Which series is best 2002, 1985 or 1959?!
-
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. -
sita_chez — 9 years ago(July 25, 2016 12:10 PM)
ZapRowsdower6 are you nuts? Genuinely? Your ridiculous, he did nothing wrong, it's an almost 60 year old show. He pointed out 5 episodes, most of which you wouldnt know is the plot line till the final moments. Most people wouldn't consider it a spoiler if the shows been out 2 years let alone 50 odd years.
I watched the 2000s show when it came out and maybe caught the odd one or two of the original series and have only just started watching them again, he didn't spoil anything for me, nothing. I came on here to look at a specific episode of the 80s show and saw this thread, knowing full that people would be talking about the episodes. I don't need spoiler warnings on such an old show. As he said spoiler warning is for new shows still being first aired. If I was discussing season 1 of game of thrones no one would put spoiler alert unless mentioning something from the books, because there are some ignorant people out there who refuse to read the books even after the whole season is out. It's not for really old shows or films and no-one who doesn't expect to hear about the episodes on IMDb is truly stupid.
Grow up
"F
U
C
K me gently with a chainsaw" Heathers -
NotASpookyGhost — 12 years ago(June 08, 2013 01:35 PM)
On the other hand, if you'd dropped the discussion earlier, you'd probably have forgotten those spoilers until after you'd seen the episodes, then remembered.
But, I agree, the spoilers could have been stated in a more general way since the OP stated that he/she hadn't seen anything from the original series. -
Aqua_Fresca — 14 years ago(February 09, 2012 12:17 AM)
Never saw 2002 version, so between the first 2 I'd have to go with the original.
When I first saw both these series (I watched them back to back 2 years ago) I was just captivated by the original version. Even though it could be pretty cheesey and you could definitely tell they were on a tight schedule, I feel the original just had great touch to a lot of its storytelling, and as far as first impressions go, I don't think I've ever been more pleased watching a show the first time through than with the original.
The '85 series I had mixed feelings on. From what I can remember a lot of the episodes really didn't connect with me the same way with the original, and there's only a few I can remember that I really thought were interesting and kinda touching. That isn't to say I hated it or strongly disliked it, but I guess I was kind of let down.
I'm currently rewatching the original right now, but after thinking about it, I also intend to revisit the '85 version as I feel my expectations weren't properly tempered when originally viewing it. I hope I change my mind and find a lot more to love about it.
For my money's worth, though, I do think the intro to the '85 show is the best one. -
Barry-73 — 14 years ago(February 25, 2012 07:10 AM)
The original series (1959) is the best. The 2002 series with Forest Whitaker is close behind. Yes, really. I have the DVD set, and am re-watching them now. The 1985 series, well, I'm not sure I remember much about those. I vaguely remember the ones I saw not being very good. Maybe I should trying watching some of them again.
Anyway, the 1959 series would be #1 and the 2002 series would be #2.