"The Howling Man" and "The Invaders." I imagine if I had seen either of these for the first time when I was eight my fondness for them would be off the charts. Watching them, however, while well into adulthood, they're straight horror exercises that mostly come across as juvenile and outdated.
shareI don't say "can't stand",but season 2 was a bit weak then the first season.Currently i'm watching season 3
shareYou're looking at these nearly 60 year old "throwaway" programs through modern jaded eyes. I don't think anyone including Serling thought they'd be seen more than once or twice.
Anyway, the ones I don't like are the ones where the perception of beauty is reversed. I can't think of the names but I think most Zoners know what I'm talking about.
The Eye of the Beholder is what I think you mean as an example.
For the US decade of the 1950s network broadcast television, The Twilight Zone was GROUNDBREAKING programming.
Yep, Eye of the Beholder is one, the other is Number 12 Looks Just Like You.
I'm sure I enjoyed them the first time I saw them (decades ago), but for me at least, they don't replay well.
I don't mind the plot of "The Howling Man", but the whole episode is way over-acted by everyone involved. I do like the sequence of the man becoming the devil. I thought it was a great idea to use the columns as cut points.
shareI agree with you about "The Invaders." Whenever there is a marathon, I leave when that one goes on. Lately, I have been skipping "Willoughby" too. I still think it is a great episode, but it's really a downer to see how much Gart has to suffer.
shareConsidering that everyone around Gart -- his receptionist, his boss, his wife -- is so odious makes for a hard-to-stomach episode. I like though that Serling resists over-explaining Willoughby, leaving its nature, instead, up to the viewer. I've been on many "TZ" boards, and when people discuss Willoughby, often no two readings are alike. That to me is the triumph of this episode -- and the failure of stuff like "Howling" and "Invaders," which pretty much play as "what you see is what you get."
shareMy wife loves Willoughby, presuming of course that as he steps off the train, he's leaving his high pressure job and that shrew of a wife, and now exists forever and always in that quiet, quaint town to live in peace. So while Gart's life was a downer, he finds happiness in his next life.
Since he's shown walking around *after* he stepped off the train, that's the ending we believe was intended.
Perhaps Willoughby is his Heaven much like Hyder's Heaven was Coon hunting ans square dancing in The Hunt!
don't mind me. I was just on The Hunt thread and this subject came up. Perhaps each person has their own personal Heaven.... and Hell.
Agree; not many people would revel in Hyder's heaven like Hyder... And really, if there's indeed a heaven for souls, then the easy part would be making it a custom one for each person to his desires.
shareAs usual, I agree with you. The Invaders is boring and in my opinion has no rewatchability. Once you know the twist, there's no point in sitting through a dull show.
shareSome of the episodes in the '80s "TZ" were only ten minutes and I think for an episode as sparse as "The Invaders" that running time would have fit it like a glove.
shareThe Howling Man,--it's so elegantly made--I like a great deal, while The Invaders, which I enjoyed once, as a child, I find unwatchable now.
It's A Good Life, adapted from a much anthologized short story, which was in every collection of modern short fiction in every public library, and told a good tale, is a Zone I've always disliked.
The Trade-Ins, which had all the right ingredients to be a winner, is one I shall never watch again.
Three "moral tales",--good morals, I suppose--terrible episodes: Judgment Night, Death's Head Revisited and Four O'Clock--are near rock bottom Zones for me. Some consider at least the first two classics or semi-classics, while I don't think anyone likes Four O'Clock.
A Game Of Pool. This one was a favorite of many when first broadcast due to the movie The Hustler having come out around the same time, now plays dull and predictable, with even the acting from the usual very good Jack Klugman and Jackie Gleason unable to save it.
While I'm no huge fan of "The Invaders" either I do think its ending is memorable enough to make it an essential episode -- even if getting there can be rough.
"Four O' Clock" is indeed underwhelming though Theodore Bikel's central performance is pretty great. The radio version of this story is worth seeking out (I think it's on YouTube); it change the ending for the better: in their version Crangle's parrot eats him.
/The Howling Man,--it's so elegantly made--I like a great deal, while The Invaders, which I enjoyed once, as a child, I find unwatchable now./
this I agree with :)
I agree with The Invaders but I love Howling Man. It's one of the episodes I'll go out of my way to watch.
