You're not going to believe this, but Cosgrove/Meurer Productions and HBO Television Distribution are discussing plans to resurrect Unsolved Mysteries!

Since Lifetime's deal with the show expires in 2008, the producers are seeking potential buyers. So there's no word yet on what network will eventually acquire the show. UM producer John Cosgrove is hoping to hire Clancy Brown as the new host, but Brown has said that he is unavailable.

Check out the article for more details.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6454879.html

Wow, 150+ new episodes?!?! man, 2008 can't get here quick enough.

Please don't play with my emotions!!!!!!!! Let it be true!!!! :) :)

Well on one hand it would be great to see new UM's on the air. I think its great they're finally wanting to do updates to some of the older segments that have been solved. However I'm a bit worried at all the changes they want to do to it. I don't want them to get rid of all the things that made UM great. That last comment about some people that saw the new episode "didn't even recognize it" concerns me. Is anyone else in agreement?

Well there are several things that bother me about this honestly - It sounds like they are going to re-edit the segments again. Why can't they just broadcast the episodes of the show as originally aired? - That would be real um "original" to say the least. Also what Crystaldawn noted should be a huge concern as well for a lot of us "old school" fans.

I understand that if Clancy Brown is unavailable to take the position as host, HBO is thinking of contacting Heather Graupmann to come aboard to be the new host. The simple reason is that Graupmann is cute, trim and ready to party apparently. With all due respect to the late Robert Stack such adjectives never really described him

That's good news but it wouldn't be the same without Robert Stack. :rip: I think Jonathan Frakes would be a good host, though, as he did that Fact or Fiction show before. I hope they keep the old theme, too - it rules!!

Well on one hand it would be great to see new UM's on the air. I think its great they're finally wanting to do updates to some of the older segments that have been solved. However I'm a bit worried at all the changes they want to do to it. I don't want them to get rid of all the things that made UM great. That last comment about some people that saw the new episode "didn't even recognize it" concerns me. Is anyone else in agreement?

I have concerns about that, too. One has to question the true motive for giving a series a makeover. It's one thing to do some tweaking here and there, but it's another make an extreme overhaul. The latter is often done out of desperation. In other words, some show producers are so desperate to keep a series afloat that they will sometimes resort to drastic changes. The important lesson here is to maintain as much originality as possible.

even though I'm not thrilled with the new changes, it's better than nothing. But the fact that they would be changing it doesn't suprise me. nowadays, nothing is as good as it once was. The main change that concerned me was expanding the number of segment per show from 4 to 5. A lof the existing segments were time-compressed as it is, leaving out important details. So the average segment lasting 7 minutes if of great concern to me.

Oh my gosh, I trying to catch my breath here!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I haven't read the article yet, but as of right now, I'm in heaven....................................................................:crazy:

Oh my gosh, I trying to catch my breath here!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I haven't read the article yet, but as of right now, I'm in heaven....................................................................:crazy:


Quoting myself here, but I read the article, I guess only time will tell how this refurbished UM will look. I have no idea who Clancy Brown is, but he bears a striking resemblance to Robert in his youth. I would kill for this gig btw, I modeled and dabbled in acting in my youth/teens, my dream job was co-hosting with Robert! Ahhhhhhhhh my first love :D

I understand that if Clancy Brown is unavailable to take the position as host, HBO is thinking of contacting Heather Graupmann to come aboard to be the new host. The simple reason is that Graupmann is cute, trim and ready to party apparently. With all due respect to the late Robert Stack such adjectives never really described him

I think she would be perfect for the job...;)

The simple reason is that Graupmann is cute, trim and ready to party apparently. With all due respect to the late Robert Stack such adjectives never really described him

LOL.... and you guys give ME crap about my supposed "love affair" with Dislimb? That's hilarious! ;)

On a serious note... Heather, you'd be a great host. And if the show comes back, I'll be very happy. I'm a cynic, though. I'm not going to get my hopes up until it actually happens.

^ Shows how much I know, I thought you and Perman Gilbert would really hit it off ;)

LOL, Dante. I thought it was clear that my loyalties lie with Jesse James Hollywood. :D

Me no like.

First of all, the only thing really promised for sure here are re-edits of the old episodes, and it sounds like they are embarking on doing some real hack-jobs:

HBO began knocking on doors last week, offering an all-cash deal for 175 refurbished episodes of the documentary-style series about unsolved crimes and paranormal occurrences... Work is under way to expand the number of unsolved evergreen stories from four to five per episode, each cut down to a maximum of seven minutes. Cosgrove/Meurer and HBO are choosing their material from 900 hours of footage shot for the original 255 episodes.

I assume that the cute little term "evergreen stories" is the subtle way of saying that these re-edited episodes will feature stories largely of the unsolvable variety --- UFOs, Bigfoot, and sea lizards. "Evergren" because, as they are not solvable particularly, they are also never out of date. So, good-bye really interesting stuff like random unsolved murders from the late 80s and early 90s.

I also strongly dislike the idea of editing down old segments to 7 minutes worth of substance. In a general way, I object to the trend in all of entertainment towards breaking things into shorter and shorter segments. Trailers never let you see one continuous image from a forthcoming film for more than 6 seconds. Television commercial breaks are longer, but the length of any individual commercial is dramatically shorter than it once was. Shows in a half hour time slot now barely run more than 20 minutes. Everything is being cut, shortened, and "compressed," and the collective ability of anyone in this country to pay attention to anything for more than 10 consecutive minutes is paying the price. No wonder noone reads anymore.

