Hey guys. Back in the 90’s, I was an avid viewer of America’s Most Wanted on Fox. I would also catch Unsolved Mysteries during the Robert Stack era on NBC. However, I don’t watch either show as religiously as I used to now that both have moved to cable.

I love the documentary film style that UM and AMW use to present reenactments of crimes. Such professional dramatizations seem to add a “real-life” aspect to unsolved cases that would otherwise be communicated via a reporter’s words during local news broadcasts. They serve as perfect visual aids in visualizations regarding how the crimes actually occurred. Plus, they allow the viewers to get into the minds of the victims, the perpetrators, the law enforcement officials, and the family members.

Personally, however, I think there is a difference between the quality of reenactments featured on UM and the quality of those featured on AMW. And I confess that AMW has an edge over UM in “drama” department in regards to crime reenactments.

To me, UM’s reenactments are extremely low-budget. For one thing, UM’s segments don’t seem to run too long. The dialogue in the reenactments is pretty sparse. And it appears that the reenactments were filmed using an old camcorder. Overall, on UM, the dramatizations are visibly tame, and the production values are seemingly subpar at best.

On the other hand, AMW puts a lot more into its reenactments. Their segments tend to run a lot longer, often incorporating at least one commercial break. Every reenactment presents some form of backstory to an unsolved case. And every reenactment appears to be following a detailed script. In addition, AMW’s high-end production makes each reenactment seem considerably polished and cinematic.

In short, watching a reenactment on AMW is similar to watching a summer blockbuster movie, or an episode of Law & Order or CSI.

An example of this is AMW’s provocative and sensationalized approach to depicting violent crimes against women. AMW seemingly goes to significant lengths to make all the rape and sexual assault scenes look as graphic as possible.

I’m sure there are true crime fans here who have watched both UM and AMW over the years. So I was hoping if anyone here similarly thinks that AMW’s crime reenactments are better produced than UM’s (at least when AMW was still on Fox).

Do you guys think that AMW’s reenactments are more dramatic and sometimes more over-the-top than UM’s?

I think AMW is a bit more graphic but not as scary as Unsolved Mysteries. I saw AMW cover a case that Unsolved Mysteries did and their re-enactment of it was lame and poorly produced. Unsolved Mysteries had many aspects that made it stand out and scare people:

1. Robert Stack, the bold host. His presence, voice and the way he spoke about things really made you pay attention and sometimes intimidated you.
2. The music. Most of the early 90's music was creepy, especially in episodes about abductions, murders and robberies.
3. Array of cases. Just the circumstances behind alot of them were scary to hear and learn about.
4. Crime scene photos. On a few occasions they'd stick in a graphic photo (Cindy James, Jeffrey Digman, Jasper Watkins).

Some of the earlier UM re-enactments remind me of 80's horror movies, in video quality and in the atmosphere of the episodes.

I think the action scenes were better done on AMW, but on every other level UM's were better (and I used to watch both religiously). AMW's reenactments, especially in later years, were often awkward, poor, and distracting from the content.

That being said, I respect AMW for putting so many cases out there, but sometimes I just cringed.

I think the action scenes were better done on AMW, but on every other level UM's were better (and I used to watch both religiously). AMW's reenactments, especially in later years, were often awkward, poor, and distracting from the content.

That being said, I respect AMW for putting so many cases out there, but sometimes I just cringed.

What made you cringe about AMW's reenactments? Why do you think that their reenactments were awkward, poor, and distracting from the content?

I can only speak on the early 90's reenactments. As I said, in the early 90's, AMW seemed like they were trying to make CSI episodes out of their reenactments.

What made you cringe about AMW's reenactments? Why do you think that their reenactments were awkward, poor, and distracting from the content?

I can only speak on the early 90's reenactments. As I said, in the early 90's, AMW seemed like they were trying to make CSI episodes out of their reenactments.
I was speaking strictly of the 2000s reenactments, particularly post 2005. What I saw from the 90s (sadly not much since I was too young) was great.

In the 2000s they were generally very awkward, focused on irrelevant content sometimes, and the acting was poor. I think it really got worse after 2005. I remember I stopped watching around 2007 or 2008 because it got pretty bad. One example is a case where they tried to show what the victims liked to do in their spare time and they awkwardly showed a girl on the computer chatting about her interests for about five minutes. They were trying to be hip with the tech savvy generation, but it didn't cut it. Not John Walsh's fault and I still admire the show for its purpose. I just wish they'd stuck to their old ways.

The post 2000 reenactments of AMW are horrible. There is too much emphasis on having actors (and I use that word loosely) try to be dramatic and it comes out looking worse than an elementary school play. It hasn't changed for the better since the return on Lifetime. I understand that this format makes the victims and families look more approachable, but the very long acting sequences just bogs down the show and it loses the urgency that AMW used to have.

UM for me will always be better. The lower production values and minimal acting along with the scary music and Robert Stack's calm, even and eerie narration really amps up the creep factor of the stories presented, most of which are already frightening anyway. Also, UM's decision to not be too graphic when showing the crimes also adds to the creepiness. Usually, the less is more approach is more unsettling.

