Long read, 'cause somebodies gotta say it: The Netflix remake of Unsolved Mysteries is truly an insult to the original production.

And before you even utter the letters "n-o-s-t..." --- this has nothing to do with nostalgia because I will gladly point out some of the flaws that the original Unsolved Mysteries had, specifically when they switched networks and started replacing crime stories with supernatural UFO stories and basically attempted to gut the show of its own name and essence in order to compete with other networks in ratings. Personally I think that U.M. jumped the shark after Season 7. Seasons 4 -7 were magical and works of art; after that it seemed to lose its flair.

Netflix's Unsolved Mysteries is awful. This is yet another predictable, trite and not to mention counterfeit attempt by a television/streaming service to cash in on Millennial's compulsive infatuation with anything even remotely connected to the 90s. This show needs to be renamed "Monotonous Generic Crime Show" because it bares absolutely no resemblance to Unsolved Mysteries except for the theme song, and they managed to even butcher and water down that.

This show has none of the charms and quirks that it assumes it does and screams "I was sloppily put together in a few months". The "glossy high production" aesthetic doesn't even correlate with the mystifying, nail-biting aura that a crime show is supposed to have. First of all: the extended, constant, non-stop drone shots. Is a 14 year old who just received a drone for Christmas in charge of the camera work? It's not "high tech" or "high quality", it's boring and redundant. The original UM possibly had a budget smaller than the Netflix production yet it had far better, far more diverse, far more interesting shots that invited you into the story and introduced you to places you wouldn't think twice of looking at on a map. Dear Netflix U.M., Long, drawn out takes of a motionless river is not astounding just because it's captured with a high quality camera. It's a lazy way to consume time. Speaking of which -

One episode, consisting of one story, - being 50 minutes long? Completely ridiculous. This show is not interesting enough let alone directed well enough to handle such a capacity. The absurd length of each episode is what "necessitates" the constant lackluster drone shots and causes the interviewees to continually repeat themselves and try to find different ways of saying the exact same thing they said ten minutes ago. They are trying to stretch out 20 minutes worth of content into an entire theatrical production and it doesn't work. The original U.M. understood that the viewers' attention spans are likely short and at least the original production crew had enough common sense to have 4 different stories spread out over the course of 45 minutes that way the viewer will be kept intrigued by the varying material. It is far more captivating to watch a 15 minute segment about a disappearance followed by a 15 minute segment about fraud than it is watching 50 uninterrupted minutes of family members repeating the same diatribe over and over again accompanied by overhead shots of a city or neighborhood. The over-reliance on the family members' dialogue due to the lack of narration makes the show overly-sentimental, biased and inaccurate. On that note -

The pacing of this show is abysmal due to the lack of narration and lack of reenactments. We all know that Robert Stack's narration can not be replicated - but the attempt at least should've been made. Since there is no narration, you're forced to cling to every family member/police officials word due to the absence of a main "voice" guiding you through the story or filling in missing blanks that the interviewees forgot to address. Thus the show feels formless, predictable and drab.

The absence of re-enactments is downright silly and preposterous in my mind. If you're focusing on one segment for 50 minutes, why not make it interesting by providing visuals other than aerial shots of a bridge or farmhouse? The reenactments are literally what made segments memorable. There's one particular episode from the original series - I think it's the Rick Church episode where he breaks into his ex-girlfriend's house and kills her mother and father and attempts to kill her and her siblings - but the way this segment was shot was incredible. The shuddersome music, the lighting, the pacing, the acting, it all made the story interesting to watch and easy to recall. Stories around robberies or car chases are far more enticing if you are watching it being recreated. You don't get that with the new UM. Would the story of D.B. Cooper jumping out of a moving 747 had been interesting or worthy of remembering without the re-enactment? Instead you receive low-cost filler of family members and policemen adding virtually nothing to the story. There is absolutely nothing memorable about this reboot. Unlike the original production, these stories will not be talked about in 10, 20 or 30 years from now. I glanced at an episode of Volume 2 of the Netflix U.M. that centers around 2 children being kidnapped in NYC in the 80s and it was presented in such a lifeless, unnecessarily long-winded manner. The original UM reenacted the kidnappings, had the narrator provided information and composite sketches of the abductors and at least attempted at recreating whatever decade/era the story was centered around. The Lauren Jackson / Punky Gustavson kidnapping episodes from the original production were done far better since they at least recreated the story from start to finish, even featured a mock-up of the what the van that kidnapped the girls looked like. It's little things like that which greatly add to a production's value.

Last but not least: The stories are displayed in such a deadpan manner that upon finishing an episode, you don't even feel like there is a mystery to solve. The way that the stories are displayed are so dry that you walk away feeling as though you've just watched a cheaply made documentary rather than an episode of a crime tv show genuinely interested in receiving tips or information from the public.

TLDR: Netflix's version of Unsolved Mysteries sucks and is an abomination to the original run of the series. I'm positive that the only reason this is plastered all over Netflix is because, well...it's a Netflix production. They're all about the $$$$, so they are going to keep cramming it down everyone's throats until you're forced to view it as a great show that way you can run around social media hyping this excrement up and doing Netflix's promotion work for them.

TLDR: The new show is apparently the same as every other current true crime show, but with more drones.

I have to post on this thread because your review actually made me laugh out loud several times, was like someone was in my mind and writing that. I don't hate the new UM...but I will say some episodes I didn't even get all the way through and, amazingly, haven't rewatched any of the episodes. Interesting, since I have seen every segment from original UM hundreds of times with no end in sight.

The only unsolved mysteries I like is the original wtih Robert Stack..... All newer ones are crap in my opinion and not as good.......

It has its flaws but you really can't expect them to mimic 1970s/1980s style TV, the style from which the original UM was born, in 2020. Just ain't gonna happen.

Having said that, it would benefit from at least multiple segments per episode. My biggest issue, in the end, is with story selection. As The Cars1986 said in another thread, too many of the segments are really similar in nature - strange suicides that have just enough to them that one might question whether they were really straight suicides or not, but in the end the conclusion is fairly obvious - and what's left is a mish-mash of some interesting, some kinda obvious. In the 20 years the show has been off the air, surely they could have found a better variety and a more compelling set of mysteries. The absence of even one final appeal segment was felt. And the litigation issue drew790 and others have put a spotlight on - the new version's concern about being sued and how it limits the program - is an issue. But it wouldn't surprise me that people, 20-35 years on, are less willing than they once were to go on a program to proclaim their innocence.

Agreed. While I don't "hate" it, I find it boring and hard to sit through

I've been trying to watching an episode of season 2 since it's been out but I don't have the willpower

We live in a decade where theres zero personality, zero inteligence and theres nothing original. every decade defined itself on a certain style, a type of film, tv show.... the last 5 years have been the era of the remake and the reboot, it's scary how people nowadays are incapable of thinking up something new and different. there must a group of exectives sat around with some tv guide from the 80s, picking random shows to reboot or redo.

if you look at the comments on youtube, it's the same 4 comments 9000 times, and although i've downloaded a few episodes of this new version of UM, i already know it'll be awful becase the same unoriginal people who couldn't think up an original idea are the same ones who'll produce this new version.

we're here talking about a show from the 80s and 90s, because nothing since has even come close.

We live in a decade where theres zero personality, zero inteligence and theres nothing original. every decade defined itself on a certain style, a type of film, tv show.... the last 5 years have been the era of the remake and the reboot, it's scary how people nowadays are incapable of thinking up something new and different.

This really started in the early-mid 1990's. Think the Flintstones Movie, The Brady Bunch Movie, etc. It has gotten beyond out of hand. It feels like there's no imagination left in Hollywood. And all of these "franchises". If all else fails, find some old comic book and marry it to your awful screenplay which you couldn't sell anywhere. How are people entertained by such drivel?

I wouldn't call it "horrendous"

Bloated, dull, repetitive, unengaging, poorly paced, poorly directed, generic, forgettable, formulaic, narratively inert, sure...

...but it's not "horrendous".

I finally finished season 2 and am still unimpressed. It's not terrible, IMO, but it's literally like every show that ID has ever had.

I don't hate it but i don't care for it either. Have had no interest in watching season 2.

I am very disappointed in John Cosgrove & Terry Dunn Meurer. They are well aware of the affinity die hard fans have for this show and its cult following. They should have stuck to the original concept and what made UM so watchable MULTIPLE SEGMENTS that vary. Also as much as we cherish Robert Stack this show definitely needed a host to give it that nostalgic feeling. They just completely missed the mark! I doubt it will get a second season they really fumbled such a great opportunity to introduce UM to a new generation.

I am very disappointed in John Cosgrove & Terry Dunn Meurer. They are well aware of the affinity die hard fans have for this show and its cult following. They should have stuck to the original concept and what made UM so watchable MULTIPLE SEGMENTS that vary. Also as much as we cherish Robert Stack this show definitely needed a host to give it that nostalgic feeling. They just completely missed the mark! I doubt it will get a second season they really fumbled such a great opportunity to introduce UM to a new generation.