One of the great problems with UM segments as they stood (as much as I enjoy them) was that they oversimplified situations and distorted facts to squeeze often quite complex stories into 12 minute blocks of time. Now they're going to cut back the "USA Today" version of events UM often gave to seven minutes per story? We just went from USA Today to US Weekly.

The idea of new segments is intriguing, but it sounds distinctly less likely:

Carlin and Cosgrove say that new weekly original episodes are also a distinct possibility and could come as part of the initial deal or at some point later.

I'll call myself "cautiously pessimistic" about this update on my beloved show. If it's beyond all recognition (change the music? are they serious? for the love of God, why?), what's the point? At least 50% of the show's appeal was its gritty, grainy format in those early years.

I have no idea who Clancy Brown is, but he bears a striking resemblance to Robert in his youth.

Clancy Brown is a character actor who has also done a good amount of voice work, including the voice of Lex Luthor in the Superman cartoon series. He made his movie debut in the 1983 Sean Penn movie Bad Boys. His other film credits include: Dead Man Walking, The Shawshank Redemption, Starship Troopers, and Blue Steel.

You might also recognize Clancy Brown as the voice of Mr. Krabs from Spongebob Squarepants.

http://entimg.msn.com/i/150/Movies/Actors3/brown_sd239859_150x200.jpg

^ Hey now there is an idea! - Maybe Spongebob Squarepants could be the new host of UM!!!!!

You might also recognize Clancy Brown as the voice of Mr. Krabs from Spongebob Squarepants.

http://entimg.msn.com/i/150/Movies/Actors3/brown_sd239859_150x200.jpg

Thanks for posting that picture Zoneboy. My little girls are huge fans so I had them come in and see what Mr. Krabs looks like. :)

Spongebob as the new host...I don't think I could bear to hear that voice for an hour at a time. :lol:

Can they renamed the show though, so if it's crap like the last several years of UM, Robert Stack and rest peacefully in his grave rather than turning over in it.

Unsolved Mysteries will never die. They've already have brought it back twice. For 2001-02 on Lifetime, they already repackaged and refurbished the episodes once. I'm not sure what else they can do. I hope that they wouldn't re-narrate all of the segments, but that seems possible with a new host. Clancy Brown does look a little like Robert Stack and has a distinctive voice, so they wouldn't be a bad choice if they can get him. I wouldn't like it if they edited the segments down even more, but I like that would feature more unsolved cold cases. At some point, the solved cases get a little repetitive.

LOL, Dante. I thought it was clear that my loyalties lie with Jesse James Hollywood. :D

:heart: :eyes: :heart: :eyes:

I vote for Heather Graupmann for new hostess as well. Plus, whenever a case occured in a poster's home state, they could maybe be the co-host for that segment.

Well this is interesting. I am not so thrilled with the idea of a major overhaul and changes to the show, but the mere fact that they are interested in resurrecting it is great.

I've got an idea for the new Unsolved Mysteries: For each case, they should present all the facts, theories and get all sides of the story like they usually did, and then include a number where you can vote on which scenario you think happened. I think this would be particularly interesting on the Final Appeal cases. I would love for some of those final appeal segments to have had this, then maybe some of those arrogant prosecutors on UM would think twice before being so confident.

I've got an idea for the new Unsolved Mysteries: For each case, they should present all the facts, theories and get all sides of the story like they usually did, and then include a number where you can vote on which scenario you think happened. I think this would be particularly interesting on the Final Appeal cases. I would love for some of those final appeal segments to have had this, then maybe some of those arrogant prosecutors on UM would think twice before being so confident.

Sounds interesting. Make UM into a more interactive show either with a call-in or online voting system. Interesting indeed. :)

And Clancy Brown would be a good pick as the new host.

Even though Stack wont be there (RIP) and they will make some changes, UM is UM. The old episodes will be better, but atleast we will get UM. They should even air new episodes with current missing person/fugitive cases.

I've got an idea for the new Unsolved Mysteries: For each case, they should present all the facts, theories and get all sides of the story like they usually did, and then include a number where you can vote on which scenario you think happened. I think this would be particularly interesting on the Final Appeal cases. I would love for some of those final appeal segments to have had this, then maybe some of those arrogant prosecutors on UM would think twice before being so confident.


Thats a very good idea. Reminds me of that show Beyond Belief Fact Or Fiction. Thats a good show too that should be brought back on air!

I hope UM does come back. I'm just curious to see who would be the New host. Now the thing I don't get is, if Lifetime has the rights to show UM until 2008, why aren't they showing UM? It's only 2007!

I hope UM does come back. I'm just curious to see who would be the New host. Now the thing I don't get is, if Lifetime has the rights to show UM until 2008, why aren't they showing UM? It's only 2007!

I would guess that Lifetime's contract with the show was signed before they removed the show from their lineup. So matter what, Lifetime can't get out of that contract until its expiration in 2008.

Just my two cents worth.

I vote for Heather Graupmann for new hostess as well. Plus, whenever a case occured in a poster's home state, they could maybe be the co-host for that segment.

YES! That means that I'll get to be on quite a few of the segments! Some of my favorites, too! Dexter Stefonick, Nyleen Kay Marshall, Patricia Meehan.... and I'll arm wrestle anyone over jurisdiction on the Lisa Marie Kimmel case.

I would guess that Lifetime's contract with the show was signed before they removed the show from their lineup. So matter what, Lifetime can't get out of that contract until its expiration in 2008.

Just my two cents worth.


Well.... they COULD get out of the contract, but I'm not going to bore you all with the details on HOW. :) I think you're most likely right, Kane. Lifetime has probably decided to shelve the show rather then go through all the hassles of breaking a contract...

