delete thread. misinfo.
new "Twilight Zone" series in dev./Leo DiCaprio producing
- Thread starter jefferiestubes8
- Start date
Dammit.
You got my hopes up!
You got my hopes up!
It's bizarre how many times The Twilight Zone has been resurrected. There's been the movie, the '80s network series, the subsequent syndicated series (generally lumped together with the network revival because they had the same main titles, but otherwise very different), the fairly recent UPN revival hosted by Forrest Whittaker, and now, it seems, another feature film version. Not to mention a 2002 radio series adapting various episodes, a Gold Key comic from the '60s-'80s, a 1990 series based on the '80s revival, a 2008 set of "graphic novel" adaptations of original episodes, a '70s book of episode adaptations and other ghost stories, and a 2009 book of original stories commemorating the 50th anniversary.
I'm always somewhat nonplussed by the idea of reviving an anthology series. If the stories are different anyway, how does it really constitute a revival? But then, anthologies used to be a lot more common than they are today. I guess it helps to use the name of one of the few anthologies that audiences today are familiar with.
I'm always somewhat nonplussed by the idea of reviving an anthology series. If the stories are different anyway, how does it really constitute a revival? But then, anthologies used to be a lot more common than they are today. I guess it helps to use the name of one of the few anthologies that audiences today are familiar with.
It's just branding.
Yeah, I essentially said that in my last sentence, but it's still not entirely kosher -- particularly if the new anthology series is significantly different in tone and style from the original it's named after. For instance, I recall reading someone complain about the '80s revival that "It's not really The Twilight Zone, it's The Philip DeGuere Anthology Show" -- meaning that it reflected the style and sensibilities of its showrunner Philip DeGuere rather than capturing the feel of Rod Serling's creation. And by the same token, I thought the Showtime Outer Limits revival was too different from the original show to be worthy of the name. The original had a sense of wonder about the unknown, but the Showtime series was just one big Luddite tract, always basically saying that trying to expand human knowledge or potential is evil and will kill you in horrible ways. If you're going to make a show that reflects your own sensibilities rather than those of the original, it would be more honest to give it a different name. (And yes, I'm aware that branding has little to do with honesty. But I prefer honesty.)
I agree. The title of an anthology implies a certain theme, style and subject matter. Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Tales From The Crypt, Thriller et cetera are all unique, and any revivals should be consistent with the original (even visually, in my opinion). But we live in an age of "re-imaginings" that are totally at odds with the source material.
Is this the version that was supposed to have Jude Law narrating?
Does anyone think Ed Wasser would be a good narrator?
Well, that's getting into a different area than what I was talking about. I'm not complaining about the quality or "legitimacy" of a remake, not offering value judgments, but making more of a simply functional point about the relationship of title and content. If you retell a story that reuses the same basic characters and concept as an earlier story, then it's understandable why you'd use the same title even if it takes a radically different approach to the source material. For instance, the three cinematic works named Batman -- the 1943 serial and the 1966 and 1989 feature films -- are all wildly dissimilar in their approach, but it's understandable why they all use the same name.
But if you're talking about an anthology, where every installment is a completely unrelated story, then what's the common link between one anthology and another? The only unifying elements that can be associated with an anthology's title are ones of genre, theme, style, etc. rather than premise or characters. So if two anthologies are dissimilar in style, attitude, and theme, then what reason is there to give them the same name?
Although I suppose genre alone could almost be enough of a distinguisher. For instance, something called The Twilight Zone would be expected to tell half-hour fantasy/supernatural stories, plus the occasional soft science fiction tale, and would make frequent use of twist endings; while something called The Outer Limits would be expected to be strictly science fiction, no fantasy, and in an hourlong format (as opposed to, say, Science Fiction Theatre, which had a half-hour runtime). Still, associating a title solely with genre and format seems too vague to me. There's no reason, other than branding, why the Showtime SF anthology series couldn't have used an original name rather than calling itself The Outer Limits despite being a radically different show.
Another common thread can be the use of remakes; most of the TZ revivals have remade at least one classic TZ episode, and Showtime's OL remade at least a couple of classic OL episodes (notably "I, Robot," both versions of which feature Leonard Nimoy). On the other hand, it could theoretically be possible to remake an episode of a show that didn't have the same title. There was an unfilmed TZ script called "The Doll" by Richard Matheson that was eventually produced as an episode of Amazing Stories. Still, it was unfilmed, so it's not quite an example.
My favorite out of all the TZ versions was the 80's one. It was my favorite show when I was in HS...
As a TZ fan, I would definitely see it. DiCaprio producing it has the potential to make it even better.
My issue with the most recent Twilight Zone TV show. While on the original show, the villain would get their comuppance (and sometimes the good guy), a major theme of Rod Serling's was having the characters on the show getting a second chance. This was always a major theme. A few of the new TZ episodes featured this but it largely seemed to be forgotten. Also, the 2002 TZ had a bunch of episodes that ended with a twist on a twist ending. That's nice once in a while but they overplayed their hand there.
My issue with the most recent Twilight Zone TV show. While on the original show, the villain would get their comuppance (and sometimes the good guy), a major theme of Rod Serling's was having the characters on the show getting a second chance. This was always a major theme. A few of the new TZ episodes featured this but it largely seemed to be forgotten. Also, the 2002 TZ had a bunch of episodes that ended with a twist on a twist ending. That's nice once in a while but they overplayed their hand there.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
I thin Leo would do a good job of keeping close to the original.
What is there about him that would make you think that? All I know about him is that he's an actor.
Besides, he's not a writer. His production company Appian Way is producing the film, which means it's providing the money to have it made. The writer is someone named Jason Rothenberg, who has virtually no credits on IMDb, and the director isn't named yet. So it's not like DiCaprio's would be the sole creative vision here.
As an actor he's extremely selective about what projects he works on, showing good judgment. He picks scripts that are usually both popular and critically acclaimed.
Though his producer credits are still fairly few in number, he's developed a reputation for having a strong vision and a dedication to doing the job right.
Personally, his father was a comic book artist and he is a huge comics fan, so he knows the importance of respecting the source material.
^^ That's good to know. Who's his dad?
That's pretty much what I'm talking about. Just as you expect Batman to fight crime, you expect Twilight Zone to have a twist ending, Outer Limits to feel mysterious and wondrous and Tales From The Crypt to be a bit lurid. Tuning in to TZ and seeing an adaptation of a story by Louis L'Amour would be a bit weird. In my opinion, shows also cultivate a certain ambiance that should be continued as well, though I seem to be in the tiny minority there.
Well, that's exactly what I'm saying. The "ambience" of the DeGuere-produced TZ revival and the Showtime OL revival were different enough from their namesakes that they didn't feel like the same show and thus didn't seem to warrant the same titles.
agreed. i can totally see him acting in the same capacity that Serling did, complete with cigarette. i have to say i didn't care for Forest Whitaker as the hose of the last TZ revival. he's a fine actor, no doubt, but he just didn't fit.
Similar threads