I bet they don't have a host because they'd have to pay him/her a 6 figure salary!

I bet they don't have a host because they'd have to pay him/her a 6 figure salary!

Yes it definitely cut costs. Every good memorable show has a host/narrator. Forensic Files, Disappeared & Snapped were so successful because they had narrators that were so well associated with the show. (I hated the new narrators of Disappeared & Snapped; I can't remember if anyone else narrated Forensic Files but Peter Thomas he was amazing).

I don't hate it but i don't care for it either. Have had no interest in watching season 2.

I think this is the majority opinion. I still haven't gotten around to watching season 2 yet.

I still kind of wish the new UM would have followed what 'Disappeared' did on ID. I liked Disappeared immediately and watched every episode. Part of it's charm was because it was presented as a modern version of Unsolved Mysteries. It had...

*A host/narrator (and a good one)
*It's own music score for all the moods, that presented perfect background music for all the in-between parts
*Interviews with family/friends/law enforcement
*Actors/reenactments (although unlike UM, there was no dialogue)
*The production crew traveled to the very locations of the mystery presented

By far, the biggest issue for me is no host. Narration ties everything together in a much more organized way.

No host is not a deal breaker for me. Hazy poorly shot "re-enactments" with no dialogue is the deal breaker. I get that you need to modernize the show and the format, and no one can replace Robert Stack, but would it kill them to have actual re-enactments with dialogue?

No host is not a deal breaker for me. Hazy poorly shot "re-enactments" with no dialogue is the deal breaker. I get that you need to modernize the show and the format, and no one can replace Robert Stack, but would it kill them to have actual re-enactments with dialogue?

They have done re-enactments. Jennifer Fairgate, Xavier Dupont, Ray Rivera, Lester Eubanks, etc.

Those people are all dead or missing so they HAD to do re-enactments! :lol:

UM will NEVER be as good as it was with Stack. I'll take this over nothing & I'm VERY mad at Netflix for killing off Blockbuster so I ONLY got Netflix for this.

Like I said they don't have a host because they simply can't afford it or don't want to spend extra dough on a host. Businesses everywhere are cutting corners so you can't really blame then for that.

The robert stack version of UM is perfection, there was a certain charm about anything made during the 80s or 90s, no matter how bad or good it was. but UM hit every nail on the head, it seemed to always find the perfect actors for reenactments, it's amazing how they did it, it was never over or underplayed and it really made the mysteries come to life.

The music was perfect, and what tied everything together was robert stack who set the right kind of mood. this "reboot" isn't a reboot, it's a totally different show, using the good name of unsolved mysteries because they know that all these years later it's still loved. the proof is that we're here talking about it still

, it seemed to always find the perfect actors for reenactments, it's amazing how they did it, it was never over or underplayed and it really made the mysteries come to life.
l

I wouldn't go THAT far... the original UM could certainly be cheesy, campy and silly: Resurrection Mary, Rainboy, magic stones, the mystery of chocolate, the Florida ghost, a 40 minute (!!) segment on crop circles...

But it was never dull or forgettable (the odd lost loves section aside) and it was completely unique; something that cannot be said for the new show, which is basically just a longer, slower version of "48 Hours" minus the inevitable part at the end where the husband/wife/adulterous lover gets convicted.

I'm quite clearly in the minority here but I am genuinely enjoying the reboot.

No it's not as good as the original and it's frankly not even close. Never will there be a better true crime and mystery series than the original Unsolved Mysteries.

I do however think that Netflix in general tends to do a fairly respectable job with their true crime documentaries and I don't find this to be an exception.

If the original was a 10 out of 10 I would give this at least a 5.5 out 10 and perhaps even a 6.

Average to slightly above but if it's the only version of the show we're going to get I can accept and enjoy it... Although sure I would rather there be multiple segments and a successor of sorts to Robert Stack.

I'm quite clearly in the minority here but I am genuinely enjoying the reboot.

No it's not as good as the original and it's frankly not even close. Never will there be a better true crime and mystery series than the original Unsolved Mysteries.

I do however think that Netflix in general tends to do a fairly respectable job with their true crime documentaries and I don't find this to be an exception.

If the original was a 10 out of 10 I would give this at least a 5.5 out 10 and perhaps even a 6.

Average to slightly above but if it's the only version of the show we're going to get I can accept and enjoy it... Although sure I would rather there be multiple segments and a successor of sorts to Robert Stack.

Great post! I completely agree with you.

The absurd length of each episode is what "necessitates" the constant lackluster drone shots...

This made me laugh out loud. I understand a drone shot at the beginning to kind of introduce the viewer to the town that the story is taking place in. But the current format keeps going back to them over and over. We haven't exactly forgotten where we are.

Imagine putting those endless drone shots in a classic segment like the Judge John Fairbanks story, constantly pausing the flow of info to show you an overhead shot of Newport, New Hampshire. :lol:

I'm all right with no host and found the reboot to be okay. But when you have interviews pulling the show along, inevitably pretty much each episode is full of "he or she would never do that" and "I know he or she would only have..." and while I do think it's good that we hear about the victims from their loved ones since they can't speak for themselves, it gets extremely repetitive and we're definitely only getting partial views. Classic UM had these interviews as well, of course, but we always had Stack putting forward questions or those with differing opinions interviewed, etc.

it seemed to always find the perfect actors for reenactments, it's amazing how they did it,

The actors were not perfect my any means but it seems like nearly 100% were memorable

The actors were not perfect my any means but it seems like nearly 100% were memorable

I think by perfect, they meant actors which were a near perfect resemblance to who they were portraying. This was more common in the earlier years. The actors/actresses who portrayed Charles Morgan, Laura Burbank, Cindy James, Rhonda Hinson, Bobbie Obherholtzer and Crystal Spencer were pretty uncanny in how they looked. Eventually, it seemed the show stopped trying so hard to get an exact double and just found actors that were the roughly the same size and age.

I think by perfect, they meant actors which were a near perfect resemblance to who they were portraying. This was more common in the earlier years. The actors/actresses who portrayed Charles Morgan, Laura Burbank, Cindy James, Rhonda Hinson, Bobbie Obherholtzer and Crystal Spencer were pretty uncanny in how they looked. Eventually, it seemed the show stopped trying so hard to get an exact double and just found actors that were the roughly the same size and age.

You’re right - they did get less picky later on. I’m thinking of the bald cap on the Judge John Fairbanks actor. And of course that episode where they used blackface Instead of finding a black actor ...forgot which segment it was

And of course that episode where they used blackface Instead of finding a black actor ...forgot which segment it was

That's the Tony Miller segment. One fine poster on here even has that moment as his avatar, but I'm drawing a blank on the username. :lol:

The only unsolved mysteries I like is the original wtih Robert Stack..... All newer ones are crap in my opinion and not as good.......

I liked Unsolved Mysteries when it was hosted by Dennis Farina. I haven't got Netflix anymore (I got sick of it and cancelled my subscription a couple years ago) so I haven't seen this new version but I don't care. But from the description yeah it sounds terrible.

Ed.

Finally got around to seeing the second set of episodes. Wasn't enthusiastic about it however. I always enjoyed the sometimes corniness/humor of the original. That last episode (of the abducted kids) would of been told in one those special alert segments with Bob Stack. Need at least two good segments not one long one that will run out of steam.

I like the reboot. I don't *love* it. I was actually quite impressed with the quality of cases in Volume 1 of the reboot, only to find that Volume 2 was pretty lacking.

I'll continue to watch, but as many of you have already said, it's just not the same.

I agree with several of the original poster's points, especially about the use of filler-several episodes are a struggle to sit through for that exact reason. The main problem is the need to fill 40-45 minutes when there's just not enough case there. It should never be that static. They produced the original series for decades. They know enough to know which cases deserve 5 minutes or 15 or 40...how can they not realize this?

I admit that there have been enough compelling cases to keep me watching. But just barely.

I agree with several of the original poster's points, especially about the use of filler-several episodes are a struggle to sit through for that exact reason. The main problem is the need to fill 40-45 minutes when there's just not enough case there. It should never be that static. They produced the original series for decades. They know enough to know which cases deserve 5 minutes or 15 or 40...how can they not realize this?

I admit that there have been enough compelling cases to keep me watching. But just barely.

I think the original producers feel as if they need to compete with other Netflix documentaries and this ruined the show. UM is known for its segments why they tried to abandon this is beyond me. I am sure it won't get renewed. What a huge disappointment.

If they wanted to do something that's more mainstream with everything else we see today, that's fine, but give it a different title. Sullying the UM name and reputation is unforgivable.

I don't mind the one case format....if it's a case that was featured on the old show. Dateline and 48 Hours have done episodes of cases that were featured on Unsolved Mysteries, such as when Dateline did the Bonnie Haim case last year (in which the main cop and the aunt from the original UM segment were interviewed by Dateline) or when 48 Hours did the Jody Huisentrut case and went into detail the main suspects, which the UM segment never did.