I thought they couldn't break the contract, and would Have to show UM until 2008.

Mixed feelings about this. While I'm delighted that UM may be back on TV, I don't like the "changes" they seem to be proposing...I like UM just the way it was! I don't want them editing the segments!

I thought they couldn't break the contract, and would Have to show UM until 2008.

Generally, from my limited understanding of Contract Law, Lifetime is under NO obligation to show UM until 2008. They have a contract which gives them exclusive rights to the show, but they are free to do whatever they'd like with the show until 2008. (As we can see, since they've taken it out of the lineup.)

Now... what I was eluding to earlier was that HBO could attempt to "buy out" Lifetime's contract. However, given that they are talking about revamping the show... it seems unlikely to me that they will do this, especially since 2008 is only 6 months away and that a "breach of contract" suit would be a HUGE pain. Like I said, this is a LIMITED understanding of contract law, but I thought I'd toss it out there. Cut me some slack, folks! I'm studying for the Bar Exam as we speak! :)

Mixed feelings about this. While I'm delighted that UM may be back on TV, I don't like the "changes" they seem to be proposing...I like UM just the way it was! I don't want them editing the segments!

I agree. I read the piece about UM being 'resurrected' and, IMO, I don't care for the proposed changes.

The piece said that there will be new 'computer graphics/effects' in order to bring the show to 'current standards'. In other words... a dumbed-down version designed to appeal more to the 'young set'. Blah. puke:

Then again... I shouldn't be surprised. Television in general has been slowly going into the crapper for the last 10-15 years anyway so why should this be any different?

Generally, from my limited understanding of Contract Law, Lifetime is under NO obligation to show UM until 2008. They have a contract which gives them exclusive rights to the show, but they are free to do whatever they'd like with the show until 2008. (As we can see, since they've taken it out of the lineup.)

Now... what I was eluding to earlier was that HBO could attempt to "buy out" Lifetime's contract. However, given that they are talking about revamping the show... it seems unlikely to me that they will do this, especially since 2008 is only 6 months away and that a "breach of contract" suit would be a HUGE pain. Like I said, this is a LIMITED understanding of contract law, but I thought I'd toss it out there. Cut me some slack, folks! I'm studying for the Bar Exam as we speak! :)

Aren't there laws, as there are in sports, against "tampering" with another network's deal with a producer/show? In other words, couldn't HBO get in trouble just for negotiating with Cosgrove while it is still under contract with Lifetime?

I guess not, but I was surprised by the timing of the article. I would think Lifetime might have a legitimate beef & possible law suit if there appears to be a "handshake" agreement to redo the show for another network before the show's contract is up with Lifetime.

Now... what I was eluding to earlier was that HBO could attempt to "buy out" Lifetime's contract. However, given that they are talking about revamping the show... it seems unlikely to me that they will do this, especially since 2008 is only 6 months away and that a "breach of contract" suit would be a HUGE pain. Like I said, this is a LIMITED understanding of contract law, but I thought I'd toss it out there.

I agree that it would be "a HUGE pain." I mean, if Lifetime were to try and get out of its deal with UM prematurely, the network would only be increasing the risk of a legal process that would drag on to the point where there would be no resolution until long after their rights to the show have expired. So it would be pointless for Lifetime to make any attempt to get rid of its obligation with UM when the obligation is set to expire in a year anyway. Not only would such an action likely cause a long delay in UM making a transition from Lifetime to another network, but it would also be a waste of time and money. In other words, it would only cause more trouble than it's worth.

Generally, from my limited understanding of Contract Law, Lifetime is under NO obligation to show UM until 2008. They have a contract which gives them exclusive rights to the show, but they are free to do whatever they'd like with the show until 2008. (As we can see, since they've taken it out of the lineup.)

Now... what I was eluding to earlier was that HBO could attempt to "buy out" Lifetime's contract. However, given that they are talking about revamping the show... it seems unlikely to me that they will do this, especially since 2008 is only 6 months away and that a "breach of contract" suit would be a HUGE pain. Like I said, this is a LIMITED understanding of contract law, but I thought I'd toss it out there. Cut me some slack, folks! I'm studying for the Bar Exam as we speak! :)
Thanks.

I agree. I read the piece about UM being 'resurrected' and, IMO, I don't care for the proposed changes.

The piece said that there will be new 'computer graphics/effects' in order to bring the show to 'current standards'. In other words... a dumbed-down version designed to appeal more to the 'young set'. Blah. puke:

I agree with you, hyetev, and in this case it's really saying something IMO, because I am a relatively younger person that enjoys older television programs. I just can't get into any of today's programming. It just irritates me, because these people think that evertyhing has to be catered to younger people such as myself, and I don't believe it should be. I would imagine that people 18-39 probably watch the least amount of television in the fist place.

even though I'm not thrilled with the new changes, it's better than nothing. But the fact that they would be changing it doesn't suprise me. nowadays, nothing is as good as it once was. The main change that concerned me was expanding the number of segment per show from 4 to 5. A lof the existing segments were time-compressed as it is, leaving out important details. So the average segment lasting 7 minutes if of great concern to me.

According to the article it's already a DONE DEAL since HBO has acquired the rights to UM so it WILL BE COMING BACK!! But does this mean that the show might not even air on HBO and instead they will offer it to networks who can show it on their network?

And if it is being shown on HBO then five 7 minutes segments is only 35 minutes and HBO does not have commercials.

I really hope it DOES NOT air on HBO since that would prevent a lot of people who don't pay extra for HBO from watching UM.

