The Twilight Zone being rebooted by Bryan Singer and CBS

[Christopher]

Both anthologies and ongoing series have their own advantages and virtues, as well as their own limitations. Which is why it's good to have both. It shouldn't be a competition.

[xortex]

I hope this is gonna be Star Trek on Earth, like fringe unwittingly tried to be, leading the way to Singer ushering in a starship based space opera. it doesn't have to be expensive. It's never gonna look like JJ's Trek anyway but the stories will be much better and more memorable and important and relevant which is really what Trek is all about.

[RJDiogenes]

Christopher wrote:

---

And I'm on record as saying that the following syndicated season did recapture that original vibe pretty well. Just because I didn't care for one or two specific attempts to revive it, that doesn't mean I think it's valid to say that it should never be tried again. Sure, by Sturgeon's Law, most attempts to revive an old series, like most attempts to do anything else in entertainment, will be disappointing -- but sooner or later there will be one that works. So if one or two attempts are disappointing, that's a reason to keep trying, not to stop trying.

That's not what I was responding to. You said, "What concept? What is there for a purist to get up in arms about?" The answer is, as you said, there is a vibe (among other things) to a concept that, if it isn't captured, displeases us purists. That's why 80s network TZ and Scooby Doo with real ghosts don't work for you and Twilight Zone: The Movie and nuTrek don't work for me.

[Christopher]

^You're missing the point by taking those sentences out of context. I was objecting to the other poster's statement that the entire concept should be "left alone" just because one or two attempts at it didn't work. I've already explained that in the post you just quoted.

[stj]

The short running time today on half-hour anthologies is a good point. All current broadcast and basic cable television has been severely damaged by the time lost to ads. Premium cable hasn't really used its freer format. It seems to me they are keeping the broadcast act structure.This seems to be for two reasons. First, they seem to be writing with broadcast syndication in mind anyhow. Second, it's easier to fake innovative writing by taking advantage of the freer standards for sex and violence.

However it most certainly is a competition. An anthology show can't just have an audience of millions, it has to have an audience more millions larger than ongoing series and serials that might have their spot. Currently we have no anthology series. I am baffled as to how someone could say we have both with a straight face, even in an impersonal internet format.

[Gary Mitchell]

Michael Emerson would probably be a good host but the person I thought of when I first saw this thread was Robert Carlyle.

[RJDiogenes]

Let's see, possible hosts for TZ. Lindsay Wagner, Joe Morton, Christopher Heyerdahl and Amanda Tapping spring to mind. I don't know about Michael Emerson. He'd be good to appear in TZ, but not to host it. Part of the appeal of Rod Serling was that his straight-laced appearance and demeanor were in contrast to the exotic story material.

Christopher wrote:

---

^You're missing the point by taking those sentences out of context. I was objecting to the other poster's statement that the entire concept should be "left alone" just because one or two attempts at it didn't work. I've already explained that in the post you just quoted.

Well, that's not what you said, but never mind.

[Mr. Adventure]

For host, I'm picturing Jon Hamm with a cigarette.

[Donald Draper]

Mr. Adventure wrote:

---

For host, I'm picturing Jon Hamm with a cigarette.

Not surprising I love this idea!

It might be possible. Hosting this would not take as much time as a regular series commitment.

[E-DUB]

Loved the original, liked the 80's reboot a lot, the UPN reboot meandered between mediocre and suck. This does not bode well for a doing it again thing. But, if they get good writing, well OK. Don't forget that it wasn't just Serling, but Matheson and Beaumont that made the original.

There's so much good SF material that's been written it's kinda amazing that so much of the dramatic SF (film and TV) has been pure crap. Sturgeons law strikes again.

[Christopher]

Okay, here's the thing: Serling wasn't just some frontman they hired to read the lines. He was the show's creator and head writer, the one presenting it to the audience as his own work. Much like John Newland being both host and director of Alcoa Presents: One Step Beyond, or Hitchcock being the creator, executive producer, and occasional director of Alfred Hitchcock Presents as well as its presenter. It made it somewhat special that one of the actual people responsible for the work was presenting it to us, not just saying "Here's a story they're paying me to pitch to you" but "Here's a story I had a hand in making." And the fact that Serling wasn't a polished actor, that he was awkward and stiff on camera, was part of his charm.

So I say the host should be... Bryan Singer. He's going to be one of the key creative minds behind the show, as Serling was. He's as much a celebrity creator today as Serling was in his day. He's photogenic and reasonably well-spoken. He's even done a bit of acting in X2 and Star Trek Nemesis, so he presumably has a SAG card. To my eye, he even bears a slight (okay, very slight) physical resemblance to Serling. (And his name is almost an anagram of Serling! Okay, that's reaching.)

E-DUB wrote:

---

There's so much good SF material that's been written it's kinda amazing that so much of the dramatic SF (film and TV) has been pure crap. Sturgeons law strikes again.

You're kind of missing the point of Sturgeon's Law there. The whole idea is that the ratio of good to bad is no worse in television than it is in prose or anywhere else. It came about when one of Theodore Sturgeon's literary colleagues questioned why he'd write for Star Trek given that 90 percent of television was garbage. Sturgeon replied that 90 percent of everything is garbage. For every great work of SF in prose, there are plenty of bad or mediocre works, the same as in film and television.

[Donald Draper]

I would absolutely love and prefer for Singer to host this. It seems like that is rare these days. I am not sure why. Back than you also had Walt Disney and Alfred Hitchcock hosting their own series. I really know nothing about Alfred Hitchcock Presents. But I know that Walt Disney was clearly the driving force behind his weekly television series. Even if he did not personally write or direct the actual content. Disney felt uncomfortable filming his hosting segments. But did it because he knew he was the only one who could do it. I remember reading someone speculate that Amazing Stories was hurt by Steven Spielberg not hosting that show. Without him up front it had no identity. Just another producer credit for him.

I imagine Singer would be criticized and judged for trying to replace Rod Serling if he hosted this new show. He is already getting it for simply producing a new one. Hosting it would greatly amplify that criticism. I guess its depends whether Singer is willing to face all that.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Why not just get Ed Wasser to host?

[Sindatur]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

Why not just get Ed Wasser to host?

What Do You Want?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I admit I do like the idea of Jon Hamm as host.