im new to twilight zone ive seen some of the 2002s one on youtube and the movie i love it but i want to get one of the box sets but i don't know which one 2002, 1985 or the 1959 ones, someone who is a big fan please suggest which one is best to get for me please
shareFrom best to works: 1959, 1958, 2002
--------------
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good men to do nothing.
WARNING! POSTS BELOW FROM TVHOLIC CONTAIN SPOILERS TO MANY OF THE 1959 SERIES. IF YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM THEN DO NOT READ TVHOLIC'S POSTS.
Also, I agree that best to worst is 1959, 1985, 2002.
I did much care for the 1985 ones but some were ok. I hated the 2002 show but admit that I liked one or two.
We're you drunk while posting or just not concentrating at all on what you were typing? You not only typed "best to works", but you also typed 1959, 1958 and 2000.
shareThe first incarnation (1959)is probably the best, although it does have it's share of duds. It is quite expensive.
You've already seen the movie, which is quite good.
...the eighties version has some of the best writing I've ever seen especially on an anthology(just get the first season, the second and third are somewhat lacking).
But the 2002 version is pretty awful, I'd say only around a third of the episodes are watchable.
Hope this helps, have fun in the Zone.
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.
I didn't see the 1985 series until long after it originally aired, but then I regretted not watching it back then. Yes, it had some clunkers, but so did the original series. But when it was good, it was very good. As good as if not better than the original. For instance, "To See the Invisible Man" was great the way you could see how his life and his attitude changed as the year progressed.
I still adore the original best, and you are right- those hour-long episodes were just lumbering and cumbersome.
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. This isn't necessarily a fault- just an observation and feeling I get when watching it. I also hated-HAY-TED the narration from this series. But like I said, the stories weren't bad and some were actually pretty good.
And the 2002 series...? Really? There was a 2002 series? When? Where?
Did I blink?
Boy, if this wasn't where I put my signature, I'd really let you have it!
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 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. "
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.
shareFor 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?
shareActually, 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
Wow, I didn't realize there were only five episodes. Guess the series wasn't as great as people thought if it was cancelled that fast.
shareYou'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.
shareYou're quite welcome. And while you're at it, you can thank Danimal for quoting the "spoilers" for the benefit of anyone who missed them.
shareI'm welcome for what exactly? Are you absolutely stupid, as well as ignorant?
shareOh, 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.
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.
shareWell 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.
shareQuite 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.
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
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.
[deleted]
Anything but the original series is unwatchable.
The originals are some of the best television ever made.
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.
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.
The 1959 series is by far the best. The 80s series (with the exception of a select few episodes) is bad and a great many of the episodes lack logic or don't have any sort of conclusion. I saw a few episodes of the 2002 series and wasn't impressed, but I honestly don't remember much of them. So, my advice is watch the 1985 series and 2002 series when they are on TV or (if you have it) netflix. If you have some money to spend 1959 series is worth it's price.
What's so crazy about standing toe to toe with someone saying "I am"?
The 80s series (with the exception of a select few episodes) is bad and a great many of the episodes lack logic or don't have any sort of conclusion.
What the hell is wrong with you? You have quite the nerve. You had half a dozen people tell you that you ruined the plot to many shows by not having the decency to put a SPOILER alert before you ranted and gave away MANY plots to MANY episodes and then what do you do? YOU DO IT AGAIN and give away the plots to another HALF A DOZEN episodes without putting a spoiler alert AGAIN!!! AND you idiot, you did it within the SAME THREAD! My God, you must like to piss people off. Was it not enough for you to have everyone tell you how you ruined several plots for them, for you to go and do it AGAIN you moron!
share"Many plots?" "Another half a dozen episodes?" Something tells me you have a hard time counting that high, which is why you have to exaggerate like that. Besides, you don't seem to understand what a spoiler is. Take that Klugman episode. They see their own corpses within the first few minutes of the episode. There's no twist to give away because that's all they do for the whole episode. And in fact, that's basically the kind of description a TV listing would give. Case in point, the description of that episode right here on IMDb: "An interplanetary expedition from earth finds an exact duplicate of their ship and themselves crashed on the planet they were surveying. Should they stay or risk taking off and crashing?" Oh, my god! IT'S SPOILED!
And how very polite and intelligent of you to rail against "spoilers" earlier then quote the entire message.
Actually , there are spoilers on the original series DVD sets.
Living in New Zealand, I had not seen hardly any episodes of the original as I was too young/it was on too late and we did not have the benefit of endless reruns of the show unlike in America where, in my realatively short stay there in 1984, it was on five nights a week. That is the first time I caught a few episodes so, in general, watching them was new to me.
Unfortunately, because the original series is such a classic, I guess the DVD makers thought we already knew the endings and gave away spoiler lines in the DVD menu sound bites, snippets in the episode selections, and even in the chapter titles. I tried to be oblivous to all those in watching them. However, almost all of the episodes seemed predictable in the end; you could usually figure out what was going to happen, even though I still enjoyed watching them. Perhaps the best way to watch it is to pretend you don't know the ending and simply enjoy the journey, plus the array of stars or soon-to-be stars that appeared.
As regards the 1985 series (which is what this board is actually about), it was pretty terrible; the remakes of the classic episodes proabably shouldn't have been made. The Elvis episode, one of the few I remember, was dreadful, completely predictable. The JFK one had some merit but was still a little obvious.
<<<The 80s series (with the exception of a select few episodes) is bad and a great many of the episodes lack logic or don't have any sort of conclusion
That might be because of the reediting of the length of the episodes after they had already originally aired.
Stories that were originally one length were later reedited to a completely different length.
And not just a few minutes chopped off here and there for commercials, but to a completely different length than they originally were.
Which makes me wonder which ones the dvds have.
The 1959 version is the one you want to get first, as long as you don't mind watching episodes in black/white. They are the best overall. The 1985 version is also great. I saw several of those episodes and was very surprised at how well they were written. I think even Rod would have been happy with some of this material. I really didn't see much of the 2002 version, which was hosted by Forest Whitaker. I would watch the 2002 episodes last. It'll take anyone at least a few months to watch the 8 seasons from the 1959 and 1985 versions. Netflix has Season 1, 2, 3 & 5 of the original Twilight Zone. So if you subscribe, check it out.
share"as long as you don't mind watching episodes in black/white"????????????????
Instead of cowtowing to people that are put off by black and white. You should highlight that the absolute greatness of the storytelling in black and white. There are a few million boatloads of crap filmed in color.
The film stock has NOTHING to do with greatness.
Enrique Sanchez
[deleted]
1985
I would definitely rank them 1959, 1985, 2002. To me, the original series speaks for itself in its greatness. The 1985 series has some gems and often succeeds in capturing the eerie/creepy/spooky vibe from the original series. It did have some great writing and interesting concepts. The opening theme was *very* creepy and effective, in my opinion. The 2002 series gets an "A for effort" from me, but there were so many clunkers. It had good intentions but overall, it was a misfire.
share