And what's the point if they don't bring back NEW STORIES?? They have to have NEW STORIES yet that didn't seem to be a priority in the article!

Intersestingly, Clancy Brown could be the Raymond Burr of the new Unsoved Mysteries by just hosting the pilot! I'll have to make sure i'm ready to record it when the time comes.

According to the article it's already a DONE DEAL since HBO has acquired the rights to UM so it WILL BE COMING BACK!! But does this mean that the show might not even air on HBO and instead they will offer it to networks who can show it on their network?

The article never explicitly said anything about UM being shown on HBO. It should be noted that just because HBO's distribution wing has acquired the rights to the show doesn't necessarily mean that will be shown on HBO.

In fact, research will show that not all HBO-produced or HBO-distributed shows were broadcast on HBO. One such example is the '90s sitcom Roc, which was produced by HBO Independent Productions, but aired on Fox.

I think what the details in the article meant was that Buena Vista Television will no longer be distributing UM. Hence HBO's acquisition of the distribution rights to UM.

Besides, parts of the article hinted that another cable network will be acquiring the show. For example, notice the second sentence in the article, which mentions the plan to make the show "attractive to network buyers." To me, this is a clear hint that they will be shopping to other networks.

Poop on lifetime.

:bash:


I'm confused; are they revamping the old segments as well? Or are they showing only new ones? Also, what was the source for this article, I mean it's obviously legit right?

If they take new cases, I could always try to be on it, I'm adopted and looking for my mum! "Kamy on "Lost Loves". Yeah, yeah, our favorite segments! LOL

I'm confused; are they revamping the old segments as well? Or are they showing only new ones? Also, what was the source for this article, I mean it's obviously legit right?

Well, the article said something about a deal for "175 refurbished episodes" (and refurbish is another word for revamp). It also noted that new episodes are "a distinct possibility."

Apparently, Broadcasting & Cable tends to be among the first sources to report announcements related to television programming. So as time passes and more articles on this come along, it will become increasingly evident that what Broadcasting & Cable has reported about UM is legit.

Well, the article said something about a deal for "175 refurbished episodes" (and refurbish is another word for revamp). It also noted that new episodes are "a distinct possibility."

Apparently, Broadcasting & Cable tends to be among the first sources to report announcements related to television programming. So as time passes and more articles on this come along, it will become increasingly evident that what Broadcasting & Cable has reported about UM is legit.


Ohhh, I'd love to see the Tallman's Ghost segment revamped; I always wanted to see cool special effects done on the witch/old lady that the kids seen in their bedroom! It freaked me out when the uncle or the dad (I can't remember which) was on the floor sleeping and saw smoke and woke up and screamed because "she" was standing right there.

The special effects could either be really cool or really cheesy and over the top. Although, I am quite fond of the grainy-ness of the old ones. Very spooky and old school. Don't fix it if it ain't broke!

I agree with you, hyetev, and in this case it's really saying something IMO, because I am a relatively younger person that enjoys older television programs. I just can't get into any of today's programming. It just irritates me, because these people think that evertyhing has to be catered to younger people such as myself, and I don't believe it should be. I would imagine that people 18-39 probably watch the least amount of television in the fist place.

I can identify with your sentiments. I was a big fan of TV in general back in my childhood... back when 'quality' was the name of the game. Thank God the studios are doing at least a SOMEWHAT decent job of releasing older classics on DVD. :) I do wish that UM could get the complete DVD treatment but at least we have Heather's discs ;) and the First Look boxsets for now.

I hate to say this but the future of UM will probably be bleak in a similar way to that of The Price Is Right: when a venerable host retires (or passes on) the show will never be the same. UM will lose its 'edge' the way TPIR will lose it. Just my opinion, of course.

It just irritates me, because these people think that evertyhing has to be catered to younger people such as myself, and I don't believe it should be. I would imagine that people 18-39 probably watch the least amount of television in the fist place.

Likely true, but men in that age group spend more money than anybody else (esp. compared to women - thank you, gender wage gap), and it's all about the advertising dollars. So it's not necessarily that younger people are stupid, with short attention spans and an inability to appreciate anything older-tech; it's that well-off, spendthrift men are. I guess this is good news (?).

However, I'm interested in this "plan to add newly produced updates—the most popular segments of the original series—that will focus on the solving of crimes and shedding new light on cold cases, which make up 60% of the stories." I'd almost sell my soul to find out for sure what the deal is with the Wackers, and what "cheaper, but will do" is about.

The article never explicitly said anything about UM being shown on HBO. It should be noted that just because HBO's distribution wing has acquired the rights to the show doesn't necessarily mean that will be shown on HBO.

In fact, research will show that not all HBO-produced or HBO-distributed shows were broadcast on HBO. One such example is the '90s sitcom Roc, which was produced by HBO Independent Productions, but aired on Fox.

I think what the details in the article meant was that Buena Vista Television will no longer be distributing UM. Hence HBO's acquisition of the distribution rights to UM.

Besides, parts of the article hinted that another cable network will be acquiring the show. For example, notice the second sentence in the article, which mentions the plan to make the show "attractive to network buyers." To me, this is a clear hint that they will be shopping to other networks.

Yeah, they better put it on a free cable network so there will be no need to pay an extra monthly premium just for 1 extra channel. They would lose a lot of potential viewers if they put it only on HBO.

Is there any chance UM could come back to national network TV?

But it would be best if it came back to a free cable network since it would probably last longer. The big 4 national networks tend to have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to cancelling shows.

Is there any chance UM could come back to national network TV?

I wouldn't hold my breath.

