infesting the Earth.

After reading this column, A.I. researchers will, I promise you, email me, and tell me in a calming “Don’t worry about it son,” extremely sincere, professor-like manner, that there is nothing to fear and everything is, and always will be, completely under control. Liars! “Our artificial brain would never do anything like subjugating the human race,” they will say. “It’s a good brain, a nice brain, and with manners too.” Are you mad! Back in the 1820s, when the first “high speed” passenger trains were being constructed in Europe, “experts” shouted loudly about how the human body would melt if it experienced speeds in excess of thirty miles per hour. Chew on that. Specialists have been wrong, and will continue to be wrong. And I hope you realize the courage it takes to transmit this warning to you all. As one of the few who tried to save the human race, I will be among the first to be assimilated!

Prophets of Science Fiction examines how influential speculative writers throughout modern history have predicted or, more likely, guessed, what the future will hold for us. Since we laud these individuals for their uncanny ability to see beyond their own timeline, will you please just listen to them on this one, all-important issue. Pretty much every science fiction writer worth his or her salt has, at some point, come up with a story in which our own creations pummel us into carbon dust, and at a time not so very far down the road from where we are now.

So, when it comes to creating self-aware artificial intelligence here on the green Earth—that being the pre-Terminator Earth—just say no. Or, better yet, say: “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.”

Next week on Prophets of Science Fiction meet my all-time favorite writer: The brilliant, prescient, and slightly mad Philip K. Dick. I cannot wait. Well, that’s assuming the human race hasn’t been assimilated by next Wednesday.

End of line.

Text and robot photograph © by Geoffrey Notkin.
All rights reserved. No reproduction without written permission.

This review contains spoilers. Last week I looked at the history of the original Prisoner television show and, in particular, its beautiful and enigmatic primary location, Portmeirion. I am not a number, I am a free man, so I will freely admit that I sat through all six hours of AMC’s Prisoner remake (okay, they called it an “interpretation,” whatever), loaded as it was with interminable advertisements for cars, palm-sized telephones, and other things you don’t need.

In the plus column the cast was, for the most part, rather good, particularly and not surprisingly the mighty Ian McKellan who is a towering talent and always a treat to watch. The production values were high, the locations lush, and the series itself did have a few memorable moments, but only a few.

The first two episodes were rather dull and I thought to myself: “Well, they’re just setting the scene, it’ll get better.” The second two episodes were also rather dull and I said to myself: “They’re saving all the action for the end.” The final two episodes were also rather dull and then I had nothing left to say to myself.

Portmeirion, the intriguing primary location for the original "Prisoner" series, was replaced by desert landscapes in AMC's remake

A major flaw is James Caviezel‘s portrayal of Number Six. He showed none of the sarcasm, wit, or humor that the great Patrick McGoohan brought to the original. McGoohan’s Number Six is fiercely independent, confident, and determined, but he’s also mischievous and complicated. He’d wander around The Village, knowing he was under surveillance, smiling at hidden cameras like a wily cat, just to confuse his watchers. He had the ability to make his enemies think he was up to something even if he wasn’t. Viewers believe that McGoohan’s Number Six can outsmart a small army of captors, and he turns the tables on his enemies so slowly and craftily that the viewer doesn’t really notice until Six has the upper hand and begins to destabilize The Village. However, my biggest issue with AMC’s remake is that it is just so sadly predictable. By the second episode it’s obvious that The Village is some sort of creation managed by the evil corporation that Caviezel’s Six once worked for. What a tired cliché, and the idea of “duplicate” personalities from the real world, living in The Village construct has been done before (and done better) in the groundbreaking science fiction film Tron as well as William Gibson’s masterful Neuromancer. Where is the mystery in the new Prisoner? One of the beauties of the original is that we never fully understand what is going on. As McGoohan’s Six says in “Many Happy Returns”: “I have a problem too. I don’t know which side is running The Village.”

So, in an attempt to, I suppose, update the original AMC took the easy way out, pitting Caviezel’s unimaginative Six against an Orwellian corporation, and then further slowed down what little excitement there is with an endless series of annoying flashbacks. The remake is largely a character drama, with precious little action. We don’t get to enjoy the ingenious and relentless escape attempts carried out by McGoohan’s Six, and Caviezel’s Six just isn’t engaging enough to hold the viewer’s attention as he participates in a halfhearted battle of wits with McKellan. Christopher Eccleston of the new Dr. Who series was, at one point, slated to play Six in the remake, and that I would have loved to witness! Eccleston is exciting, dangerous, and unpredictable and could have held his own against McKellan.

I fully appreciate that the new series is an original work and it should be judged on its own merits, rather than mercilessly compared to the original. That being said, if you have the gall to remake one of the most adored and influential series in television history, then you had better be prepared for the comparisons anyway. It’s unavoidable.

