They just aired the Johnny Lee Wilson case on UM. No backstory... No date, etc. Without the backstory, this case makes no sense as their is no explanation as to why Johnny Lee Wilso was even a suspect. In the original UM story, it was made quite clear why he was a suspect (a family friend, Johnny parked his bike there, mowed her lawn etc.)

They just aired the Johnny Lee Wilson case on UM. No backstory... No date, etc. Without the backstory, this case makes no sense as their is no explanation as to why Johnny Lee Wilso was even a suspect. In the original UM story, it was made quite clear why he was a suspect (a family friend, Johnny parked his bike there, mowed her lawn etc.)

I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out why dates aren't being mentioned on the new UM and can't think of any valid reason. This is ridiculous!

I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out why dates aren't being mentioned on the new UM and can't think of any valid reason. This is ridiculous!

They actually mentioned the "Superman" murder date.

I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out why dates aren't being mentioned on the new UM and can't think of any valid reason. This is ridiculous!
Not that it's an excuse (at all), but they're trying to conceal that the show was produced in the 1980s and 1990s. With historical cases - such as "The Black Dahlia" - concealment is immaterial, but someone new to the show who sees nothing but cases from the '80s and '90s might wonder why there's an absence of more recent material. Of course, someone new to the show will more likely wonder why there's such a moronic, conspicuous omission of dates.

Not that it's an excuse (at all), but they're trying to conceal that the show was produced in the 1980s and 1990s. With historical cases - such as "The Black Dahlia" - concealment is immaterial, but someone new to the show who sees nothing but cases from the '80s and '90s might wonder why there's an absence of more recent material. Of course, someone new to the show will more likely wonder why there's such a moronic, conspicuous omission of dates.


I understand that but they are hurting their own cause. today, the aired the Dexter Stefonek segment. Of cours ethe segments are restored for maximum clarity. However, everything is outdated (hairstyles, glasses, clothing, car models, etc). When they interviewed the police chief on the Stefonek segment, his glasses were enormous. Those have not been in style for avery long time. On a lost loves case, a guy had a rat tail and on the Mark Groezinger case, they showed Mark's car (an early 80's model). If anybody new is tuning in, they are going to immediately think the only people associated with this show are po-dunk folk who are 20 years behind the times as far as fashion, vehicles, etc.

My bigger rant on the Johnny Lee Wilson case is that they gave NO backstory. The backstory was vital in the Johnny Wilson case because without it, it would make NO sense to th eviewer why Johnny was even arrested for the crime. Furthermore, additional details from the original segment made it quite clear that Johnny was innocent.

I agree with all criticisms of the "lack of dates" decision; I was just explaining to the previous poster the producers' probable rationale: To try to make the antiquity of the show less apparent. As you say, though, the '80s fashions and styles are not concealable without re-shooting each and every segment.

Sorry for not supporting the side, but due to the remarks of everyone here, I haven't been watching the new episodes. On the other hand, thanks for saving me the time. Let me know if/when they start doing it right.

Sorry for not supporting the side, but due to the remarks of everyone here, I haven't been watching the new episodes. On the other hand, thanks for saving me the time. Let me know if/when they start doing it right.

I'm still watching it, and still appreciating it, and I'm a huge fan of the old show and Stack. There are frustrations, but even on the dates criticism, UM has been slipping some dates into some stories .

I agree with all criticisms of the "lack of dates" decision; I was just explaining to the previous poster the producers' probable rationale: To try to make the antiquity of the show less apparent. As you say, though, the '80s fashions and styles are not concealable without re-shooting each and every segment.

Agreed, especially considering most of these cases are well over a decade old.

I wonder if any tips have been generated from any of these showings. I doubt it though.

The segment was reedited badly and left out important details.

The segment was reedited badly and left out important details.

If trying to disguise the age of the segments is the reason why they don't want to give dates, they should have just used the time and money to redo the segments instead with updated footage. Ridiculous, yes, but it would maginify the point that if you're purchasing a 20 year old show, it's going to have to show its age.

