So like the title implies, what's everyone's final thoughts now that we've run through all of the episodes of the revival?

For me, despite some initial enthusiasm in Volume 1 I'm ultimately disappointed.

The new production is too cautious of litigation to discuss theories of relevance or potential suspects, they spend way too much time on things that don't warrant it. Alonzo Brooks' episode is the biggest example of this, almost the whole thing dedicated to the search for the body and not what happened at the party and who it happened with. I come away from the hour not sure of anything and generally not able to come to any conclusions from the little they're still giving despite the extended runtime.

Tend to agree - the bloated run times means that that the segments seemed to be full of irrelevant information, endless drone footage and lengthy shots of people staring forlornly into the distance. There is just not enough to differentiate the new UM from any of the other dozens of true crime series out there, and not enough in many of the stories to support a 50 -60 minute show.

It seems strange to say, but I actually thought the Berkshire UFO segment was, on its own terms, the best of the new segments and the one that benefits most from the new format. It was unique, presented something strange and unsettling without providing any answers and avoided the cheesiness that a Stack-era re-enactment and 80s SFX would have provided. It was also the shortest and tightest of the new episodes.

Case by case:

1. Rey Rivera - highly misleading segment which kind of took me out of the remainder of the reboot.

2. 13 Minutes - interesting case, but this felt more like a Disappeared episode than UM to me.

3. House of Terror - sorry, but could not get into this one at all. Plus, it was fairly obvious what had happened.

4. No Ride Home - this was the first one that felt like a UM segment to me. And it was fairly balanced in terms of foul play/accidental.

5. Berkshires UFO - terrible segment.

6. Missing Witness - I enjoyed this one but it didn't feel like UM. Felt like a "Betrayed" episode.

7. Washington Inside Murder - Rey Rivera 2.0

8. Death in Oslo - too much time was spent on the ridiculous "espionage" angle instead of trying to find out who this woman was.

9. Death Row Fugitive - this was the best segment of the reboot, IMO, and felt like classic UM to me.

10. Tsunami Spirits - this was enjoyable and informative on Japanese culture. It went off the rails when they got to the ridiculous ghost parts.

11. Lady in the Lake - Rey Rivera 3.0

12. Stolen Kids - haven't seen this one yet.

All in all, an overall disappointment. My biggest gripe is how with the new format of one case per episode, they could have given out more information about each case...yet either exaggerated or outright omitted facts from cases to paint a scenario deemed more "mysterious". I get it. UM is a television show and is in the entertainment business. At least the classic UM could get away with it because each segment had to fit within 12-15 minutes. I think the reboot should have chosen more cases that could were actually solvable. Which was the entire premise of the original.

It's "Unsolved Mysteries" in name only. Change up the music, sure. Flirt with a new, host-less format, okay. As others have said though, the selection of and way cases have been presented make it indistinguishable from the plethora of other true crime shows out there (and ultimately, makes UM 2.0 look more and more like a lazy attempt to cash in on the popularity of the genre).

Hoping the official podcast they launch in 2021 will be better.

The bloated times does it for me. I look and see it’s 42 minutes and it’s almost like you have to make time for it, like it’s a chore.

I appreciate that this and other true crime shows shine a light on unsolved crimes. The Hunt with John Walsh resulted in several captures. But that too was bloated.

A 15 to 20 minute segment is enough. I don’t need this persons entire backstory. I’ve been finding that I can’t sit through an entire segment, I’ll pause it and continue later.

I've had to rewind and rewatch after dozing off.

I'm sort of embarrassed that I can't stay awake. I think a host would help me keep better engaged with the segments.

I've had to rewind and rewatch after dozing off.

I'm sort of embarrassed that I can't stay awake. I think a host would help me keep better engaged with the segments.

Robert Stack made you afraid to close your eyes.

I've had to rewind and rewatch after dozing off.

I'm sort of embarrassed that I can't stay awake. I think a host would help me keep better engaged with the segments.

Same. I've said it so many times now "I need to watch it again" but I've watched Alonzo Brooks twice now and I still feel like I came away with nothing. The search for the body was not the story, the story is the party but they didn't want to implicate anyone evidently and risk being sued.

I appreciate that this and other true crime shows shine a light on unsolved crimes. The Hunt with John Walsh resulted in several captures. But that too was bloated.




They've deliberately chosen mysteries that can't be solved and that's the biggest failing of the new show. They can't risk one of their cases being solved in the two years it takes to film and release it, they have a finite episode count ordered and a with one story a pop there's no room to throw in an extra segment like the old show did when that sort of thing would happen. So they've gone for cases that aren't mysteries at all and in no danger of being solved.

Do you all have ADHD or something? Or work 14 hour days? 45 - 50 minutes is too long? Have to make time for it? Lose interest/fall asleep after 20 minutes? Pretty sad.

