The production values are the
only
thing that's better about the reboot.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it.

“Call a SPADE, a SPADE; and a TRANNY, a TRANNY, or an IT!!!”.
"THAT'S SOME BAD
SHIT
,
HARRY
!".

“Call a SPADE, a SPADE; and a TRANNY, a TRANNY, or an IT!!!”.
"THAT'S SOME BAD
SHIT
,
HARRY
!".

DD-931 is absolutely right. The original series was insightful, human-oriented, and truly frightening at times, despite the primitive sfx. It used science fantasy for the purpose of touching the humanity in us, not for some cheap joyride. It influenced most all sci-fi that came after, yet stands alone.

The original was light years ahead of the remake. People who want to compare the two based on the SFX simply show much they are influenced by surface flash over substance. But even when it comes to how the two are shot, they can't grasp the innovations of the original. The main cinematographer of the original version, Conrad Hall, went on to win three Academy Awards for his work. The remake only utilizes bland, typical production values of the 90s, often on the cheap.
But it's the stories and concepts of the original that make it stand out. The remake is only making vain attempts to copy that groundbreaking work, usually unsuccessfully.

.
Even in the 1960s you could easily find non-fans of
TOL
who would've agreed with you that the show was "downright silly"!
FWIW, whether it was arguably innovative or not, the original was probably at least "influential" to some extent; although the degree and scope of its influence may be debatable.
Just for example, some have speculated that perhaps certain elements of 3
TOL
episodes might possibly have influenced some aspects of James Cameron's
"Terminator"
films.
For another example,
TOL
apparently influenced the original
Star Trek
series. Wikipedia's article about
TOL
mentions some of the connections (and notes that "Gene Roddenberry was often present in The Outer Limits' studios, and hired several of its staff").
Apropos of that I mentioned that even in the 1960s you'd find non-fans of
TOL
who would've agreed with you that it was terrible. Of course the same was true of
Star Trek.
Ever since they first aired, there have always been non-fans who were immediately "turned off" by the cheesy production values, the hopelessly hokey stories, the ridiculous pseudo-science, and other serious flaws in these sci-fi shows.
And of course, lots of silly old TV shows were "influential". A lot of people "grew up with" them. TV is and always has been an "influential" medium. You could argue that it doesn't matter that a show was "influential". You can argue that
TOL'
s alleged influence doesn't change the fact that it sucked.

The 1995 version is far and away better. The original had no production values and was downright silly to watch. It looked like a bunch of high schoolers filmed it with an 8 mm B/W film. Just lousy.
Comedy is not pretty
~
~

I think they're both good. It's tough for me to decide which one I would say is better. I like them both for different reasons. I'm more familiar with the newer series than I am with the original series. I don't think the 1995 series declined in quality when it was made, like a lot of shows that are remade.
I guess if I had to make a decision to watch only one, I would pick the 1995 version.
I'm just expressing my opinion.
You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.