I would not have minded if there was a host and the cases featured were older cases from the original show, but with a new spin on said cases (such as new interviews with people from the older segments) to get new eyes on long dormant cases or even updates on cases that were featured on the original series but were not solved until long after the series ended.

I think you've just come up with the best idea yet! That would be entirely fine by me, and I'm sure many others here. Personally, I would still prefer the classic format be followed for most episodes, but something such as you propose would be great, provided they had enough solid content to fill an hour.

Nah, there’s plenty of unsolved mysteries out there that haven’t been profiled yet. We don’t need a third edition of the same cases again.

I do not care for the new Forensic Files 2. Do not like the new narrator.

I do not care for the new Forensic Files 2. Do not like the new narrator.


I did not think I could watch it because my Xfinity streaming package does not include CNN and HLN. They want an extra $30 a month for those channels and they put them in a Sports Package; what a rip off.

Anyhow I just found out I can watch episodes via HBOMax so I will give it a try.

Absolutely no one can replace Peter Thomas' voice it really made the entire series the way Robert Stack became synonymous with UM.

You have to take "Unsolved Mysteries" with a grain of salt.

They leave out a lot of stuff to make it entertaining.

I still kind of wish the new UM would have followed what 'Disappeared' did on ID. I liked Disappeared immediately and watched every episode. Part of it's charm was because it was presented as a modern version of Unsolved Mysteries. It had...

*A host/narrator (and a good one)
*It's own music score for all the moods, that presented perfect background music for all the in-between parts
*Interviews with family/friends/law enforcement
*Actors/reenactments (although unlike UM, there was no dialogue)
*The production crew traveled to the very locations of the mystery presented


This 100%. I LOVED Disappeared and still think it's probably the closest thing to UM to have debuted since UM's run ended.

This 100%. I LOVED Disappeared and still think it's probably the closest thing to UM to have debuted since UM's run ended.

I have to agree. That’s my favorite true crime show outside of original UM.

I officially gave up. I watched the first season, and got about 20 minutes into the second and turned it off. I've just gone back to rewatch old Stack seasons on Roku.

This 100%. I LOVED Disappeared and still think it's probably the closest thing to UM to have debuted since UM's run ended.

But "Disappeared" only features people who've gone missing . Not unsolved murders, the unexplained, etc.

This really started in the early-mid 1990's. Think the Flintstones Movie, The Brady Bunch Movie, etc. It has gotten beyond out of hand. It feels like there's no imagination left in Hollywood. And all of these "franchises". If all else fails, find some old comic book and marry it to your awful screenplay which you couldn't sell anywhere. How are people entertained by such drivel?


Look at the top ten box office hits of 1990. Things have always been bad.

But "Disappeared" only features people who've gone missing . Not unsolved murders, the unexplained, etc.

This is true but Disappeared has the UM nostalgic feeling. The super involved host/narrator that guides the story. The great interviews and attention to detail. I definitely think this show is reminiscent of UM.

What is the world coming to when devoting 45 - 60 mins to a segment is an "absurd" amount of time? Ridiculous. :thumbsdow
This is what happens when you're used to 20 min segments or less from the original UM and used to everything being delivered to you in "quick cuts" (what it's like today.) I have the time for the show. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that my time is that limited or precious or costly, or spoken for, that 50 minutes seems "absurd."

If I ever get to that point I really need to reevaluate my life. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I like the new version. I feel sorry for some of the professional malcontents out there. Hopefully there's many other shows lasting 30 mins or less that you can sink your teeth into.

What is the world coming to when devoting 45 - 60 mins to a segment is an "absurd" amount of time? Ridiculous. :thumbsdow
This is what happens when you're used to 20 min segments or less from the original UM and used to everything being delivered to you in "quick cuts" (what it's like today.) I have the time for the show. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that my time is that limited or precious or costly, or spoken for, that 50 minutes seems "absurd."

If I ever get to that point I really need to reevaluate my life. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I like the new version. I feel sorry for some of the professional malcontents out there. Hopefully there's many other shows lasting 30 mins or less that you can sink your teeth into.

I liked the old format because it gave you a bit of everything-murder, fraud/wanted, ghosts, aliens, treasures etc. But yes, don't see any issue with focusing on one case-from memory the old show would sometimes dedicate a show to one thing like Roswell or the Alcatraz escapes. There were certainly some segments on the original that went way too long-like that past lives segment where the woman was making up some story about being a big deal princess or something in her former incarnation, then some random guy contacted the show saying he was her lover in that life & they gave him air time as well. :lol:

What is the world coming to when devoting 45 - 60 mins to a segment is an "absurd" amount of time? Ridiculous. :thumbsdow
This is what happens when you're used to 20 min segments or less from the original UM and used to everything being delivered to you in "quick cuts" (what it's like today.) I have the time for the show. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that my time is that limited or precious or costly, or spoken for, that 50 minutes seems "absurd."

If I ever get to that point I really need to reevaluate my life. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I like the new version. I feel sorry for some of the professional malcontents out there. Hopefully there's many other shows lasting 30 mins or less that you can sink your teeth into.

You missed the entire point. It is absurd because they have 20 minutes of footage and stretching it to 60 minutes constantly repeating and dragging out the time.

It has its flaws but you really can't expect them to mimic 1970s/1980s style TV, the style from which the original UM was born, in 2020. Just ain't gonna happen.

Here's the thing though: I never anticipated for the producers to resurrect a television style or configuration equivalent to what aired three decades ago. Not once did I envision them reawakening this show with reenactments consisting of archaic criminal investigation practices, dated pop culture references, unfashionable hairstyles and a host at the end urging viewers to place a phone call to the Unsolved Mysteries toll-free hotline. I knew that from an aesthetic point of view, the reboot would contrast the original production due to the vast technological changes that have transpired since then.

Instead we have a situation far worse. Netflix's version is not different than the original Unsolved Mysteries solely from a visual prospect - this is a different show all together; a cheap mimicry with the "Unsolved Mysteries" logo slapped on as a bandage of nostalgia which conceals the wound of inferiority. It is a far cry from the original Unsolved Mysteries not because it lacks pay phones, overabundant usages of hairspray and clunky graphics. It is a different show because it lacks the essence and spirit emanated from the original production. This show is "Unsolved Mysteries" in name only because it does not contain the identity and distinctiveness that the original Unsolved Mysteries exuded. The focus of the reboot appears to be covering cases that are essentially akin to one another and presenting such cases in a middling, characterless and Vanilla approach - but hey, at least we get countless drone footage of an abandoned parking lot captured in high-definition. That should totally make up for the severe pacing issues, bloated run time, inadequate formatting and dull content equipped with sluggish, nebulous reenactments that are about as intriguing as watching a senior citizen put in his dentures. Right? Right.

To put it lightly: Netflix's Unsolved Mysteries is microwaved Spam while the original production of Unsolved Mysteries is an exquisitely cooked steak. From a very far distance these two things are vaguely resembling and kindred, but up close and upon further inspection it becomes clear and distinguishable that one is the real deal while the other is an imposter feigning as something legitimate.

The Netflix production is soulless and doesn't solicit the terror, suspicion and concern that the original run did. Even the reenactments are atrocious. Murky, opaque visuals comparable to what Velma from Scooby Doo likely sees without her glasses accompanied by dialogue-less scenes that would bore a mime. These type of things take away from any emotion that the scene is even trying to evoke whereas the original Unsolved essentially relied on the quality and accuracy of their reenactments in order to properly execute the caliber of the case they're covering.

I didn't have high expectations for the reboot - I knew that it wouldn't come within a million miles of what the original Unsolved Mysteries was. But I will not excuse mediocrity at the hands of the "we're in a different day and age" plea. The way that this reboot was executed should tell all viewers that this remake boiled down to making money off of the "Unsolved Mysteries" name in the cheapest way possible rather than organically revamping the show to genuinely preserve and maintain its legacy. Them gutting the superb 4-stories-in-45-minutes format for a swollen, protracted 1-story-in-1-hour layout; replacing accurate, visually intriguing reenactments that included dialogue in exchange for reenactments that look like they were shot underwater; stripping the show of a booming voice to accompany viewers and instead offering sentimental imprecise anecdotes from family and friends that viewers are forced to depend on; removing the music / soundtrack which aided greatly in pacing and moving the story along....this slop that they threw together on Netflix is just insulting, and if it weren't for people's undying love and respect for the original production, it would be more evident to more people.

Just envision how awkward, dry and emotionally-removed a 2020 Netflix reenactment of the Edward Howard Bell or Angela Hammond case would be.

Here's the thing though: I never anticipated for the producers to resurrect a television style or configuration equivalent to what aired three decades ago.

I'm really curious as to who you actually are and why you created a new username to post such negative comments. Why wouldn't you post them under your main username? If this was discussed already, sorry I missed it in your really really long posts.

I get your frustration. I don't get why you're spending so much time on how disappointed you are when you can just not watch it or spend time on something that you DO enjoy. Unless this is fun for you in which case, carry on!

