Which series is best 2002, 1985 or 1959?!
-
clydeerwin — 12 years ago(August 22, 2013 02:14 PM)
WARNING! POSTS BELOW FROM TVHOLIC CONTAIN SPOILERS TO MANY OF THE 1959 SERIES. IF YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM THEN DO NOT READ TVHOLIC'S POSTS.
Also, I agree that best to worst is 1959, 1985, 2002.
I did much care for the 1985 ones but some were ok. I hated the 2002 show but admit that I liked one or two. -
mattressman_pdl — 14 years ago(October 22, 2011 12:00 AM)
The first incarnation (1959)is probably the best, although it does have it's share of duds. It is quite expensive.
You've already seen the movie, which is quite good.
the eighties version has some of the best writing I've ever seen especially on an anthology(just get the first season, the second and third are somewhat lacking).
But the 2002 version is pretty awful, I'd say only around a third of the episodes are watchable.
Hope this helps, have fun in the Zone. -
TVholic — 14 years ago(January 16, 2012 10:33 PM)
I've never seen the 2002 series, but the 1985 is underrated, in my opinion. I know most people adore the original series. I grew up on it myself. But a lot of those stories just had a quick, simple plot twist at the end and you could almost miss the rest of the episode but still understand what was happening. And that twist may well be the only thing many people remember. Faces become like masks; a lone bookworm smashes his glasses; people looking to flee a planet are actually fleeing to Earth; a woman attacked by tiny aliens is actually a giant alien; "To Serve Man" is a cookbook, etc. Rod Serling admitted that he wasn't very happy with that kind of story, but that was what people expected from the series, so that was what he gave them. These were basically short stories, which in books don't need a lot of setup. In fact, some of the episodes were just too long, and the 60-minute ones were way too long. That's one of the better aspects of the 1985 series, that they could do really short segments if they wanted to without having to pad them out to fill a half hour.
I didn't see the 1985 series until long after it originally aired, but then I regretted not watching it back then. Yes, it had some clunkers, but so did the original series. But when it was good, it was very good. As good as if not better than the original. For instance, "To See the Invisible Man" was great the way you could see how his life and his attitude changed as the year progressed. -
gabby_bm — 14 years ago(January 22, 2012 10:03 PM)
I still adore the original best, and you are right- those hour-long episodes were just lumbering and cumbersome.
The '85 series had a few good episodes, but like the original series, you can just
feel
the decade it came out of. The acting and directing in it is very 80's-ish and typical of television at that time. This isn't necessarily a fault- just an observation and feeling I get when watching it. I also hated-
HAY-
TED the narration from this series. But like I said, the stories weren't bad and some were actually pretty good.
And the 2002 series? Really? There was a 2002 series? When? Where?
Did I blink?
Boy, if this wasn't where I put my signature, I'd really let you have it! -
TVholic — 14 years ago(February 01, 2012 12:30 AM)
The '85 series had a few good episodes, but like the original series, you can just feel the decade it came out of. The acting and directing in it is very 80's-ish and typical of television at that time.
To be fair, that could be said of any show. I don't know of any series that feels timeless, no matter how popular it is or how great it's considered. I Love Lucy feels like the 1950s. Bonanza is definitely 1960s and 70s. Seinfeld and Friends no longer feel current. Everything grows old. -
Danimal_77 — 13 years ago(November 02, 2012 02:57 PM)
TO TVHOLIC: THANKS FOR RUINING THE PLOTS TO A DOZEN episodes. WOW, talk about not putting a disclaimer for SPOILERS over what you wrote:
"I've never seen the 2002 series, but the 1985 is underrated, in my opinion. I know most people adore the original series. I grew up on it myself. But a lot of those stories just had a quick, simple plot twist at the end and you could almost miss the rest of the episode but still understand what was happening. And that twist may well be the only thing many people remember. Faces become like masks; a lone bookworm smashes his glasses; people looking to flee a planet are actually fleeing to Earth; a woman attacked by tiny aliens is actually a giant alien; "To Serve Man" is a cookbook, etc. Rod Serling admitted that he wasn't very happy with that kind of story, but that was what people expected from the series, so that was what he gave them. These were basically short stories, which in books don't need a lot of setup. In fact, some of the episodes were just too long, and the 60-minute ones were way too long. That's one of the better aspects of the 1985 series, that they could do really short segments if they wanted to without having to pad them out to fill a half hour. " -
TVholic — 13 years ago(November 05, 2012 03:36 PM)
Are you really that much of an idiot? Nobody considers a well-known series from 53 years ago to be "spoilable." Especially since the episode titles aren't mentioned. It's nowhere near "a dozen," but I'm not surprised you can't count that high.