But it would be best if it came back to a free cable network since it would probably last longer. The big 4 national networks tend to have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to cancelling shows.

Very true. I may or may not be in the minority, but I am not interested in the seeing UM coming back to primetime. Two of the reasons for that are what you indicated: 1) the networks tend to be quick on the trigger to cancel a show that doesn't do well enough for them, and 2) certain shows have a better chance at longevity on cable than on primetime.

One great example of the latter is Biography. You may not know this, but the Biography series existed years before there was cable. It ran for a few years in the 1960s, with Mike Wallace as the narrator. Then it was briefly revived in 1979, narrated by the late David Janssen, only to be canceled again. And then it was revived for the cable channel A&E in 1987, becoming so popular that it led to the creation of the Biography Channel. Biography is a rarity, having become more successful as a first-run cable series than it was in its non-cable run.

Having said that, I strongly believe that nowadays UM would stand a far better chance at a consistent, long run on cable than on any non-cable network.

I wouldn't hold my breath.



Very true. I may or may not be in the minority, but I am not interested in the seeing UM coming back to primetime. Two of the reasons for that are what you indicated: 1) the networks tend to be quick on the trigger to cancel a show that doesn't do well enough for them, and 2) certain shows have a better chance at longevity on cable than on primetime.

One great example of the latter is Biography. You may not know this, but the Biography series existed years before there was cable. It ran for a few years in the 1960s, with Mike Wallace as the narrator. Then it was briefly revived in 1979, narrated by the late David Janssen, only to be canceled again. And then it was revived for the cable channel A&E in 1987, becoming so popular that it led to the creation of the Biography Channel. Biography is a rarity, having become more successful as a first-run cable series than it was in its non-cable run.

Having said that, I strongly believe that nowadays UM would stand a far better chance at a consistent, long run on cable than on any non-cable network.

Maybe one day we'll get the "Unsolved Mysteries" channel!!!! Oh the day...............:eek:

I would love to have it back..... but still have a few mixed feelings about it. Sounds like a contradiction doesn't it? :D I just feel that while the cases were the important part not having Bob Stack there wouldn't be the same. HE MADE THAT SHOW!! Some may argue he had no emotion in his voice but I would argue the opposite. He delivered the right amount to get the sentiment across. I don't enjoy watching the Karl Malden/Raymond Burr episodes as much as the Stack ones. I am not familiar with the people you are discussing as I don't live in the U.S but whoever they are they would have to be a worthy replacement.

Well I feel a lot of us are fans of the show in a retrospective/nostalgic way - Yes we would like to see new episodes of course but we wouldn't want to sacrifice the quality of a show which in its heyday was one of the most groundbreaking and interesting shows on television. I'm glad its coming back for the sole reason that if they profile new cases it might help some people out by solving some crimes or reuniting Lost Loves (if they still intend to profile "Lost Loves" cases).

I don't like several aspects of the revamp and that sentiment is shared among others on the forum. But to be fair maybe that is a moot point as most of us have a good deal of the series already through tape trading and whatnot.

PS: You'll find that the "bitchiness" on this forum is not only reserved for the revamped UM coming in 2008 but many of us don't enjoy the show as much past say 1994. Personally I feel the best segments were aired from 1987-1992 and after that the show started to go downhill. They still had some great segments but usually the cases that are most discussed here fall in the timeline of 1987-early 90s.

I would love to have it back..... but still have a few mixed feelings about it. Sounds like a contradiction doesn't it? :D I just feel that while the cases were the important part not having Bob Stack there wouldn't be the same. HE MADE THAT SHOW!! Some may argue he had no emotion in his voice but I would argue the opposite. He delivered the right amount to get the sentiment across. I don't enjoy watching the Karl Malden/Raymond Burr episodes as much as the Stack ones. I am not familiar with the people you are discussing as I don't live in the U.S but whoever they are they would have to be a worthy replacement.

All this debate about the possibility of UM coming back with a new host coincides with the impending host change for The Price Is Right. As you probably know, Rosie O'Donnell was among numerous candidates to succeed the retiring Bob Barker. This has sparked outrage from a lot of Price is Right fans, many of whom have warned that they would boycott the show if she is hired. Even though I only watch TPIR occasionally (as I am at work during the day), I agree with a lot of people that the game show will not be the same without Bob Barker. In addition, I share their objection over the idea of Rosie O'Donnell taking over, especially since she has a habit of rubbing people the wrong way.

But this demonstrates an important point: if any given show has to continue with a new host, the studio should always be very careful who they choose for a successor. Continuing a show without its beloved host is hard enough, but hiring someone that people detest (or are generally uneasy with) would be worse.

Sounds great. I'd love to see new updates on old cases. It won't be the same without Robert Stack.

All this debate about the possibility of UM coming back with a new host coincides with the impending host change for The Price Is Right. As you probably know, Rosie O'Donnell was among numerous candidates to succeed the retiring Bob Barker. This has sparked outrage from a lot of Price is Right fans, many of whom have warned that they would boycott the show if she is hired. Even though I only watch TPIR occasionally (as I am at work during the day), I agree with a lot of people that the game show will not be the same without Bob Barker. In addition, I share their objection over the idea of Rosie O'Donnell taking over, especially since she has a habit of rubbing people the wrong way.

But this demonstrates an important point: if any given show has to continue with a new host, the studio should always be very careful who they choose for a successor. Continuing a show without its beloved host is hard enough, but hiring someone that people detest (or are generally uneasy with) would be worse.

Yes, those are some great points, Kane. Once a person gets comfortable with a host/actor, as I think we all have with Stack, it will be hard to adjust to the "newbie".