It's a total mystery to me why Spike spent this money to do this in the first place. I wonder if the network is in trouble? It it the epitome of cheap, or at least half-assedness: let's buy a twenty-year-old show and try to disguise the fact that it is a twenty year old show, instead of producing a NEW show with a similar theme or even under the same banner. It's not as if these things have a lot of associated overhead costs, especially if you are intending to cut back significantly on 1) the overall time allotted to each semgent and 2) the emphasis on reenactments. The way the show is set up, new segments could be presented with a minimum amount of research. If you don't want the expense of sending a camera crew to a location, do telephone interviews and then work their content into the voice-overs provided by Farina (a lot of "Police say" and "So-and-so's family indicates", etc.).

Like I said in another thread, it's hard to imagine who the target audience of this not-retro and not-new hybrid show is supposed to be. To fans of the original show who know the segments well, it is unsatisfying. To new watchers, the segments are obviously old, despite their attempts to hide that fact, the production quality is poor by today's standards (thanks to the uncomfortable effect of adding 2008 graphics to 1988 reenactments), and, thanks to the brevity of each segment and the over-reliance on Farina to speed things along (rather than on the re-enactments), it's hard to make even a minimal connection to the people involved in each mystery, a crucial but apparently overlooked element of the old show.

And again: does anyone find the fact that Farina is sitting in what appears to be a "telecenter" despite the fact that the show only accepts emails more than a little stupid?

The show could easily be revived under the name but with a largely new production style, but this show has all the unfortunate earmarks of trying to serve two masters.

And again: does anyone find the fact that Farina is sitting in what appears to be a "telecenter" despite the fact that the show only accepts emails more than a little stupid?

The "telecenter" is so fake looking, actually it's very embarrasing and pitiful. The people in the telecenter are obviously actors. And if you watch closely, some of them are over-acting.

In the old UM, some of the people in the segments were actually present in the telecenter. For instance, Christy Wismer and the women who's grandmother was hit by a car. That really made it real looking.

The "telecenter" is so fake looking, actually it's very embarrasing and pitiful. The people in the telecenter are obviously actors. And if you watch closely, some of them are over-acting.

I agree with what someone said before that it resembles more a space center than telecenter. There is a ride called “mission space” which is about 20 minutes from me; that looks identical to the new um telecenter. It has similar screens and controls to the one used at UM. Obviously, unlike mission space, you are not strapped in tight and exposed to g forces and motion, which resulted in several deaths and injuries at Disney World.

As I said before the telecenter is tacky, but what is the purpose of having Farina on location on stories that are just re-narrated? Not to mention, the traveling and production expenses to mobilize the crew.

I prefer that pseudo center than the church or cathedral that Stack used in the final lifetime seasons. Perhaps they should have had them with laptops instead. They could pretend or actually be checking the online tips at unsolved.com But overall, I saw more positives than negatives with the new revamped UM. Farina is a decent host, not execeptional, but good IMHO. Most narrators are a dime a dozen, guys like William Dozier, Rod Serling, and Stack are more like diamonds out of a rough. In reality, not many could have filled the shoes of the distinctive qualities that Stack had.

On a lost loves case, a guy had a rat tail and on the Mark Groezinger case, they showed Mark's car (an early 80's model). If anybody new is tuning in, they are going to immediately think the only people associated with this show are po-dunk folk who are 20 years behind the times as far as fashion, vehicles, etc.


Nah...they'll think, "Cool. This must be where Napoleon Dynamite lives":lol:

Normally, I can forgive a spelling error, but that was just mean. :)

I typed too fast for my own good, I put the exta T because I didn't think R went through, they are adjacent in the keyboard . I should have noticed and edited it. Thanks for pointing it out.

I should read my posts before pushing the submit reply button. Afterall, during the superbowl week I accidentally made a major mistake at Sitcom Online. Of course, I was also given three years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and everthing was forgiven, or was it? :confused: