Commentary
TV Is Stuck In A Reboot Twilight Zone
- by Adam Buckman , Featured Columnist, December 11, 2017
Here we go again.
When I heard the news last week that CBS intends to “reboot” the old “Twilight Zone” under the supervision of producer Jordan Peele, I had the same reaction I had to all of the TV reboot announcements that have come down the pike for the last two years: Enough already.
Then I went in search of TV Blogs that I have written here on this subject to see if there were any. Guess what I found: A ton of them from 2016 and ’17 all complaining about the trend for one reason or another -- further proof that the ravings of a TV columnist have no clout when it comes to altering the thinking of network television executives.
"Bang! Zoom! Let’s Send 'Honeymooners' Reboot’ Plan To The Moon" read the headline on a blog from just over a year ago (December 16, 2016) that was a reaction to the news that CBS had ordered a script for a proposed update of "The Honeymooners."
advertisement
advertisement
'MacGyver'? Really? What's Next? The New Adventures Of ALF?" read another from September 2016 -- a review of the then-new “MacGyver” on CBS.
A few months earlier, in July, another column reacted to the news that Netflix was planning to produce a "reboot" of "Lost in Space." That blog -- cleverly headlined "Danger, Danger! Stop 'Rebooting' Our TV Heritage" -- even proposed that "landmark" status be conferred on some vintage TV shows that would make it unlawful to change, remake or otherwise mar the memory of TV shows that millions of us still hold dear.
True to form, that column failed to generate a groundswell of support of any kind for a national TV show preservation law.
It is doubtful that support for such a law will suddenly materialize now either in the wake of the news that CBS intends to modernize "The Twilight Zone."
The announcement last Wednesday said the new series will be produced for CBS’s digital subscription streaming service, CBS All Access, and not for the CBS broadcast network. No premiere date was given.
Nor did the announcement specify whether the new series would consist of episodes remade from the original show or new episodes reflecting our modern-day “Twilight Zone” world.
One expects the latter to be the case judging by the quote they prepared for Peele. “Too many times this year it [has] felt [like] we were living in a twilight zone, and I can't think of a better moment to reintroduce it to modern audiences,” he is quoted as saying in the news release.
The same can be said for any era really, and at other times, Hollywood has felt the “moment” was just as right for a “Twilight Zone” remake as the current moment. The show first aired from 1959 to 1964 and was subsequently revived in 1985 and 2002. In 1983, there was a “Twilight Zone” movie.
As for the claim that modern audiences need a reintroduction to “The Twilight Zone,” that is nonsense.
Because of the proliferation of distribution platforms that are reshaping our industry and the world at this “moment,” episodes of the original “Twilight Zone” can be accessed by anyone at almost any time almost anywhere -- on YouTube, on CBS.com and on that indispensable repository of vintage TV shows, MeTV.
This show is so ubiquitous and still so mesmerizing that anyone attempting to “reboot” it should know going into this challenge that coming out of it looking better than the original is an impossibility.
Rod Serling was a uniquely gifted writer of television screenplays. The title “The Twilight Zone” is his, and forevermore it should be recognized as referring specifically to the shows he wrote and produced from 1959 to 1964.
Not that there is anything wrong with some modern-day TV writer taking up the challenge of producing an anthology series consisting of eerie original stories each week that comment on our contemporary world.
But why do they have to steal this title when everybody knows this new “Twilight Zone” will bear about as much resemblance to the original as this blog post?
Get your own title. And while we'e at it, let's end TV's reboot mania. Surely the TV industry can come up with a better way to develop ideas for new TV shows than plundering its own heritage.
“Twilight Zone” photo, above, from “Eye of the Beholder,” a classic episode from 1960.
Adam, most reboots of TV shows fail because they are redoing programs like "The Honeymooners" or "MacGuyver" which established themeslves in the minds of their fans over a series of continuity episodes, thereby creating a strong bond between the audience because of the assumed characters of their stars, the ongoing "situation", etc. As a rule, the "new" versions, when attempted with different regulars and, often, basic changes in thrust, setting and direction, simply can't recreate the look and emotional linkage that the old series had. But the "Twilight Zone" was an anthology, not a continuing series, with different stars and scenarios in each installment. So I fail to see why the CBS effort is doomed. If they put out an interesting enough product, with decent writing and acting that lures audiences often enough, why not a success? "It may be called "The Twilight Zone" ---as an attention-getting promotional device---but that, plus the sci-fi focus, will be the only connection it will have to the original anthology series.
Also, the Twilight Zone will do well if they make it like the original: basically morality plays. That's what spearated the wheat of The Zone from chaff like "Outer Limits". If they focus on scary monsters and space aliens and zombies and vampires instead, then I agree: the effort is doomed.
What we should remember is that "The Twilight Zone" was far from a rating success, and an attempt to reprise the concept also failed to win large Nielsen ratings. The show became popular, like many "off-network" entries---"Star Trek" being a prime example-----by virtue of Monday- through- Friday stripping, mainly by independents TV stations against network affiliate news and talk shows, more or less forcing younger audiences to watch the reruns as the best alternative. I agree that giving viewers food for thought is important, as opposed to relying too much on monsters, special effects, etc., but I wouldn't go too far in that respect as too much talk and too little action can be the kiss of death for an anthology series. A sensible mix of both elements is what's needed.