-
Northerner335 — 13 years ago(December 23, 2012 01:00 PM)
For what it's worth, I would say it's only courteous to put a quick spoiler alert for any episode, even though the shows are decades old. Some people are new to the series, some people haven't seen every episode, etc. What does it hurt to type seven letters?
-
sandrock41 — 13 years ago(March 05, 2013 08:14 PM)
Actually, I never saw any of the Twilight Zone episodes from the original series and am currently working my way through them now so yeah, they are spoilers to some of us. I had enough sense to stop reading your post when I realized what you were doing though.
I think we could have gotten the point after the first example or two, you didn't have to list off the twist of every single episode lol -
rabbitmoon — 13 years ago(March 19, 2013 09:30 AM)
You're being defensive, but the truth is that you did spoil a bunch of shows. I am new to watching these shows and had to look away too, but you definitely ruined some of the stories for me. What was the point of you spoiling those shows? There was none at all - regardless of how you try to defend it.
-
TVholic — 13 years ago(March 24, 2013 09:27 PM)
Oh, no. An ad hominem. I'm so hurt.
Well, I guess the rest of us should stop watching this show right now. After all, we know the endings, so we can't possibly enjoy the episodes anymore. The twists are the only things that count, as rabbitmoon says. Take those away and you have no reason to watch. -
rabbitmoon — 13 years ago(March 25, 2013 06:18 AM)
You're absolutely one of those morons in life who just cannot, whatever the situation, accept or admit to doing something
stupid
or
ignorant
. So sit there and throw your sarcastic rubbish back. There is nothing I want to give or take away from you, because living inside your ridiculous head is punishment itself. -
ZapRowsdower6 — 11 years ago(September 29, 2014 01:55 PM)
Well you're quite the piece of beep aren't you TVholic? You are wrong and you know it. Some people visit these boards because they are curious about finding out how worthwhile a show is. They don't want the endings spoiled you idiot.
-
TVholic — 11 years ago(September 29, 2014 08:06 PM)
Quite a potty mouth you have there. If you're so sure you're right, go to the general message board here and ask if a 50-year-old show needs spoiler warnings. They'll laugh you right out of there. Go to the St. Elsewhere or Newhart board and see if people whine about the lack of spoiler warnings that the whole show was a dream. See how many people talk openly about Dr. Greene's death on the ER board. Spoiler warnings are a courtesy for new episodes. They're considered unnecessary for any TV more than a few weeks old. If you haven't watched it by then and decide to read a discussion, then it's your problem. Demanding it for a half century old show is just plain ridiculous.
"Finding out how worthwhile a show is?" That's utterly stupid. Nobody with a brain would watch a show based on the opinion of someone he knows nothing about. I don't even like all the same shows as my closest friends and family, so I'm not going to watch something just because a total stranger tells me it's good. There have been plenty of shows lots of people liked that I couldn't watch more than a couple of episodes of, like Roseanne, Home Improvement, King of Queens, Two and a Half Men. Everybody has different tastes and I make my own decisions on what to watch.
To quote an old actor, go away, kid. You bother me.