MovieChat Forums > Night Gallery (1969) Discussion > Differences you see between NG & TZ?

Differences you see between NG & TZ?


Curious what others here find as the major differences between the shows? been so long since i've seen NG episodes be interesting to watch some episodes during this marathon

reply

TZ: Serling controlled
NG: Laird controlled

TZ: black and white
NG: color

TZ: broad fantasy i.e. weird tales of all genres
NG: mostly horror oriented tales

TZ: closing narration to stories
NG: stories end with horrific image or reaction shot

TZ: one story per episode
NG: usually multiple stories

TZ: mostly filmed at MGM
NG: filmed at Universal

The ratio of good-to mediocre-to bad episodes is about the same for each series but a good TZ stood alone while a good NG tale could be marred by a weak story preceding or following it. TZ just seemed to stand out in the popular culture (helped by endless reruns and the annual marathon) while NG, like most shows of this type, simply faded from the scene. I think most fans today were kids in the late sixties/early seventies and NG scared the crap out of them. Director Guillermo del Toro (born in '64) is a good example of a typical NG fan.

reply

That's an easy question to answer.
Twilight Zone was a brilliantly conceived and written tv series
that changed the face of television for an entire generation.
Night Gallery is an abortive attempt to recapture the past
with boring and incoherent horror stories.
Rod Serling were he alive today would do well
to leave this off his resume.

reply

Serling would not leave this off his resume, at least for the first two seasons. Did he write the majority of scripts for "NG" like he did for "TZ"?



Annoying the world since 1960!

reply

Night Gallery wants most often to tingle the spine, whereas Twilight Zone was Serling's attempt to make statements about issues like injustice in society using Sci fi and fantasy as vehicles for his messages. And he did extremely well in that regard, although, there were times when it came off a bit too obvious and overstated. So, just because it wanted to make these grand statements, I do not automatically place "TZ" above "NG" in terms of quality.

reply

The big differences are the writing - less Rod Serling scripts,
and the music - No Bernard Herrmann or Jerry Goldsmith scores.

reply

I've watched maybe 10 episodes in this current marathon, none of which i remember, skipped several that i do remember clearly, a couple things that strike me are the bleakness of many episodes, not that that is such a bad thing but in a episode after episode marathon gets a bit much. also so many episodes have for lack of a better term a sort of "British" Hammer films feel about them.
all in all still a lot better than watching a Celebrity Bowling Marathon...

reply


all in all still a lot better than watching a Celebrity Bowling Marathon...
______________________________

All in all, I would rather go bowling.

reply

Possibly true,
but now they are onto the 6th Sense episodes.....*turns channel*.....
I'd rather watch the bowling....😖

reply

Twilight Zone was entertaining. Night Gallery was not. Or to put it in academic terms, TZ gets an A+, NG a C-.

reply

I'd give "Gallery" a B.



Annoying the world since 1960!

reply

Yes. Think of it this way: if we are talking about baseball, a player with a 300 average would be considered very good. I would say that at least 30% of the Night Gallery stories were decent. So "B" is appropriate. By that measure, Twilight Zone would be an A++.
___________________________________
Never say never...

reply

for my part TZ holds up exponentially better...

I don't know if it's the 'Button up 60s' vs 'the dirty 70s'... or the 70's style creeping into supposed period pieces; or if the B&W format creates a distinction/delineation... maybe it was the Family not having a Color TV until I was 10, the made the B&W feels more natural to me than the Garish 70's Plaids and oranges that were exposed when I can see it in color (I remember when I had an old CRT TV (hand me down) in HS that I could fiddle with the settings and make it black and white and some of those 70's reruns worked better, and watching until too late in the am it was dimmer and easier to intentionally fall asleep to

but I've found that a Lot of shows pre 1965 (when Color took over) hold up better for me than the hair/fashion on display in the 1970s and 80s... give me Perry Mason and the Twilight Zone over McCloud and Night Gallery any day...
- Columbo gets a pass because Falk is epic, and the Columbo 'Movies of the Week' ran long enough to give me a point of reference

reply

If you really want a good idea of the differences between TZ and NG (minus all the bilge spewed forth from some of the respondents here, at least one of whom has nothing more constructive to offer than "Twilight Zone entertaining, Night Gallery not") might I suggest getting your hands on a copy of the book by Scott Shelton and Jim Benson, "Night Gallery - An After-Hours Tour?"
Shelton and Benson did an incredible job researching pretty much every aspect of NG. They discuss each segment of the series and give each segment a rating as well as a summary of the plot of each segment.
They discuss the differences between the Twilight Zone and Night Gallery as well. Reading the book gives you the added benefit of getting impartial and informed opinions about Serling, Laird, the Twilight Zone and Night Gallery, instead of the biased and ignorant views espoused by a few of the people on the message board.
Happy reading!

reply

True. When you watch a TZ marathon you're seeing the cream of the crop. If you binge the whole series, however, and make an honest assessment, you'll find that a large percentage of TZ episodes are either boring, stupid or downright embarrassing. Not to say that NG doesn't have its own blunders (no argument here), but if your idea of TZ is watching the top 20 or 30 episodes over and over, your not really considering all five dimensions.

Another interesting difference between the two shows is the cinematography. Whereas TZ would frame shots in the conservative late fifties/early sixties style, NG, at the other end of the sixties, would often use very bizarre camerawork to to tell its stories. As a case in point, consider the (oft discussed here) segment 'The House'. The source short story is a fun but quaint read. The NG episode, by contrast, was so weird that, based on several IMDb posts, some people spend their entire lives taking it down from their memory shelf and asking, "What the hell did it mean?!!"

reply

In the most recent New Year's Twilight Zone marathon, the SyFy channel showed the entire series in chronological order. I do admit, this was the first time I had seen them all together. Yes, you are right that there were a number of clunkers in the batch. Nonetheless, I'd say the series had about a .400 batting average, which is pretty amazing. I'd take Twilight Zone any day over most other series. It really lends itself to rewatching like an old friend.

In contrast, I'd say only about 15% of the Night Gallery stories are really good. Night Gallery is about true horror. Twilight Zone is more about fantasy.
___________________________________
Never say never...

reply

Also, TZ seemed to have a higher calibre of actors.
And the look of a lot of NG episodes were experimental.

reply