I think the reboot is just fine for what it's trying to accomplish in today's world. People are holding the current iteration to standards they don't hold the original to as well. The original left information out, spent lots of time on pointless segments, had cases that clearly had no reason to be aired nationally besides the drama/characters of the participants themselves.

And, I'll also add that this board doesn't help - conversations are pretty stale and there's a lot of "we've already talked about this" or "someone mentioned that on page 5 of this 30 page load thread" that prevents newcomers from really being able to participate in a meaningful way. Your negative post/thread has gotten way more traction than other threads discussing the new series - the new cases have already been largely ignored with very short threads. Meanwhile subreddits and FB groups dedicated to the show and true crime have had multiple discussions on the new show. So plenty of people are watching it and liking it - just not a lot of people here.

I just watched it today in-depth for the first time and I have to agree with OP. My patience went to 0 pretty quickly. 10-15 minute (maybe 20 minute) segments is what made the format work. Could you imagine if they had Stack doing 50 minute episodes on 1 case back in the day? If he even agreed to such a thing? We all would've grown tired of it.

I feel like I'm watching a youtube VICE documentary, with unsolved mysteries cover music tacked onto it.

10-15 minute (maybe 20 minute) segments is what made the format work. Could you imagine if they had Stack doing 50 minute episodes on 1 case back in the day? If he even agreed to such a thing? We all would've grown tired of it.


Exactly. What's even worse is that they have the audacity to film these extraordinarily-long segments in the most tedious, unenthusiastic and lifeless manner possible. If you're going to make these episodes nearly an hour long, at least have the common courtesy of providing the viewers with intriguing, accurate visuals and actual dialogue. The whole "slowed-down blurred out actors and actresses who do not speak or demonstrate emotions and whom you can't even see properly thus they add absolutely nothing to the story" direction that they've decided to take offers no value whatsoever. They've put the least amount of efforts - actually, no effort at all - towards the reenactments and that is an essential component of Unsolved Mysteries and is in large part what made the segments of the original production so memorable and the show so riveting. Guess they thought the extended overhead drone shots of a cornfield would make up for that.

Hmm, I've noticed something interesting: none of the segments from the reboot are discussed on this site. In fact, even on other websites I've observed far more communication, exchange of ideas, development of theories and overall concern with the segments featured in the original airing in contrast to the Netflix reboot episodes.

The fact that, even a year after the reboot was released, people are conversing about and re-watching the original segments from 20 and 30+ years ago over the cases covered in the reboot pretty much stresses my initial stance: The original production was executed better and encouraged reflection, dialogue and debates. The newest incarnation of Unsolved Mysteries is presented so drearingly that it obstructs discourse and leaves viewers feeling as if there is no mystery to be solved.

Such a shame that Hollywood is such an uninspiring, unimaginative corporate wasteland that they'd rather resuscitate productions from 30 years ago (and contaminate it's legacy in the process) and feast off of Gen Z's fixation on nostalgia and everything that predates them rather than sit down and come up with original concepts.

You don’t actually know what Gen Z is 😂

Having watched them now it is not too bad, nothing like the original for sure-some episodes are a joke like the Japan Spirits, but I particularly liked the one with the black guy at the party with his buddies who was left behind & was murdered.

I feel like I'm watching a youtube VICE documentary, with unsolved mysteries cover music tacked onto it.

That's a pretty spot on description

I thought Stolen Kids was a really good episode and was glad they including a missing children roll call at the end of the episode. I also hope the reboot will get people to go back to the original show as well. Now that FilmRise has the whole released series on YouTube, it is good to see the original show back in the public eye and at least partially easily accessible for viewing. More importantly, at least some of the reboot's cases are hopefully going to cause exposure that could potentially help solve crimes, though the second season really fell flat on that with a lot of the cases being shown as foul play when that really didn't seem to be the case for at least three of the episodes...

My biggest complaint about the reboot was the omission of evidence. I get trimming things down to fit a 12 minute segment, but a 45 minute to an hour?

That's the Tony Miller segment. One fine poster on here even has that moment as his avatar, but I'm drawing a blank on the username. :lol:

Apologies, @WishfulDreamer, I have only just seen this while catching up ����

I'm just discovering this thread, but I did try to watch the new Unsolved Mysteries on Netflix when it came out. I agree with everything the original poster said and more. It's UM in name only...blatant ripoff. It has none of the features that made UM so popular, then and now. It literally bears no resemblance to UM except the intro music and producers name. In 10 years no one will talk about it, yet this board will still exist to discuss the original cases.

I disliked the music, editing and interviewing style. It's just like all the other crime shows.

Your review is absolutely spot on!

I only watched some episodes for the cases, because it's terrible indeed. Forensic Files II did a better job recapturing the feel of the original show, even though the voice over is pretty bad.

The show is returning with new episodes next year. Obviously most people liked it.

The best one by far is the Japan episode

The best one by far is the Japan episode

You’re obviously trolling.

You’re obviously trolling.

Why would DazzlerSparkler be trolling? The Japanese episode was very well done. It was poignant and sad. It's not my absolute favorite of the stories they have done, but it's up there...

Why would DazzlerSparkler be trolling? The Japanese episode was very well done. It was poignant and sad. It's not my absolute favorite of the stories they have done, but it's up there...

To the ignore list!

To the ignore list!

Can you ignore mods? *shrug*

Why would DazzlerSparkler be trolling? The Japanese episode was very well done. It was poignant and sad. It's not my absolute favorite of the stories they have done, but it's up there...

There was no mystery. There wasn’t even a case. It’s bizarre that anyone liked that episode. It didn’t belong on a show called Unsolved Mysteries. The original series had much, much better paranormal episodes. This was an unfocused, vague mess.

To the ignore list!Ah man!!

There was no mystery. There wasn’t even a case. It’s bizarre that anyone liked that episode. It didn’t belong on a show called Unsolved Mysteries. The original series had much, much better paranormal episodes. This was an unfocused, vague mess.

I mean.... I guess? I categorized the Japanese tsunami episode on the same level as the ghost stories the original UM portrayed. I don't necessarily think there were mysteries in those segments, either, with the exception of the Terrasita Basa segment. I thought it was definitely as creepy as Resurrection Mary and WAY better than the Comedy Store Ghosts.

Maybe I'm over-simplifying the ghost segments, but the big mystery seemed to always be "Are the ghosts real?" In the Japanese segment, the question is the same, except it tends to lean more towards "real" simply because of Japanese beliefs surrounding death and spirits.

The tsunami episode was the second best episode from the reboot. The shots of the tragedy were unbelievable.

The tsunami episode was the second best episode from the reboot. The shots of the tragedy were unbelievable.

Indeed. It was very well done.

There was no mystery. There wasn’t even a case. It’s bizarre that anyone liked that episode. It didn’t belong on a show called Unsolved Mysteries. The original series had much, much better paranormal episodes. This was an unfocused, vague mess.


I actually agree with you on that.

I have not even bothered to watch the reboot, because like everything else it touches Hollywood will ruin this. The original series was excellent, almost without flaws at all. "True Crime" shows have become an obnoxious multi-billion dollar industry that produces nothing worth watching. The premise of the reboot, as I read it, is to have no host at all, hence making it "reality" TV. Realistically, they could never hope to replace Robert Stack either, I can't think of a single contemporary actor that would be worth having.

I have not even bothered to watch the reboot, because like everything else it touches Hollywood will ruin this. The original series was excellent, almost without flaws at all. "True Crime" shows have become an obnoxious multi-billion dollar industry that produces nothing worth watching. The premise of the reboot, as I read it, is to have no host at all, hence making it "reality" TV. Realistically, they could never hope to replace Robert Stack either, I can't think of a single contemporary actor that would be worth having.

It is a good watch overall-nothing really like the original series, but some of the cases are very interesting. I liked it at lot more than I thought I would, but did skip Tsunami Spirits & gave up with the Stolen Kids episode halfway through. The Alonzo Brooks case is really good.

I wouldnt watch it either..... Stale and bland.............

Crap like most things now..........

Other people are enjoying it. It must have done well for Netflix, otherwise they wouldn’t have renewed it.

As for season 2, it’s entirely possible they’ve taken viewer feedback into account when making the new season. I’m not expecting the second season to be the exact same as the first. But it what ways, I don’t know.

Other people are enjoying it. It must have done well for Netflix, otherwise they wouldn’t have renewed it.

As for season 2, it’s entirely possible they’ve taken viewer feedback into account when making the new season. I’m not expecting the second season to be the exact same as the first. But it what ways, I don’t know.

The fact that something is profitable says virtually nothing about its quality. The bar is so low these days that people will watch even low quality series for a lack of alternatives.

As others have said, I suspect that much of the interest both in the reboot and the "original" episodes that were released is driven by people that did not see the original run.

The fact that something is profitable says virtually nothing about its quality. The bar is so low these days that people will watch even low quality series for a lack of alternatives.

As others have said, I suspect that much of the interest both in the reboot and the "original" episodes that were released is driven by people that did not see the original run.