The problem with selecting a new host is this: I think we would ideally want someone who actually cares about these cases, as opposed to most celebrity types who would just be in it for the money, or use it as a stepping stone for some other opportunity. That was the great thing about Stack, one would get the impression that he genuinely cared about what was going on and his involvement in the show. He was already established in the industry at that point, so there wasn't much worry about him using the show to elevate him in the industry. Finding someone in the industry these days who fits that criteria will be a tough job.

I know I've mentioned John Goodman in the past, at least on one or two occasions. I'll still say he fits the bill, I caught a few glimpses of him when he was doing the programs for the sick children, and he definitely seemed to genuinely care. He's versatile, which helps. As he can do serious roles, which is what UM is most of the time, but we would occasionally get a laugh or smile out of Stack, and Goodman certainly has the comedy part nailed as well.

I looooooooooove John Goodman! But I'm also diggin' this Clancy Brown guy, he seems to look the part well, but I agree, UM needs someone who genuinly cares and isn't just in it for the money. Hell, I'd host it for free!

So we've heard:
Clancy Brown
John Goodman


who else? :confused:

I am super stoked that it will come back, and I know that it will because the topic is too hot to not make a show about. Who is not interested in unsolved mysteries? It is human nature to be intrigued by things that are unsolved or that we cannot explain. My question is why it has been off the air for as long as it has been now. I hope they find the right host, and I'm sure they will. They need someone who is intelligent and laid back sounding like stack. A host could make or break the show(see AMW, as I cannot watch this show because of the annoying voice of walsh). Hopefully these new episodes will draw more attention and take away viewers from the death of tv as we know it which is reality tv. Anyways, I think there are many unsolved mysteries out there right now that could have been solved if this show were on the air the past few years. Ratings and networks are a tragic thing.

Yes, those are some great points, Kane. Once a person gets comfortable with a host/actor, as I think we all have with Stack, it will be hard to adjust to the "newbie".

The problem with selecting a new host is this: I think we would ideally want someone who actually cares about these cases, as opposed to most celebrity types who would just be in it for the money, or use it as a stepping stone for some other opportunity. That was the great thing about Stack, one would get the impression that he genuinely cared about what was going on and his involvement in the show. He was already established in the industry at that point, so there wasn't much worry about him using the show to elevate him in the industry. Finding someone in the industry these days who fits that criteria will be a tough job.

There's no doubt in my mind that Robert Stack genuinely cared about the cases he presented. That's the kind of person needed for the job of hosting a show like UM. Besides, he also showed a legitimate pro-law enforcement mentality, and it showed in numerous statements that he made in interviews. This included one from a 1996 interview in Parade magazine in which he was quoted as saying: "As a matter of national survival, we need to do the best we can to sponsor the good guys, and to do something active about bringing down the bad guys."

I also agree with you 100% about the "celebrity types" comment. Besides, there a lot of opportunists in Hollywood. But Robert Stack was clearly not among them. And that is one of main reasons why he is missed. (Kudos to Mr. Stack for not joining the ranks of Hollywood's "useful idiots.")

Maybe one day we'll get the "Unsolved Mysteries" channel!!!! Oh the day...............:eek:

:lol: That's pretty funny, Kamy.

Admittedly, I'm not holding my breath for an Unsolved Mysteries channel, although it would be nice to have a channel devoted to non-fiction programming that includes shows like UM. By the way, it should be noted that the Biography channel's programming isn't limited to the Biography series; it has been known to air other documentary shows.

In any case, what I said about Biography in one of my previous posts is a good example of a former non-cable series that has enjoyed considerable success after being revived as a first-run cable series. Indeed, a number of other classic documentary/reality shows were also revived as first-run cable shows with various degrees of success (including Ripley's Believe It Or Not, which was revived for TBS in January 2000, and lasted until 2003). But A&E's revival of Biography turned out to be far more successful than what audiences probably expected or hoped for.

I hope they still put some ghost stories on.I use to love watching those paranormal episodes.

I assume that the cute little term "evergreen stories" is the subtle way of saying that these re-edited episodes will feature stories largely of the unsolvable variety --- UFOs, Bigfoot, and sea lizards. "Evergren" because, as they are not solvable particularly, they are also never out of date. So, good-bye really interesting stuff like random unsolved murders from the late 80s and early 90s.


Hello all -- been reading for a while but never posted since I don't feel like I have quite the same level of "expertise" regarding the show as most of you (I make a fool of myself enough in real life, no use doing it here too!), but I actually can comment (sort of) intelligently on this issue.

"Evergreen" is just an old journalism term for (as Mozartpc correctly inferred) a story that isn't time-sensitive but will likely generate interest anyway. Media outlets keep a ready supply of them on hand for slow news days; they make for good "filler" material because they never really get stale and given the human interest qualities typically associated with these kinds of stories, there's always an audience for them.

That being said, I don't think this necessarily means that the new UM will only contain the UFO-type drivel that characterized the series' later years. High-profile murder or missing-persons cases are generally guaranteed to draw in viewers, no matter when they occurred, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a few of these featured. Also, if a particular topic has been in the news quite a bit lately (child abduction, for example), I would expect stories of that nature to be featured rather heavily as well. People never stop worrying about serial killers and kidnappers (at least, that's what the media think), so anything involving those issues could conceivably fall into the "evergreen" category.