Where Is Everybody is one of the classic episodes I try to avoid. Stopover in a Quiet Town kinda sucks too.
"Can't stand" is a bit harsh, but I will say that It's a Good Life is something I can take or leave. It's one that I have seen enough of.
I'm also not very fond of the ones with Orson Bean and Carol Burnett. Both are the same story.
Yep, I skip those two as well.
We have to realize that the TZ was made in an era where TV programs came and went, with *perhaps* a secondary run as a rerun for the summer fill.
I really doubt that even Mr. Serling himself could have imagined the cultural impact that this show would have almost 60 years later.
The invaders for instance was a very interesting but one-trick pony. Once we realized the invaders were us, it virtually eliminated the rewatchablility of the one woman show. Most other episodes with twists at the end also had clever dialog or compelling human interactions that made them rewatchable.
I so agree with you about Invaders. It's pretty much over for the audience once we see the ending. I never really thought much about it, but you are right about it being different because of the lack of dialogue.
LOL! Mr. Serling isn't the only one who couldn't have imagined the cultural impact that the show would have almost 60 years later. Most of us who watched it back then are amazed as well.
Make that amazed and very pleased.
When you're in one of your moods you remind me of Agnes Moorehead in that episode.
share"Can't stand" is a bit harsh, but I will say that It's a Good Life is something I can take or leave.
I saw an interesting statement on IMDB's user reviews of Twilight Zone episodes, which tied together two things in a way I had never considered before but found myself agreeing with. One of those things was that Serling -- a fine dramatist when at his best -- was also, when at his worst, a preachy moralist taking potshots at straw men. Gotta agree with that.
The other thing was that television was heavily constrained in those days, and writers wanting to present ideas outside the safe, conventional mainstream had to do so by indirect allegory. I doubt if very many people would dispute that either.
What the IMDB commentator suggested was that this constraint might have been the best thing that ever happened to Serling as a writer. When forced to address his ideas indirectly he could come up with wonderful stories. But when allowed to hit his targets directly, because those targets were of the sort no one would jump to defend, he lapsed into Pastor Rod mode.
I don't know if I entirely agree with that ... but I do note that among the episodes I can't stand are "He's Alive," "Deaths-Head Revisited," and "The Obsolete Man"; all of which were written by Serling and, to my estimation, feature cardboard characters playing out childishly simple moral lessons.
While their preachiness is irrefutable I do enjoy the claustrophobic-feel of all three and how cynical and bleak for Network TV, then and now, they remain. Plus the supernatural element in both "Deaths-Head" and "He's Alive" is pretty subtle; it's left to the viewer to decide whether either has one at all.
shareNecroposting here, I know ... but I made a comment in another thread in these forums and put out an idea which is also relevant here. I wasn't thinking of this several days ago when I made my first comment here, but I'll go ahead and throw it in now. In the other thread, I said:
"The very essence of fiction is to invite the audience to sympathize with the protagonist; to experience the same emotional reactions the POV character does as events happen. Otherwise, what's the point of [presenting an idea] *as fiction* -- of writing a story about character X, exploring X's experiences, relationships with others, beliefs, etc -- while never expecting or desiring that one's audience should mentally put themselves in X's shoes?"
It's been a while since I've seen any of the three episodes I named, and I'm a little hazy on the details. But from what I recall, by that standard "The Obsolete Man" has no problems. It's easy enough for the audience to place themselves in the POV character's shoes. Still a preachy diatribe, though.
"He's Alive" -- an interesting demonstration that successful fiction does not have to have a morally good and admirable POV character; in fact, it's almost always better if the POV character has some serious flaws. Whatever one thinks of the POV guy's politics, more broadly, he's also a loser who got a shot at the brass ring but found it meant dealing with forces that were far larger than him. A very warped take on the American dream, perhaps; little guy makes it big, but success has its dark side.
But "Deaths-Head Revisited" ... ugh! It's like watching a rabid dog, running around, growling and foaming at the mouth, until finally captured and euthanized ... and here the story is told from the rabid dog's POV. Wow. Just ... wow. I'm tempted to pull it up on Hulu and watch it again, just to see if it's as bad as I recall it being, but I can't quite make myself do it. :)