My main issues are with the music and re-enactments. It was a mistake to go with boring piano music instead of a synthesizer. Also, there is no dialogue in the re-enactments and you rarely see the actors’ faces.

I think the show considers itself Prestige TV because it’s on Netflix and has conformed to an idea of what Prestige TV should be instead of staying true to the things that made the original series interesting and unique.

Or work 14 hour days?

I happen to, yes.

I'm sorry you find that sad.

5. Berkshires UFO - terrible segment.



:lol: Sorry, this just cracked me up because you had an explanation by each one and then for this one you were so unimpressed this is all you wrote.

I do think Stolen Kids was a solid segment, so I would definitely recommend watching it. I was glad they also put the missing posters and age progressions of several other children at the end to give them more attention.

Based on everyone's reviews, I don't think I'll even bother watching most of the reboot. There are enough of these types of shows on TV already. No, thank you.

If there's one episode that I will likely watch, it's Lester Eubanks.

Somebody brought up The Hunt with John Walsh. Come to think of it, you're right--some episodes were a bit bloated. Many of them were indeed watchable and I strongly desire more new content. Hoping this show comes back. Also, they already covered Lester Eubanks. It wasn't one of their strongest efforts. There's lots more to cover that they omitted, hence my interest in checking out UM's take on the case.

I wanted so much to love the reboot. It was Unsolved Mysteries that got me hooked on true crime and being generally fascinated with things that couldn't be easily explained. The only thing I like about the reboot is Robert Stack in silhouette during the opening credits. It takes me forever to get through 1 episode...I find myself stopping after 20 minutes and coming back to it later. But once I got to House of Terror, they completely lost me. It doesn't stand out to me like the original. It's a shame, they could've done so much better.

I still want them to do a second season but only if they fix certain problems. I'm OK with the no narrator and single episode format. But I need them to fix the narrative issues where we're spending 50 minutes and learning next to nothing on the things that matter. Like spending 3/4 of an episode on a body search when that's not what's at the heart of the matter. I need them to not be so cautious about being sued and present some theories and really go into those theories. Maybe even reenact some of them.

I happen to, yes.

I'm sorry you find that sad.

Don't be.

I remember being a young adult working that many hours in a day. It was pretty gosh darn sad. Glad I wised up and did so much better for myself. On the clock half as much with a lot more to show for it.

Based on everyone's reviews, I don't think I'll even bother watching most of the reboot. There are enough of these types of shows on TV already. No, thank you.

If there's one episode that I will likely watch, it's Lester Eubanks.

Somebody brought up The Hunt with John Walsh. Come to think of it, you're right--some episodes were a bit bloated. Many of them were indeed watchable and I strongly desire more new content. Hoping this show comes back. Also, they already covered Lester Eubanks. It wasn't one of their strongest efforts. There's lots more to cover that they omitted, hence my interest in checking out UM's take on the case.

Watch it and make up your own mind about it. Give it a try. Don't let people who you don't even know on a message board make decisions for you.

I wanted so much to love the reboot. It was Unsolved Mysteries that got me hooked on true crime and being generally fascinated with things that couldn't be easily explained. The only thing I like about the reboot is Robert Stack in silhouette during the opening credits. It takes me forever to get through 1 episode...I find myself stopping after 20 minutes and coming back to it later. But once I got to House of Terror, they completely lost me. It doesn't stand out to me like the original. It's a shame, they could've done so much better.

What is the most upsetting and disappointing is that this version comes from the original producers of UM. What were they thinking they erased the entire winning formula=multiple segments & intimate host. We love Bob Stacks but we would have accepted a substitute that was actually good. My dream host was Dennis Haysbert (All State Man).

What is the most upsetting and disappointing is that this version comes from the original producers of UM. What were they thinking they erased the entire winning formula=multiple segments & intimate host. We love Bob Stacks but we would have accepted a substitute that was actually good. My dream host was Dennis Haysbert (All State Man).

Agreed. I thought having no narrator for the reboot would be fine because nobody can replace Stack. However, seeing the format this way makes me wish there was a narrator. I feel like there's long, drawn-out silence to try to make the whole episode eerie. It just annoys me.

Agreed. I thought having no narrator for the reboot would be fine because nobody can replace Stack. However, seeing the format this way makes me wish there was a narrator. I feel like there's long, drawn-out silence to try to make the whole episode eerie. It just annoys me.

Yes in the words of Kris Kross it is wiggidy wiggidy wack!

I've said it before. I liked parts of it. I actually loved the revamped theme song with the piano. I think it's a beautiful melody. I love the silhouette of Robert Stack at the end of the title credits.z

As far as the segments go... I'd give the entire season a rating of 5/10. Some segments were really interesting and thought-provoking... others were not that great.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/iJxHzcuNcCJXi/giphy.gif

I never really expected to find it satisfying as a UM reboot. As it turns out, I didn’t find it particularly enjoyable or interesting as a true crime show on its own terms either.