Of course, I could be completely off, and we could all be looking forward to a whole lot of alien encounters, grainy footage of the Loch Ness Monster and crazy ladies with gold foil tongues. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Going back to my tower now . . . thanks for humoring me. :wave:

Hello all -- been reading for a while but never posted since I don't feel like I have quite the same level of "expertise" regarding the show as most of you (I make a fool of myself enough in real life, no use doing it here too!), but I actually can comment (sort of) intelligently on this issue.

"Evergreen" is just an old journalism term for (as Mozartpc correctly inferred) a story that isn't time-sensitive but will likely generate interest anyway. Media outlets keep a ready supply of them on hand for slow news days; they make for good "filler" material because they never really get stale and given the human interest qualities typically associated with these kinds of stories, there's always an audience for them.

That being said, I don't think this necessarily means that the new UM will only contain the UFO-type drivel that characterized the series' later years. High-profile murder or missing-persons cases are generally guaranteed to draw in viewers, no matter when they occurred, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a few of these featured. Also, if a particular topic has been in the news quite a bit lately (child abduction, for example), I would expect stories of that nature to be featured rather heavily as well. People never stop worrying about serial killers and kidnappers (at least, that's what the media think), so anything involving those issues could conceivably fall into the "evergreen" category.

Of course, I could be completely off, and we could all be looking forward to a whole lot of alien encounters, grainy footage of the Loch Ness Monster and crazy ladies with gold foil tongues. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Going back to my tower now . . . thanks for humoring me. :wave:

Great post..welcome to the board! :wave:

My question is where are they coming up with these segments for the new UM's they're making and going to show to potential buyers? Is there somewhere where people can submit ideas? I wonder how that worked before UM originally aired too. Did NBC advertise they were starting a new show about unsolved mysteries and encouraged people to call or write in if they had ideas. I assume thats how it worked.

Hmm, I dunno.

I liked seeing the old shows on Lifetime, but I wonder how it even got their in the first place, lol. But since they've removed the afternoon airings last year I've been waiting for it to return. But if they are going to cut the late 80's-early 90's stories, there won't be much to watch for me. I'd like updates and see what happened to these people/murders. Also I'd usually switch out of the UFO/Urban Myth stories; I found those particulary boring and I was more interested in the unsolved murders/missing people/lost loves stories. But if they want to update those stories, then by all means they should do them. I'm also open to a new host; I mean replacing Stack isn't going to be a easy thing to do, but as long as whoever replaces him doesn't suck, then I dont mind :)

..that is, if this does come into frutition. Maybe they're just messing with us. I dunno, I'd even like to see the old episodes air somewhere other than Lifetime. Are they still airing it on Lifetime Real Women or whatever the spinoff channel is called?

I'm also open to a new host; I mean replacing Stack isn't going to be a easy thing to do, but as long as whoever replaces him doesn't suck, then I dont mind :)

I hear ya! Finding a suitable successor for a popular TV host is never easy. The Price is Right has gone through that situation, as the TV executives sought a successor for the now-retired Bob Barker.

As you probably heard, Rosie O'Donnell was a candidate for the hosting job on The Price is Right, but many fans of the show expressed their opposition. And I happen to share their objections to her.

It is one thing to replace a popular host, but it is another to replace a popular host with someone who is unsuitable or dislikable. So let's hope the power-that-be are careful about who they choose as the new host of UM. Hiring the wrong person could result in the death of the show! :eek:


Are they still airing it on Lifetime Real Women or whatever the spinoff channel is called?

Nope. The show is not on the current lineup of either Lifetime or LRW. :(

I hear ya! Finding a suitable successor for a popular TV host is never easy. The Price is Right has gone through that situation, as the TV executives sought a successor for the now-retired Bob Barker.

As you probably heard, Rosie O'Donnell was a candidate for the hosting job on The Price is Right, but many fans of the show expressed their opposition. And I happen to share their objections to her.

It is one thing to replace a popular host, but it is another to replace a popular host with someone who is unsuitable or dislikable. So let's hope the power-that-be are careful about who they choose as the new host of UM. Hiring the wrong person could result in the death of the show! :eek:




Nope. The show is not on the current lineup of either Lifetime or LRW. :(

Of course you don't like her .. you subscribe to the Bush/CONservative school of lying and political "thought."

Of course you don't like her .. you subscribe to the Bush/CONservative school of lying and political "thought."

Oh, give me a break! :rolleyes:

My dislike for Rosie has nothing to do with my political positions, which are none of your business anyway (though I'll admit that I'm pro-life). It has a lot to do with her obnoxiousness. There are lots of people (besides me) who detest Rosie, because of her bullying ways. Plus, I began to find her obnoxious after she ambushed Tom Selleck on her now-defunct talk show in 1999.

I second that Kane; she is a bully. And if someone doesn't like her or disagrees with her it's because they think she's a "fat lesbian". Her words, not mine. Keep in mind, I used to love Rosie, I think she has a heart of gold, but lately it's been all about how different and controversal she can be and pushing her lifestyle and beliefs onto others and condeming them if they don't agree with her. Whatever Rosie......

Well I'm a Democrat and I can't stand Rosie O'Donnell. Let's recap her year: hmmm, let's see: insults Asian people, says that Donald Trump calling her fat is tasteless, only to turn around and make fun of his hair (hypocritical and immature), goes after Anderson Cooper (who might be a fellow gay person) for talking too much about Paris Hilton (not realizing that every single news channel in the country does the exact same thing, smart), expects the Price is Right to move their entire show to New York to cater to her needs, then refuses to do it when they won't. Oh, and she would have ruined Price is Right as she was planning to add a bunch of Broadway musical numbers, which would have had nothing at all to do with the show.