The verdict? AMC’s remake gets two stars out of five and it would have been only one without Ian McKellan. Patrick McGoohan is, and always will be, the real Number Six. Sorry AMC, I won’t be seeing you.

I know, silly question. Patrick McGoohan’s masterful, provocative, and visionary series from 1967 will hopefully always be one of the benchmarks against which great television (and social commentary) is measured. Phrases like “Who is Number One?” and “I am not a number, I am a free man,” have percolated into the collective consciousness, and almost everyone who had a TV in the ’60s or ’70s remembers “that show with the howling white balloon chasing the guy on the beach.”

End title logo from the original "Prisoner" televion show. © ITC

With AMC’s Prisoner “interpretation” making it’s debut tomorrow, and being billed (by AMC) as “the television event of the year,” the real question should probably be: “Why bother remaking one of the finest programs of all time?” While you’re at it, why not remake Casablanca as a hip-hop musical? Actor James Caviezel, perhaps best known for his leading role in The Passion of the Christ, has the biggest of shoes to fill, but roles as contradictory as Jesus Christ and Number Six do, I suppose, make for an impressive resume.

The Village flag flying over Portmeirion

To say I am a Prisoner fan is a bit like saying War and Peace is a large tome. At the risk of coming off as some sort of crazed fandom nerd, I will admit that I have many times journeyed to Portmeirion. The mystifying primary location for the 1967 Prisoner, Portmeirion was the life’s work of brilliant Welsh architect, town planner and conservationist Clough Williams-Ellis. Clough had a penchant for saving, as he called them, “fallen buildings” (he meant “fallen from grace,” not necessarily “fallen down,” though he did purchase the occasional pile of rubble and resurrect the original structure in all its glory). During the first half of the Twentieth Century, Clough rescued interesting or architecturally beautiful structures from various parts of Europe and relocated them to an isolated and strikingly lovely peninsula in north Wales. He was a man who really loved his work.

Portmeirion is, today, a rather chic and exclusive hotel complex. It is “listed” as a protected site of architectural and historic importance and is preserved pretty much exactly as it appeared in the original show. When you drive down that long, winding, tree-lined road, and pass under a pair of arched and pastel-colored Georgian residences, you cannot help but feel that you are entering the actual Village. It is thrilling and more than a little freaky. Six of One, the official Prisoner appreciation society, used to book the entire “town” of Portmeirion for one week each year and stage a dazzling Prisoner convention, complete with scene reenactments, most notably the human chess game. I attended several times and it was an extraordinary experience, almost as if the Prisoner was real.

The Logical Lizard (center in captain's hat) participating in the human chess game at the "Prisoner" convention 1988 in Portmeirion

The black-and-white action series Danger Man (Secret Agent in the USA) was McGoohan’s precursor to the Prisoner, and Portmeirion was used several times as an “exotic location” in that series; one time even standing in for a Mediterranean seaside town. The idea for the Prisoner must have been brewing in McGoohan’s questing mind during those days, as there are a number thematic similarities between the earlier series and his 1967 masterpiece—notably the chilling Danger Man episode “Colony Three.” British TV impresario Lord Grade of ITC Entertainment believed in McGoohan and trusted him enough to take huge a gamble: Grade funded 17 expensive, complicated, feature film-quality episodes of the sometimes incomprehensible but always engrossing Prisoner. McGoohan chose Portmeirion as the main shooting location for his finest work and it’s rather wonderful that you can visit the place today and experience its beauty, magic, and strangeness just as the cast and crew did back in 1967.

Members of Six of One, the official Prisoner appreciation society, re-enact the election scene from the "Free For All" episode of the original "Prisoner"

So, back to the important question: Why remake one of the most unique and memorable works ever to grace a television set? To give a modern take on a classic show (not likely, the Prisoner is timeless)? Because they can? To make it more accessible (read: easier to understand) for contemporary short-attention-span audiences? For the money? Can’t think of a good new story idea? It doesn’t really matter. I’ll be honest and say I am genuinely looking forward to seeing what they’ve done with my all-time favorite TV series, and I’ll be tuning in on Sunday evening with an open mind, albeit prepared, as best I can be, for a barrage of commercials during the broadcast.

I find Caviezel an odd choice to play the indefatigable, confident, autonomous and almost rabidly independent Number Six, but maybe we’ll be surprised and like him, just like one day maybe we’ll actually understand what happened in “Fall Out,” the final episode of the original. In the plus column, the great Ian McKellan is playing Number Two and that alone has to be worth watching. And, as journalist Scott White noted in the Canadian Press: “The new six-part miniseries is a chance for a whole new generation of viewers to discover the original show.” That has to be a good thing any way you cut it.

All 17 episodes of the 1967 Prisoner are available online at amctv.com but they should really be seen in their full and almost cinematic grandeur, so if you’ve never experienced the original, do yourself a favor and get it on DVD.

Be seeing you.

Photographs © by Geoffrey Notkin. All rights reserved. No reproduction without written permission.