The show just lacks any kind of personality. The slick, minimalistic production prevents the viewer feeling a real relationship to the show and stories. Losing the narrator, re-enactments and linking sequences gives the show an impersonal feel. These are after all the elements of the show’s original run that are now most fondly remembered. I understand that these elements might seem hokey, unserious or even exploitative to a modern audience but, without them, there is no UM revival in any meaningful sense. There seems to be a trend beginning in the 2010s for true crime shows to present themselves as weighty and significant — as containing sociological commentary, as having missions to free the innocent, or as tribunes of those unserved by justice. Maybe, but true crime programming is, like it or not, a form of entertainment. The show’s self-seriousness might simply be a requirement for green lighting in the late 2010s, but it makes much of the show an unrewarding slog for viewers.

The decision to cover only one case per episode was also likely a necessity for the reboot to be commissioned, but I think this again is a fatal concession. The stories are well chosen in a sense — most would have rated segments in the original run. There’s an almost mechanical feeling of original run archetypes being reproduced: a family crying “foul play” about a suspected suicide; an alleged hate crime; a missing perpetrator; a UFO story; a suspicious ex-spouse; a gaggle of ghosts. The templates are all present and correct, but their thin material is stretched out beyond reason by the demands of the reboot’s running time. The original UM episodes were a circus — if you didn’t like the lions then, no problem, the trapeze artist will be along shortly. In the reboot, that clown will be squirting you with water for 45 straight minutes whether you like it or not. Again, there is no breaking with the formulae of contemporary true crime media here.

The original UM series were, above all else, highly entertaining television. I’m not sure that’s a status that many modern true crime shows even aspire to, let alone achieve. Some of its pleasures are simply impossible for a contemporary show to obtain even if it attempted to. We’re unlikely ever to see the rough, un-self conscious, pungently regional likes of Bob Bean, Sammy Wheeler, Paul Polis or Jule Caylor as a true crime talking head in the 2020s. I’m not sure that people that vivid or singular exist in America any more.

So what we’re left with is the kind of UM you’d expect without people like that (not to mention Stack himself): a series of fairly bland — occasionally arresting but ultimately unremarkable — true crime stories presented slickly and unmemorably that will be forgotten sometime in 2021. But, hey, it’s a couple of dozen more hours of cheap content for Netflix, which is the main thing after all.

I never really expected to find it satisfying as a UM reboot. As it turns out, I didn’t find it particularly enjoyable or interesting as a true crime show on its own terms either.

The show just lacks any kind of personality. The slick, minimalistic production prevents the viewer feeling a real relationship to the show and stories. Losing the narrator, re-enactments and linking sequences gives the show an impersonal feel. These are after all the elements of the show’s original run that are now most fondly remembered. I understand that these elements might seem hokey, unserious or even exploitative to a modern audience but, without them, there is no UM revival in any meaningful sense. There seems to be a trend beginning in the 2010s for true crime shows to present themselves as weighty and significant — as containing sociological commentary, as having missions to free the innocent, or as tribunes of those unserved by justice. Maybe, but true crime programming is, like it or not, a form of entertainment. The show’s self-seriousness might simply be a requirement for green lighting in the late 2010s, but it makes much of the show an unrewarding slog for viewers.

The decision to cover only one case per episode was also likely a necessity for the reboot to be commissioned, but I think this again is a fatal concession. The stories are well chosen in a sense — most would have rated segments in the original run. There’s an almost mechanical feeling of original run archetypes being reproduced: a family crying “foul play” about a suspected suicide; an alleged hate crime; a missing perpetrator; a UFO story; a suspicious ex-spouse; a gaggle of ghosts. The templates are all present and correct, but their thin material is stretched out beyond reason by the demands of the reboot’s running time. The original UM episodes were a circus — if you didn’t like the lions then, no problem, the trapeze artist will be along shortly. In the reboot, that clown will be squirting you with water for 45 straight minutes whether you like it or not. Again, there is no breaking with the formulae of contemporary true crime media here.

The original UM series were, above all else, highly entertaining television. I’m not sure that’s a status that many modern true crime shows even aspire to, let alone achieve. Some of its pleasures are simply impossible for a contemporary show to obtain even if it attempted to. We’re unlikely ever to see the rough, un-self conscious, pungently regional likes of Bob Bean, Sammy Wheeler, Paul Polis or Jule Caylor as a true crime talking head in the 2020s. I’m not sure that people that vivid or singular exist in America any more.