Obviously the quality is high enough to keep people streaming it. If it weren’t bringing in viewers, Netflix would have dropped it, simple as that. Look at how quickly they cancelled Cowboy Bebop.

I get that you hate it, but this is show biz, and facts are facts.

The fact that something is profitable says virtually nothing about its quality. The bar is so low these days that people will watch even low quality series for a lack of alternatives.

As others have said, I suspect that much of the interest both in the reboot and the "original" episodes that were released is driven by people that did not see the original run.

Also, have you ever stopped to consider that people who never watched the original genuinely like the new series? It’s not all about the old viewers.

The fact that something is profitable says virtually nothing about its quality. The bar is so low these days that people will watch even low quality series for a lack of alternatives.

As others have said, I suspect that much of the interest both in the reboot and the "original" episodes that were released is driven by people that did not see the original run.

Also, we’re living in the Golden Age of Television. The quality of tv shows has never been higher.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

Also, we’re living in the Golden Age of Television. The quality of tv shows has never been higher.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

We are definitely not living in the golden age of television. :lol:

Quality is only higher in a technical sense, more resolution and effects, but writing, plots, acting, concepts, and everything else is laughably bad.

The most obvious sign is that Hollywood has to keep rebooting old shows because it cannot come up with any viable concepts.

Again, people streaming a show does not make it good, it simply means it was better than other offerings, which is a very low bar.

Old enough to know quality vs chaff.

We are definitely not living in the golden age of television.

Oh, we absolutely are. I didn’t make up the term. Google is your friend. Use it. You do know how to Google, right?

The fact that you don’t understand the term tells me how old you are, and that you cannot be taken seriously.

Oh, we absolutely are. I didn’t make up the term. Google is your friend. Use it.

The fact that you don’t understand the term tells me how old you are, and that you cannot be taken seriously.

Hate to break this to you, but Google is not the source of all wisdom. Just because someone calls this the Golden Age of Television does not make it so.

The term was originally used for the period from the end of the war until about 1960, which was arguably a more accurate usage.

I find nothing "golden" about this age of television. Dependence on existing intellectual property is at an all time high, and writing is exceptionally poor and not sophisticated whatsoever.

And another one joins my ignore list. I don’t suffer fools.

And another one joins my ignore list. I don’t suffer fools.

You don't have to make an announcement every time you've placed a poster on ignore. You've done it so many times that its way past the point of being pointless now.

Other people are enjoying it.Yes its sad...... They have been re-programmed to think crap is good....... Really very sad I think.....

You don't have to make an announcement every time you've placed a poster on ignore. You've done it so many times that its way past the point of being pointless now.

I announce it so they’ll know not to bother replying to me. Also, you aren’t a moderator.

You know who was golden?

Ponyboy from The Outsiders.

Or any one of the Golden Girls, but especially Betty White. Now there a show they should never reboot….

Let’s keep it civil, y’all. :)

You don't have to make an announcement every time you've placed a poster on ignore. You've done it so many times that its way past the point of being pointless now.

He's just doing it to get attention. You would think by now he would realize people are here mostly for the old episodes.

You know who was golden?

Ponyboy from The Outsiders.

Or any one of the Golden Girls, but especially Betty White. Now there a show they should never reboot….

Let’s keep it civil, y’all. :)

I heard there may be a reboot of the Golden Girl. I hope not, either.

I heard there may be a reboot of the Golden Girl. I hope not, either.

This is a terrible idea.

BTW, Golden Girls as well as The Golden Palace are streaming right now on Hulu.

They have nothing good to make anymore so they take GOOD older stuff and make it utter trash!!

If you have to "block" someone everytime somebody disagrees with you, you're gonna be the only poster in your little world soon.

The fact that something is profitable says virtually nothing about its quality. The bar is so low these days that people will watch even low quality series for a lack of alternatives.

As others have said, I suspect that much of the interest both in the reboot and the "original" episodes that were released is driven by people that did not see the original run.

I agree with everything you said here. The quality we are speaking of is in the writing, sequencing, and presentation. The old show just flowed so much better and stayed consistent throughout the entire series. Unsolved Mysteries just isn't UM without multiple segments and a host. We all love Bob Stack, but I would rather they had replaced him and tried to keep the show as close to the original as possible. Now you can't distinguish the show from anything on ID channel. It is all the same. This is why I cannot support the new show.

I agree with everything you said here. The quality we are speaking of is in the writing, sequencing, and presentation. The old show just flowed so much better and stayed consistent throughout the entire series. Unsolved Mysteries just isn't UM without multiple segments and a host. We all love Bob Stack, but I would rather they had replaced him and tried to keep the show as close to the original as possible. Now you can't distinguish the show from anything on ID channel. It is all the same. This is why I cannot support the new show.

Amen, I would rather jump through painstaking hoops to see the original episodes than watch the new series. :lol:

The new Netflix season of Unsolved Mysteries is - unsurprisingly - a dud too.

Such a far cry from the Robert Stack era. For crying out loud: If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

The new Netflix season of Unsolved Mysteries is - unsurprisingly - a dud too.

Such a far cry from the Robert Stack era. For crying out loud: If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

Yet you still watched it, so the joke is on you! :lol::lol::lol:

Also, we’re living in the Golden Age of Television. The quality of tv shows has never been higher.


It's very amusing how people will repeat this lie despite Hollywood itself contradicting it.

If we're in the "Golden Age of Television" then please explain Tinsel Town's incessant need to resurrect content from many moons ago rather than - gee, I don't know - create something invigorating and actually of substance that doesn't involve riding the coattails of beloved projects introduced to the public decades ago and "bringing it back" in order to evoke artificial feelings of nostalgia and capitalize off of that in order to drive up ratings and generate interest.

It's very amusing how people will repeat this lie despite Hollywood itself contradicting it.

If we're in the "Golden Age of Television" then please explain Tinsel Town's incessant need to resurrect content from many moons ago rather than - gee, I don't know - create something invigorating and actually of substance that doesn't involve riding the coattails of beloved projects introduced to the public decades ago and "bringing it back" in order to evoke artificial feelings of nostalgia and capitalize off of that in order to drive up ratings and generate interest.

Oh my god, you are the embodiment of an old, bitter, miserable excuse for a “person”. I can’t with you anymore so you’re being added to my ignore list. Your ranting and whining is ridiculous. Do yourself a favour and stop posting here.

I wouldnt watch it either..... Stale and bland.............

Crap like most things now..........

It's a pot-pourri of everything wrong with modern day television.

Ceaseless, interminable drone footage to show the audience that we know how to capture aerial footage of cornfields and abandoned parking lots? Check.

Slowed-down, blurry, distant images of actors barely moving rather than engaging, constructive re-enactments that actually tie into the actual narrative being presented? Check.

Bloated, inflated run times that focus on "HD aesthetics" rather than assembling a captivating chronicle of events for the audience to follow? Check.

Generic, characterless blob of nothing that relies and clings to the identity of the original Unsolved Mysteries from three decades ago in order to sustain interest? Check.

Oh my god, you are the embodiment of an old, bitter, miserable excuse for a “person”. I can’t with you anymore so you’re being added to my ignore list. Your ranting and whining is ridiculous. Do yourself a favour and stop posting here.

"Also, you aren’t a moderator."
-- alistaircranium, 1-10-2022.

It's a pot-pourri of everything wrong with modern day television.

Ceaseless, interminable drone footage to show the audience that we know how to capture aerial footage of cornfields and abandoned parking lots? Check.

Slowed-down, blurry, distant images of actors barely moving rather than engaging, constructive re-enactments that actually tie into the actual narrative being presented? Check.

Bloated, inflated run times that focus on "HD aesthetics" rather than assembling a captivating chronicle of events for the audience to follow? Check.

Generic, characterless blob of nothing that relies and clings to the identity of the original Unsolved Mysteries from three decades ago in order to sustain interest? Check.

You are unfortunately right in every respect. Hollywood has become absurdly dependent on technological sophistication while at the same time engaging in cost cutting of the most absurd degree.

Why is there one drawn out story for the entire episode rather than say 4? Its cheaper to milk one to death for an hour than do 4 individual shoots.

I'm going to quote my friend, in a text he sent me earlier this week: "You were right. The piano theme f*****g slaps."

The prosecution rests. :lol:

You are unfortunately right in every respect. Hollywood has become absurdly dependent on technological sophistication while at the same time engaging in cost cutting of the most absurd degree.

Why is there one drawn out story for the entire episode rather than say 4? Its cheaper to milk one to death for an hour than do 4 individual shoots.