I am glad AMW is still on the air because it provides a valuable service in helping crime victims and the relentless tracking of criminals. But maybe if they focus more on the crime itself, instead of the too-long acting sequences, it would be a lot more watchable for me.

Unsolved Mysteries son

I never watched AMW so I can't compare. But I echo everyone's thoughts that reference the creepy music and Robert Stack making any segment memorable, good or bad.

The good thing about UM's reenactments was you didn't always need good actors. Interviewers stories or Stack's summaries of the case gave you all the info you needed to know while we watched the reenactment ourselves. When we did hear the actors, sometimes it could be funny and sometimes they hit the material out of the park like the actress who played Colleen Ritter for instance.

Equally impressive of UM's reenactments was the creativity involved. Like when "Debbie" escaped her attacker in slow motion and the attacker's voice was slowed down ("Where do you think you're going?) to the jerky camera angle in the woods. It added an extra creepy element. Or the shot of Mikki Jo West walking to work, never to arrive at the bus stop, and the camera shows her foot walking off the street corner as if she was walking off the face of the earth. And the camera angle looking through "Carol's" windshield as she's approaching the black pickup truck driven by the man who would shoot her in the neck. The music cue has a creepy crescendo once the truck comes into view as if to signal the viewer of the danger that is ahead.

But most impressive of all is the fact that (I would wager) more than half of the reenactments took place in the exact areas or cities of where certain cases happened. The orange socks murder segment, for example, has the reenactment of Bobbie Oberholtzer escaping her killer, running down the highway and turning to run off the side of the road when he catches up to her and draws his gun at the 50 MPH speed limit sign. That was the exact spot the real Bobbie Oberholzter turned to run off the road to try and escape her killer almost 10 years earlier. What special attention to detail. Did AMW ever do that?

Sometimes UM would even have the actors wear the same kind of clothing as the people they were portraying. In the Cindy James segment, the reenactment shows her leaving the hospital wearing a pink blouse and brown slacks. That's the exact outfit the real Cindy James was wearing when her body was found.

It's always fun observing this stuff. What UM lacked in actors, it made up with...everything else.

Yeah, I was never really a fan of AMW's approach of going long stretches of time focusing on the performers overact in the reenactment. I much prefer the UM approach where the main focus will be Stack's voice-over or the voice-over of the interviewees while the reenactment is playing in the background. It doesn't help the case when you're distracted by how bad and amateurish the acting is.

The UM producers actually stated on one of the DVD commentaries that if a reenactment actually went on for a decent stretch of time without any voice-over playing over it, that was a sign that the quality of the acting was pretty good. Some good examples of this include the Blind River rest stop murders, Edward Harold Bell's murder of Larry Dickens, and the attack on Jane Boroski.

another thing was, Robert Stack was entirely neutral in never taking sides. Unsolved mysteries presented cases and ultimately you decide.

However, one thing similar for both shows, as the years went by, production quality went down as well.

I mentioned this in another thread but the actors and actresses UM cast were at times, almost dead ringers for the people they were portraying. Here were just a few.

Real person on the left, actor on the right:

LAURA BURBANK:

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM5.jpg http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM5b.jpg

CHARLES MORGAN:

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM1.jpg http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM1b.jpg


CRYSTAL SPENCER:

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM2.jpg http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM2b.jpg


CINDY JAMES:

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM3.jpg http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM3b.jpg


RHONDA HINSON:

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM4.jpg http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM4b.jpg

I mentioned this in another thread but the actors and actresses UM cast were at times, almost dead ringers for the people they were portraying. Here were just a few.

Real person on the left, actor on the right:

LAURA BURBANK:

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM5.jpg http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM5b.jpg

CHARLES MORGAN:

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM1.jpg http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM1b.jpg


CRYSTAL SPENCER:

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM2.jpg http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM2b.jpg


CINDY JAMES:

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM3.jpg http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM3b.jpg


RHONDA HINSON:

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM4.jpg http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/UM4b.jpg

wow, they were good with look-alikes, that's for sure

wow, they were good with look-alikes, that's for sure
In the later years that got pretty bad, too. Like the Bryan Nisenfeld segment and the Elvis segment with the guy who played the brother. I still love UM, of course, but some of the selections were pretty amusing as the years went on.

I mentioned this in another thread but the actors and actresses UM cast were at times, almost dead ringers for the people they were portraying.

One of the very best was the girl they got to play Colleen Ritter. She was such a convincing lookalike that I initially thought it was Colleen acting in the reenactments and went: "OMG, I can't believe she's agreeing to act out the murder scene!".

One of the very best was the girl they got to play Colleen Ritter. She was such a convincing lookalike that I initially thought it was Colleen acting in the reenactments and went: "OMG, I can't believe she's agreeing to act out the murder scene!".
I know, she's a ringer! Their voices are entirely different, but it's so amazing they found such a lookalike.