So what we’re left with is the kind of UM you’d expect without people like that (not to mention Stack himself): a series of fairly bland — occasionally arresting but ultimately unremarkable — true crime stories presented slickly and unmemorably that will be forgotten sometime in 2021. But, hey, it’s a couple of dozen more hours of cheap content for Netflix, which is the main thing after all.

My hat is off to you. What a perfectly-worded post with a good laugh thrown in!

Got to agree with most who've said it better than I probably could. I watched the reboot of Unsolved Mysteries last month and came away feeling like it was nothing special and easily forgettable.

I disliked that there's no narrator or host. Even the Spike reboot with Dennis Farina was more like the original Unsolved Mysteries for me. This Netflix series, however, is virtually indistinguishable to a lot of true crime series already on TV. It reminded me of CBS's 48 Hours, but even the latter has a leg up over the former with a case reporter narrating the details of each episode's crime.

What I enjoyed most about the original series was that each episode profiled a variety of cases that were unexplained be it ghosts, UFOs, miracles, psychics, legends, treasures, or murders whereas the Netflix reboot focuses an entire episode on a single case and for the most part it's a probable murder.

My final verdict is give me the old re-runs of the classic Unsolved Mysteries with Robert Stack to this generic, bland and tedious counterfeit any day!

America's Most Wanted got their reboot right. Shame Unsolved Mysteries couldn't have done the same.

It was the right mix of original format and modernization, creepy CGI dudes aside.

America's Most Wanted got their reboot right. Shame Unsolved Mysteries couldn't have done the same.

It was the right mix of original format and modernization, creepy CGI dudes aside.

But they didn't have the cool theme music AMW had! However otherwise it was pretty good.

Obviously UM isn't as good as the original but it's better than nothing. You KNEW it was not going the be the same without Stack.

What is the most upsetting and disappointing is that this version comes from the original producers of UM. What were they thinking they erased the entire winning formula=multiple segments & intimate host. We love Bob Stacks but we would have accepted a substitute that was actually good. My dream host was Dennis Haysbert (All State Man).

But you knew a host would've wanted a hefty 6 figure salary with other possible demands & they obviously didn't want to risk it with a new version that's untested.

But you knew a host would've wanted a hefty 6 figure salary with other possible demands & they obviously didn't want to risk it with a new version that's untested.

People would not have been happy either way. We had Dennis Farina who actually did a good job narrating. Regardless of the same old segments and graphics and other stuff, he wasn’t bad. And dressed sharp, too. But people still complained. Now there’s no host and new cases, different format, and people are still not happy.

These are some of the same people who had difficulty sitting and/or staying awake through the 45 minute episodes. Or tuned out after 30 mins. What can really be expected but complaints? These folks need to load the old episodes on YouTube, play them at double speed and there; only have to sit for 20-25 minutes. ;)

People would not have been happy either way. We had Dennis Farina who actually did a good job narrating. Regardless of the same old segments and graphics and other stuff, he wasn’t bad. And dressed sharp, too. But people still complained. Now there’s no host and new cases, different format, and people are still not happy.

These are some of the same people who had difficulty sitting and/or staying awake through the 45 minute episodes. Or tuned out after 30 mins. What can really be expected but complaints? These folks need to load the old episodes on YouTube, play them at double speed and there; only have to sit for 20-25 minutes. ;)

Thank you. Boomers are very very good at hating change, as well as complaining and never being satisfied. It cracks me up that these people don’t have the attention span for a 45 minute episode when this is the same generation that complains about young people having short attention spans.

Boomers?

If that’s how you need to rationalize this go for it.

And of course they get defensive when you call them out. :lol:

Who’s a boomer?

Thank you. Boomers are very very good at hating change, as well as complaining and never being satisfied. It cracks me up that these people don’t have the attention span for a 45 minute episode when this is the same generation that complains about young people having short attention spans.

By that logic, you forgot to add that younger generations were offended that the show didn't feature a narrator who was a gay, trans, overweight visible minority. Gee, generalizations are fun, aren't they? :rolleyes:

(Also, not a boomer.)

Gee, generalizations are fun, aren't they? :rolleyes:


Yes. And there's usually more than a germ of truth to them. :thumbsup:

I still want them to do a second season but only if they fix certain problems. I'm OK with the no narrator and single episode format. But I need them to fix the narrative issues where we're spending 50 minutes and learning next to nothing on the things that matter. Like spending 3/4 of an episode on a body search when that's not what's at the heart of the matter. I need them to not be so cautious about being sued and present some theories and really go into those theories. Maybe even reenact some of them.

I agree. If they could get Steve French to narrate the series, just let each segment be varying lengths depending on information, i.e. some long, some shorter, I think it would be better. I do like the reboot though.

For me, despite some initial enthusiasm in Volume 1 I'm ultimately disappointed. I agree.... Totally stupid and unwatchable........