And the "glossy high definition aesthetic" that the producers so desperately wish to covet clashes with the actual subject matter and thematic of the show. This is supposed to be a television presentation about a series of obscure and mystifying murders or strange events. Such grave topics do not need to be complimented by polished filming technology; what matters is the story and how it is being presented to the audience. These crimes are meant to be narrated and illustrated in a poignant fashion that is hauntingly captivating and straightforward. This was a quintessential part of the charm of the original Unsolved Mysteries run; regardless of its production value, the demonstration of the stories being told were relatively simplistic and straight to the point - oftentimes eerily so, sometimes even comedically. They fit in accordance with the allotted time frame and concisely provided an intriguing narration of the crime, fascinating and luring viewers enough to actually attempt to be of aid to solving these crimes. Even decades later, the original Unsolved Mysteries run still evokes conversation and sleuthing; a true testimony to the show's impact and quality. The reboot doesn't capture any of this; instead, it is merely a lifeless, bland and lackluster cardboard cut-out of its forerunner; a contest in which it is competing with itself to see how many 1080p drone shots can be crammed into an hour long segment.

The run times for the reboot are laughably bloated and they have yet to provide material provoking enough to justify stretching out one story for an outlandish length of time. Apart of keeping something enticing and mystifying is to making it prompt; long enough to keep someone engaged but short enough to keep them wondering. Netflix's Unsolved Mysteries has accomplished none of those things; rather, it feels boring and overstuffed with its soulless regurgitated slowed-down footage of actors blurrily moving in the distance or of drone drowsily hovering across a neighborhood that contributes nothing to the story and provides no authentic visual aid.

I think its time for Hollywood to give the whole "reboot" thing a permanent rest. Forty year old pop culture film and television shows being awakened from its peaceful slumber by lazy Hollywood executives and corporate heads has proven to be disappointing and uneventful each and every time.

Oh my god, you are the embodiment of an old, bitter, miserable excuse for a “person”. I can’t with you anymore so you’re being added to my ignore list. Your ranting and whining is ridiculous. Do yourself a favour and stop posting here.

I'm honored to be on your ignore list, as I'm sure are many others. Soon enough you will have blocked so many people to the point where you'll have no one to have dialogue with on here or challenge your viewpoint and will self-contained in your own little echo chamber of thoughts. But it appears that's what you want given your aptitude to block anyone who says something different than what you believe...so have fun with that, I guess.

Toodle-loo!

I'm going to quote my friend, in a text he sent me earlier this week: "You were right. The piano theme f*****g slaps."

The prosecution rests. :lol:

It really does.

I'm honored to be on your ignore list, as I'm sure are many others. Soon enough you will have blocked so many people to the point where you'll have no one to have dialogue with on here or challenge your viewpoint and will self-contained in your own little echo chamber of thoughts. But it appears that's what you want given your aptitude to block anyone who says something different than what you believe...so have fun with that, I guess.

Toodle-loo!

Hey, a new member of the club! Welcome.

I think its time for Hollywood to give the whole "reboot" thing a permanent rest. Forty year old pop culture film and television shows being awakened from its peaceful slumber by lazy Hollywood executives and corporate heads has proven to be disappointing and uneventful each and every time.

That is the problem though, Hollywood is absurdly dependent on existing intellectual property and has very little creativity left to offer. Only if people en masse decide they are not going to continue watching rehashed entertainment will this stop. The fact that almost every major blockbuster movie in the last 2 decades was a franchise or remake speaks volumes.
Unsolved Mysteries did not need a "reboot", keeping the same production values and aesthetic as the original run, combined with a good replacement for Robert Stack would do the job nicely. But the profit margins would be lower so instead we get this.

As someone who loves the original UM, I can't bring myself to watch the reboot based on everything those who have suffered through it have kindly relayed on this forum. It sounds like nearly every other current piece of true crime drivel that's polluting the world these days. I thank each of you for saving me the disappointment!

I couldn't agree more with others' assessments: Hollywood hasn't had a great, original idea since somewhere in the late 1980's-very early 1990's, and quality has just plummeted from there. I feel so fortunate to have come of age during the final hurrah of quality viewing.

I watched it enough to know it was garbage and I wasnt interested in it...

Poor Bob :(

As someone who loves the original UM, I can't bring myself to watch the reboot based on everything those who have suffered through it have kindly relayed on this forum. It sounds like nearly every other current piece of true crime drivel that's polluting the world these days. I thank each of you for saving me the disappointment!

I couldn't agree more with others' assessments: Hollywood hasn't had a great, original idea since somewhere in the late 1980's-very early 1990's, and quality has just plummeted from there. I feel so fortunate to have come of age during the final hurrah of quality viewing.

Do your sanity a favor and don't want the reboot. It is "Unsolved Mysteries" in name only; in every other way it is a lackluster, uninspiring, feeble assortment of insipidity. Uniform and repetitious, clothing itself in the same generic garments as every other true crime show that's been on air for the past twenty years. The focus on this reboot seems to be on capturing high definition drone footage of suburban subdivisions or drowsily filming re-enactments in a slowed-down, faint, clouded and distant manner that add absolutely nothing to the story except confusion. In addition to those "exceptional" qualities, the reboot also boasts a spectacularly bloated run time, disentangling one measly story into a nearly hour-long format and using family and associate interviews as narration which makes the show feel and operate as a structureless and disheveled mess. The original Unsolved Mysteries was eerie and daunting; the only thing frightening about this reboot is how astoundingly boring, poorly made and characterless it is.

I didn't like season 2 but I am enjoying season 3 a little more so far except for the ufo segments.

I wish they had narration that was similar to the original one.

Not as good as the original but I'll keep watching them as they come out. If anything maybe the cases will help the friends and families involved and eventually get solved

I am giving the new season a go. I think the episodes might appeal to a broader audience if the segments would feature multiple theories about the cases. Are they afraid that the single UM perspective might be wrong? At least with the Stack version, they would present several hypotheses as to why someone went missing. Now all we get is a singular view of how someone went missing or was killed.

I agree it seems that this version of UM is very one-sided. I had faith when I heard they had the original producers on board. I am very disappointed the direction they decided to go in. These episodes blend right in with ID channel. Nothing about this show represents UM. NOTHING.

I wouldnt like it........ Most people today are conditioned and robot like and do not make good things!!

The families of the deceased/missing having complete and total control of the narrative when it comes to true crime shows is a recipe for disaster. Without an unbiased narrator and/or the counterpoint to the main narrative it just becomes as stale as week old bagels.

I guess my main complaint if we're going to not have many cases in a season is why bother with the paranormal cases? In the old show I understood they wanted something to distinguish themselves from America's Most Wanted but here it feels like a waste. Speaking as a non-believer here though.

I guess my main complaint if we're going to not have many cases in a season is why bother with the paranormal cases? In the old show I understood they wanted something to distinguish themselves from America's Most Wanted but here it feels like a waste. Speaking as a non-believer here though.

I actually think the paranormal lends itself to this new format better than trying to be like the old Unsolved Mysteries. With a 3 year production lead time they're going for the flimsiest "unexplained death" stories that have no chance of going anywhere because it one of them happens to get solved during that long window, as happened often on the OG show, the episode's a throw away. (is that why we only got 9 episodes this year, a very strange number for a pickup...)

The Ghost in Apartment 14 was a well done episode, IMO, for exactly that reason. The main story was already solved so they didn't have to waste 50 minutes talking about unimportant things like building a volleyball court in the backyard. They got to tell a solid beginning, middle and end and tease us with a fun paranormal mystery about the psychic visions.

I am giving the new season a go. I think the episodes might appeal to a broader audience if the segments would feature multiple theories about the cases. Are they afraid that the single UM perspective might be wrong? At least with the Stack version, they would present several hypotheses as to why someone went missing. Now all we get is a singular view of how someone went missing or was killed.

I think people are far more litigious in 2022 than they were in 1987 and Netflix doesn't want to get sued.

When you think about what the old show got away with back in the day ... accusing people by name that never faced any sort of legal prosecution on national television of being pedophiles and murderers. :eek:

The families of the deceased/missing having complete and total control of the narrative when it comes to true crime shows is a recipe for disaster. Without an unbiased narrator and/or the counterpoint to the main narrative it just becomes as stale as week old bagels.

All of this.

I didn't like season 2 but I am enjoying season 3 a little more so far except for the ufo segments.

I wish they had narration that was similar to the original one.

Not as good as the original but I'll keep watching them as they come out. If anything maybe the cases will help the friends and families involved and eventually get solved

Narration aside, which I still do think is needed, I just wish they'd lean into the things that made Unsolved Mysteries be Unsolved Mysteries. Forensic Files 2 got it right by sticking to the formula that worked despite losing their main star. Sure, a voice over is easier to replace than an on camera personality and especially one of the caliber of Robert Stack but they stuck to the premise.

I legit wonder how much better the reboot would have been if they'd gone for the atmosphere and music of the original instead of the sterile interview format they've chosen now. The reason that show captivated people for so long and is still remembered to this day wasn't even about Robert Stack, it was because that show scarred the sh*t out of them every week on network television in the limited channels era. NBC (etc) made a mini horror movie every week and Netflix should have tried to do something similar. Host or no host.

I think people are far more litigious in 2022 than they were in 1987 and Netflix doesn't want to get sued.