I hope that Republicans don't get the impression that all of us Democrats like Rosie, because we don't. I think that members of both political parties need to do more to unite this country instead of dividng us, and her abrasive and harsh tone only seeks to divide the country futher.

In any event, this is off-topic and politically related stuff is not really allowed on the forum anyways, so perhaps we should get back to the topic at hand.

I hope they still put some ghost stories on.I use to love watching those paranormal episodes.
Completely unrelated, but I love your avatar. I love sharks, got one tattooed on my ankle....so cute!

My dislike for Rosie has nothing to do with my political positions, which are none of your business anyway (though I'll admit that I'm pro-life).


Geez....how did this thread turn into a discussion of Rosie O'Donnell? And also, Kane, I laughed out loud when I saw this statement. You've gotten better about it lately, but you, at one point, were the worst poster here about baiting people into political discussions. You have a freakin picture of Michael Savage as your avatar. I'd say your political positions are a mystery to no one at this point. :) I hope you don't take this post as a personal attack, as it is not. Just consider it a friendly reality check.

Okay, back to staying on topic.....

Geez....how did this thread turn into a discussion of Rosie O'Donnell? And also, Kane, I laughed out loud when I saw this statement. You've gotten better about it lately, but you, at one point, were the worst poster here about baiting people into political discussions. You have a freakin picture of Michael Savage as your avatar. I'd say your political positions are a mystery to no one at this point. :) I hope you don't take this post as a personal attack, as it is not. Just consider it a friendly reality check.

Well, I want to make it extremely clear that no matter what anyone thinks, it was never my intention to bait anyone into political discussions. I was only citing The Price is Right as an example on the real issue, and that issue is the essence of finding the right person to succeed a popular host. Unfortunately, however, someone on this forum (without naming names) either misunderstood me or twisted my words, taking them out of context.

From other related posts, it is clear that other members of this forum agree that finding a new host for UM will be difficult. So it is just a matter of finding that needle in a haystack.

I am going to rush to Kane's defense here, and that's really saying something because I am a Democrat.

He was just using the Price is Right example to explain how hard it can be to find a replacement for an esteemed host. the Price is Right had many applicants, and I don't think any of them could really fit the bill, not even the one they ultimately selected. Bob Barker WAS and I say WAS a great host. I think he got a bit horny and cranky in his later years, but once upon a time he was a class act, just like Robert Stack. Rosie is an embarssament to my party.

I have never known Kane to try to bait people into political discussions on here. It is not allowed in any event, and if he were, he would probably be told to refrain from a moderator or an administrator.

As far as his avatar is concerned, I think we need to realize that no two people on the universe are going to agree 100% of the time. Just because he has a Michael Savage avatar, does not mean he agrees with him 100%. For example, I know Kane has stated on here before he is not homophobic, whereas Michael Savage appears to be that way. So I think we need to not judge Kane based on his avatar. I have a problem with Michael Savage thinking that my kind are "enemies of America", but we shouldn't necessarily assume that Kane feels the same way. As far as UM posters are concerned, he is one of the longest-serving, most knowledgeable on the subject and a tremendous asset to this forum.

and incidentally, nowhere girl, in the same paragraph, you wonder why this has turned into a Rosie/political discussion, yet you decide to continue it?

and incidentally, nowhere girl, in the same paragraph, you wonder why this has turned into a Rosie/political discussion, yet you decide to continue it?
I'm not sure why you've jumped on my back. Be careful who you defend. I'm ending this public discussion. Let's take it to private, shall we?

I'm not sure why you've jumped on my back. Be careful who you defend. I'm ending this public discussion. Let's take it to private, shall we?

Be careful who I defend? The only thing Kane said was that he didn't want Rosie to be the new host of The Price is Right, and suddenly he gets double-teamed as people try to read more into the situation than what was said.

Oh, this thread's gonna get locked. (i predict)

Furthermore, there was a time not too long ago where a Republican poster called all Democrats hypocrites. This was wrong, so I stood up in protest. This poster has a habit of launching personal attacks on people, then whining and crying when people stand up for themselves in response. So if Kane did something similar, I would have been the first one to come out against it. But I, as a Democrat, didn't have a problem with him simply stating Rosie wouldn't make a good price is right host.

I hope they still put some ghost stories on.I use to love watching those paranormal episodes.

I think the only feasible way UM will never do any ghost stories again is if the show never comes back. So it's probably safe to say that if and when UM is revived, they will feature some new ghost stories. ;)

Furthermore, there was a time not too long ago where a Republican poster called all Democrats hypocrites. This was wrong, so I stood up in protest. This poster has a habit of launching personal attacks on people, then whining and crying when people stand up for themselves in response. So if Kane did something similar, I would have been the first one to come out against it. But I, as a Democrat, didn't have a problem with him simply stating Rosie wouldn't make a good price is right host.

While I agree with you to an extent, it was the mentioning of her political views that was inappropriate. The conservatives have been non-stop in their attempts to attack her and the Republican spin machine is working overtime.

I second that Kane; she is a bully. And if someone doesn't like her or disagrees with her it's because they think she's a "fat lesbian". Her words, not mine. Keep in mind, I used to love Rosie, I think she has a heart of gold, but lately it's been all about how different and controversal she can be and pushing her lifestyle and beliefs onto others and condeming them if they don't agree with her. Whatever Rosie......

Well, first of all, it's not a "lifestyle," despite attempts to describe it as such by right wing religious anarchists so I don't know why that lie keeps being perpetuated (I would assume it's for political points). She isn't pushing anything on anyone, but the Republicans have been fast at work pushing their "family values" on everyone .. even those that don't subscribe to such nonsense.