I enjoy both shows and both serve a great purpose. Also both have had great hosts and the reenactments can be very dramatic at times. One big difference for me is that I can watch reruns of unsolved mysteries all day long but not sure if I could do the same with amw. There's just something about unsolved mysteries that made it super interesting for me. Although amw would be a close second since I like it a lot too so it's very close for me. Both are awesome shows.

For both UM and AMW-

Who do they get to portray the victims, the perpetrators, the victims' families, and the investigators?

Where do they find these people, and are they credited in the closing credits?

For both UM and AMW-

Who do they get to portray the victims, the perpetrators, the victims' families, and the investigators?

Where do they find these people, and are they credited in the closing credits?

I always assumed the actors were locals from the area when UM went to the locations to film and interview the families.

The actress who portrayed Rhonda Hinson posted here a few years back about what it was like to film and how the makeup crew curled her hair Farrah Fawcett like to give her the style Rhonda normally wore her hair. When I uploaded the case to the forbidden site, I sent her the link and she thanked me because her copy of he segment had really bad picture quality.

I'm pretty positive she lived in North Carolina, fairly close to where Rhonda lived. I also remember her saying that despite her amazing resemblance to Rhonda, she was not the first choice by the UM crew to play her.

Hey guys. I apologize for bringing this thread back to life. But, as the OP, I feel the need to address something. And I was hoping if you guys could give your take on this.

Do you guys think AMW goes too far with its graphic reenactments?

For example, back in the early 90's, I remember how AMW aired a case involving a serial rapist. (I don't recall which case it was, since it was over 20 years ago.) The reenactment explicitly showed the suspect actually tearing off a woman's clothes inside a car. The victim managed to escape, but the suspect drove away with the victim's baby still in the car. And before the commercial break, the reenactment showed the victim in tattered clothing with her underwear exposed.

That's what I meant when I said in my OP that AWM's reenactments of rape and sexual assault scenes are noticeably graphic.

I never saw UM going to those types of extremes in their reenactments. Instead, as you guys previously mentioned, UM relies more on certain elements that turn on "the creep factor".

Sometimes I believe that AMW airs these strikingly graphic reenactments in order to draw in ratings.

What do you guys think?

Hey guys. I apologize for bringing this thread back to life. But, as the OP, I feel the need to address something. And I was hoping if you guys could give your take on this.

Do you guys think AMW goes too far with its graphic reenactments?


Yes, I think they did at times.

I remember a story about a pedophile who moved in next door to this family and ended up coercing their young son into a sexual relationship. There was a reenactment which showed the pedophile setting up his video camera to tape the encounter and then he and the kid disrobing. Another re-enactment from that same story showed the pedophile seducing another kid and eventually coercing him to have sex too. The whole thing was just sickening to watch.

Although this doesn't pertain to a re-enactment, I remember an episode where they showed censored child pornography for seemingly no reason - they weren't trying to identify the kids or adults in the pictures.

Another episode I saw showed excerpts of a home video of a guy attacking and raping his wife. Again, no reason other than to show how terrible this guy was, I guess.

IMO, there is a line between showing something for educational or informational value and sensationalism. AMW crossed that line, not only with their re-enactments, but with some of the things they chose to show.

^A good example of this difference in approach is how UM and AMW presented the Richard Bare case.

Here's UM's reenactment-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWop3zaTI0s


On the other hand, AMW's reenactment showed Sherry Hart with her pants undone as she fell to her death. Also, in AMW's reenactment of Sherry's death, they showed Sherry's fall in slow motion.

Lets analyze every aspect of the re-enactments

Narrator:
Walsh is a straight talker who explains the facts right away. Always trying to make you understand what instead of why, his main goal is to clarify what happened and vilify the people responsible.

Stack is a talented reconteur who explains the case from a cinematic perspective, making expert use of suspense. He keeps the audience on the edge of their seats, constantly asking for more of his one-of-a-kind story-telling ability. Stack's main goal is to make you think.

Visuals:
Both are able to find great actors for their re-enactments. Matching the style of its host, AMW scenes are brutal, direct, and leave the audience with little room for imagination as to what really happened.

UM scenes are often build up slowly, leading to a climax near the end, once again fitting the style of its host.

Realism:
AMW are often of much higher quality with respect to equipment.
UM is less realistic, but are nonetheless believable.

Overall: As a tool to catch criminals, AMW does a wonderful, no-frills job. As a TV show to watch for fun, UM is clearly more exciting, thought-provoking, and frightening.

another thing was, Robert Stack was entirely neutral in never taking sides. Unsolved mysteries presented cases and ultimately you decide.
I think the latter is extremely debatable. Even if the general consensus in a number of cases is "guilty" (Pollis, Larry Gibson), there were many cases where UM probably helped make our minds up. I will agree re: Stack, however. Though he was likely reading a script, Stack's voice was, of course, very steady; a raise in tone or inflection could do a lot to colour someone's opinion (and that's not limited to true crime or anything).