When you think about what the old show got away with back in the day ... accusing people by name that never faced any sort of legal prosecution on national television of being pedophiles and murderers. :eek:

Eh, that might be part of it. But realistically a strong legal department should be well within the abilities of Netflix. Its more that journalistic integrity no longer exists whatsoever and telling multiple sides is not required for getting people to drool over the moron box for an hour.

Likewise, family editorial control is a serious problem, its how you get drug deal gone wrong cases presented as super mysterious, something the entire true crime genre is a mess of.

As to your point about Stack being hard to replace, I think we all feel that way, but there are dozens of actors that could do it if they wanted to. Particularly if they emulated the demeanor and dress.

One other thought, in terms of why this is so much worse than the original, is the effects of fragmentation of TV in the US. When UM was created/airing there were 3-4 national broadcast networks, with cable just coming into its own. With tens of millions of viewers on a single programme night after night it was possible to dedicate enormous resources to creating entertaining shows, and at the same time one had to create a series with a broad appeal, ie one done well.

Now, with a highly fragmented market, it does not pay to spend much on the creation of most of the content, and there is no need to make it broadly appealing.

I actually think the paranormal lends itself to this new format better than trying to be like the old Unsolved Mysteries. With a 3 year production lead time they're going for the flimsiest "unexplained death" stories that have no chance of going anywhere because it one of them happens to get solved during that long window, as happened often on the OG show, the episode's a throw away. (is that why we only got 9 episodes this year, a very strange number for a pickup...)

The Ghost in Apartment 14 was a well done episode, IMO, for exactly that reason. The main story was already solved so they didn't have to waste 50 minutes talking about unimportant things like building a volleyball court in the backyard. They got to tell a solid beginning, middle and end and tease us with a fun paranormal mystery about the psychic visions.
And if the paranormal bit amounted to anything, I might agree. Instead, it's just a cheap way to introduce us to the case. It added nothing; all of what Jodi said was already in the book.

Eh, that might be part of it. But realistically a strong legal department should be well within the abilities of Netflix. Its more that journalistic integrity no longer exists whatsoever and telling multiple sides is not required for getting people to drool over the moron box for an hour.

Yes but just because they have a strong legal department, which I have no doubt someone like Netflix would, doesn't mean they want to onboard the expense of fighting lawsuits and paying out settlements. Even if they eventually win the suit the costs of fighting it are a negative against their budget and there's no guarantee of recouping court costs if the litigants are poor (like most of the people profiled likely would be).

Also, as Unsolved Mysteries liked to point out, is "not a news program" so I don't think journalistic integrity isn't really a thing here.


Likewise, family editorial control is a serious problem, its how you get drug deal gone wrong cases presented as super mysterious, something the entire true crime genre is a mess of.

100%. It's the biggest failing of the reboot.


As to your point about Stack being hard to replace, I think we all feel that way, but there are dozens of actors that could do it if they wanted to. Particularly if they emulated the demeanor and dress.

Just to clarify, it's not even my point. I'd have happily accepted a Stack recast. But this was the excuse C&M used at the initial launch for not having a host. I'm just saying that even if they were hell bent on going through with that mistake they could have at least gone with the other elements that made Unsolved Mysteries what it was. The atmosphere, a good score, chilling reenactments.


One other thought, in terms of why this is so much worse than the original, is the effects of fragmentation of TV in the US. When UM was created/airing there were 3-4 national broadcast networks, with cable just coming into its own. With tens of millions of viewers on a single programme night after night it was possible to dedicate enormous resources to creating entertaining shows, and at the same time one had to create a series with a broad appeal, ie one done well.

Now, with a highly fragmented market, it does not pay to spend much on the creation of most of the content, and there is no need to make it broadly appealing.

Eeeh, I kind of think that's letting them off the hook too easily. It's not like they have less people working on the show. The crew size even seems to be larger going by the length of the closing crawl compared to the OG. The job pool has simply increased and more work in that field and many go from show to show to offset for the larger volume of content.

They've made an editorial choice to use the Unsolved Mysteries branding to make something that is mass appealing and generic for social media buzz. Rather than the specialized content that UM used to be. You could slap the UM intro and cut out the interviewers in the interviews from an episode of 48 Hours and it would look the same.

And if the paranormal bit amounted to anything, I might agree. Instead, it's just a cheap way to introduce us to the case. It added nothing; all of what Jodi said was already in the book.

Oh it was flimsy as hell :D

I'm just saying that I appreciated the cohesive story of the Marliz Spannhake case instead of the usual drifting they do in an episode to fill time because they're afraid to present conflicting theories. It wasn't an "Unsolved Mystery" though.

The families of the deceased/missing having complete and total control of the narrative when it comes to true crime shows is a recipe for disaster. Without an unbiased narrator and/or the counterpoint to the main narrative it just becomes as stale as week old bagels.

The show is now completely rooted in sentimentalism. The showrunners are too lazy to present the story from multiple viewpoints or provide a counter-narrative, so we're stuck listening to loved ones provide dewy-eyed conspiracies that are dramatically accompanied by forty minutes of foggy, slow-paced reenactments and aerial shots of wilderness. The show feels formless and structureless; inherently biased and caught in this perennial awkwardness in which it is trying to emulate and capitalize off of its more successful forerunner by maintaining "original" nostalgia-inducing elements like the name and theme song yet also trying to rebel from the original show and establish itself as something new by modernizing the show, abandoning the usual format and gutting it of everything that made it good and memorable. It's a poorly-paced, characterless mess that emphasizes aesthetics over credibility and beguiling storytelling.

That is not how a strong legal department works. When you are a major corporation with a powerful set of lawyers most people are not going to bother with a frivilous lawsuit because the can't afford the cost for no real upside. Powerful legal departments rarely settle, they make clear they have the resources to bankrupt their opponents and that settles it without paying a dime.

You don't have to be a news program to have journalistic integrity. The original UM had plenty of it. Virtually anyone reporting on any real event can either have it or not, but it has nothing to do with being news.

You know who was golden?

Ponyboy from The Outsiders.

Or any one of the Golden Girls, but especially Betty White. Now there a show they should never reboot….

Let’s keep it civil, y’all. :)


I've literally been rewatching the Golden Girls all this week and watched Outsiders a week or so ago lmao

"Let's do it for Johnny, man. We'll do it for Johnny!!!"

That is not how a strong legal department works. When you are a major corporation with a powerful set of lawyers most people are not going to bother with a frivilous lawsuit because the can't afford the cost for no real upside. Powerful legal departments rarely settle, they make clear they have the resources to bankrupt their opponents and that settles it without paying a dime.

You don't have to be a news program to have journalistic integrity. The original UM had plenty of it. Virtually anyone reporting on any real event can either have it or not, but it has nothing to do with being news.

People are always going to bother, and even threatening them back legally before anything makes it to court still comes at a cost that they'd not want to engage in if they don't have to. It's not frivolous to sue if you're someone like Tim Binder, Steve Bechtel, etc, being accused of murder without any trial on national TV.

And I'll respectfully disagree again when it comes to the original's "journalistic integrity". It was a great entertainment program, it certainly did good, but we can't pretend like we don't know all these years later how they left out key details or distorted whole stories to fit the intended narrative of the segment. Just like they do now.

forty minutes of foggy, slow-paced reenactments and aerial shots of wilderness.

This seems to be the case with almost every true crime documentary now. It's so tired and played out. Half their budget must go to drones and video editors applying the blur. And the slow motion is just to drag it on long than it needs to be.

Aside from hiring a host, the biggest positive change would be not to spend the full hour dragging out a single case. Making each episode have 2-3 cases would be a huge step in the right direction. Hey, at least the intro and outro themes are excellent.

This seems to be the case with almost every true crime documentary now. It's so tired and played out. Half their budget must go to drones and video editors applying the blur. And the slow motion is just to drag it on long than it needs to be.

Exactly. It takes one guy to do the drone, and the same guy to do the blur. That costs far, far, far less than having a camera crew do in depth reenactments with a mixture of paid and free actors. It does not matter what is in the credits, standards for what they put there have changed. What matters is the product, and its very clear they spend far less churning out this garbage than they did no the old UM.

Exactly. It takes one guy to do the drone, and the same guy to do the blur. That costs far, far, far less than having a camera crew do in depth reenactments with a mixture of paid and free actors. It does not matter what is in the credits, standards for what they put there have changed. What matters is the product, and its very clear they spend far less churning out this garbage than they did no the old UM.

Right on the money

This show could be good if they put enough money into it. The problem is the budget.

I can speak on this from experience, that re-enactments on contemporary true crime shows are not scripted and recorded with no audio at all. They hire actors to do the scenes and just give them general direction (no lines). Oxygen, ID, everyone does this now. They don't have to cast their actors through talent agencies, as they would if the re-enactments were scripted. Instead they can just pay the actors the same low rates as they would hiring background (like $75-100 /day), and have all of the audio consist only of music, narration and interviews. Netflix is taking this exact same shortcut with UM.

I think it's sad that we've lost that in true crime shows. Aside from Stack of course, the re-enactments were the best thing about the classic series. (Imagine how bad the Edward Harold Bell segment would be if we couldn't hear a future Oscar winner yelling "YOU'RE NOT! GETTING! YOUR KEYS!!").

Netflix is clearly not going to spend the money that NBC did back in the day. In addition to the actors, NBC hired screenwriters to write the segments, a script supervisor, boom mike operators, etc. for each production, and to film a single episode NBC had to manage productions usually in multiple states and produce 3-4 separate concise stories. And oh yeah, they hired a Hollywood legend to host.

Netflix will do none of that. They'd rather spend that money on the latest unwatchable Dwayne Johnson/Ryan Reynolds spy comedy.

Netflix has become notoriously cheap and no longer offers premium content, IMHO. I only subscribe for UM and Stranger Things. They spent 2018-20 abruptly cancelling the shows I like, and I’m no longer invested in the ones they kept around like Dead to Me and Russian Doll.

Right on the money

This show could be good if they put enough money into it. The problem is the budget.

I can speak on this from experience, that re-enactments on contemporary true crime shows are not scripted and recorded with no audio at all. They hire actors to do the scenes and just give them general direction (no lines). Oxygen, ID, everyone does this now. They don't have to cast their actors through talent agencies, as they would if the re-enactments were scripted. Instead they can just pay the actors the same low rates as they would hiring background (like $75-100 /day), and have all of the audio consist only of music, narration and interviews. Netflix is taking this exact same shortcut with UM.

I think it's sad that we've lost that in true crime shows. Aside from Stack of course, the re-enactments were the best thing about the classic series. (Imagine how bad the Edward Harold Bell segment would be if we couldn't hear a future Oscar winner yelling "YOU'RE NOT! GETTING! YOUR KEYS!!").

Netflix is clearly not going to spend the money that NBC did back in the day. In addition to the actors, NBC hired screenwriters to write the segments, a script supervisor, boom mike operators, etc. for each production, and to film a single episode NBC had to manage productions usually in multiple states and produce 3-4 separate concise stories. And oh yeah, they hired a Hollywood legend to host.

Netflix will do none of that. They'd rather spend that money on the latest unwatchable Dwayne Johnson/Ryan Reynolds spy comedy.

Good to have an opinion from someone with boots on the ground experience. It verifies a lot of what I have deduced from comparing the final products and the industry at a high level.

This is why I am inherently against reboots. The primary focus is always on capitalizing off of nostalgia and never on doing the original justice by maintaining its quality. Netflix didn't even bother to attempt to match the format and standards of the initial Unsolved Mysteries run. They gutted the show of its "15 minutes of 4 stories" layout, removed the in-depth re-enactments, got rid of the narration, destroyed the pacing of the show and now put credibility solely in family interview segments and nothing else. But that's the current state of Hollywood; too lazy and uncreative to come up with their own ideas, so they resurrect media pieces from four decades ago and destroy its legacy in hopes to cash in on people's sentimentality and reminiscence.

Right on the money

This show could be good if they put enough money into it. The problem is the budget.

I can speak on this from experience, that re-enactments on contemporary true crime shows are not scripted and recorded with no audio at all. They hire actors to do the scenes and just give them general direction (no lines). Oxygen, ID, everyone does this now. They don't have to cast their actors through talent agencies, as they would if the re-enactments were scripted. Instead they can just pay the actors the same low rates as they would hiring background (like $75-100 /day), and have all of the audio consist only of music, narration and interviews. Netflix is taking this exact same shortcut with UM.

I think it's sad that we've lost that in true crime shows. Aside from Stack of course, the re-enactments were the best thing about the classic series. (Imagine how bad the Edward Harold Bell segment would be if we couldn't hear a future Oscar winner yelling "YOU'RE NOT! GETTING! YOUR KEYS!!").

Netflix is clearly not going to spend the money that NBC did back in the day. In addition to the actors, NBC hired screenwriters to write the segments, a script supervisor, boom mike operators, etc. for each production, and to film a single episode NBC had to manage productions usually in multiple states and produce 3-4 separate concise stories. And oh yeah, they hired a Hollywood legend to host.

Netflix will do none of that. They'd rather spend that money on the latest unwatchable Dwayne Johnson/Ryan Reynolds spy comedy.

Crime show starter pack:

- Aerial shots of neighborhoods, farmlands, rivers, parking lots, pretty much anything

- Distant, blurry shots of dialogue-less actors which usually add nothing to the story

- Dramatically edited interviews of loved ones

- Slowed down shots of random items

- Overacting narrator

- Cacophonous music

- Terrible pacing ; Tons and tons of filler to stretch 10 minute stories out to 50 minutes


Every crime show out right now is a carbon copy of each other. Lifeless, indistinctive, non-descript garbage.

Crime show starter pack:

- Aerial shots of neighborhoods, farmlands, rivers, parking lots, pretty much anything

- Distant, blurry shots of dialogue-less actors which usually add nothing to the story

- Dramatically edited interviews of loved ones

- Slowed down shots of random items

- Overacting narrator

- Cacophonous music

- Terrible pacing ; Tons and tons of filler to stretch 10 minute stories out to 50 minutes


Every crime show out right now is a carbon copy of each other. Lifeless, indistinctive, non-descript garbage.

Your stunningly accurate indictments of the true crime genre never grow old. In theory a new UM show could be very close to the original and very enjoyable, but by following the trend it instead falls flat on its face.

Outside of the drone footage, the same of a lot of that description could be said of Forensic Files. That's the show I blame for sinking the genre to very boring depths. What a snooze fest.

Then, there's the current Dateline. Why is two hours needed for subject matter that could be covered in a quarter of that time? They're often so late to the game, too, as many of their cases have already been covered (much more succinctly) on other shows. Hey, I'm fine with a 2 hour program, but make it worth the viewers' two hours! You're sitting there and sitting there, wondering why this crap is taking so long before finally changing the channel in disgust. I watched the Oberholtzer episode the other night for understandable reasons, but have long since quit watching this show otherwise. There used to be much more variety on that show way back when, not just slowly recounted and rehashed true crime.

I sure do miss the late 1980's-mid 1990's. RS. Bill Kurtis. John Walsh when he was on top of his game.

Outside of the drone footage, the same of a lot of that description could be said of Forensic Files. That's the show I blame for sinking the genre to very boring depths. What a snooze fest.

Then, there's the current Dateline. Why is two hours needed for subject matter that could be covered in a quarter of that time? They're often so late to the game, too, as many of their cases have already been covered (much more succinctly) on other shows. Hey, I'm fine with a 2 hour program, but make it worth the viewers' two hours! You're sitting there and sitting there, wondering why this crap is taking so long before finally changing the channel in disgust. I watched the Oberholtzer episode the other night for understandable reasons, but have long since quit watching this show otherwise. There used to be much more variety on that show way back when, not just slowly recounted and rehashed true crime.

I sure do miss the late 1980's-mid 1990's. RS. Bill Kurtis. John Walsh when he was on top of his game.

I would argue Forensic Files is not really the type of low grade content being described above. Although it did use some of the filmography, namely the dialog free re-enactments and the use of slow motion shots, these were relatively effectively employed with good narration to show what happened. They were not used as filler, and the run time was not badly inflated. If Forensic Files had a 45 minute run time then it would be badly suffering the same issues, but in a 22 minute format it does not really become an issue.
I think the issue lay more in other shows adopting some of the FF style but stretching it to grossly inflated run times, or applying it to mundane cases with no real mystery to be solved. On that note, FF is also unique in that it only portrayed solved cases, with a handful of minor exceptions, and thus the storytelling was a bit different than others.

Now Dateline, that is indefensible trash.

I can't disagree with that logic. I still find FF rather insufferable, though. The only cases I've enjoyed are those which were covered, usually better, elsewhere. I am often surprised at some of the important information FF has omitted. Sometimes, this can be blamed on the 22 minute format.

I can't disagree with that logic. I still find FF rather insufferable, though. The only cases I've enjoyed are those which were covered, usually better, elsewhere. I am often surprised at some of the important information FF has omitted. Sometimes, this can be blamed on the 22 minute format.

I think FF suffered a notable decline in quality during its run, the first four or five seasons had relatively good cases, but by the last few seasons many of the cases were fairly routine and had no "twist" to make them interesting. Also the non-crime related episodes were only done in the early years.

Outside of the drone footage, the same of a lot of that description could be said of Forensic Files. That's the show I blame for sinking the genre to very boring depths. What a snooze fest.

Then, there's the current Dateline. Why is two hours needed for subject matter that could be covered in a quarter of that time? They're often so late to the game, too, as many of their cases have already been covered (much more succinctly) on other shows. Hey, I'm fine with a 2 hour program, but make it worth the viewers' two hours! You're sitting there and sitting there, wondering why this crap is taking so long before finally changing the channel in disgust. I watched the Oberholtzer episode the other night for understandable reasons, but have long since quit watching this show otherwise. There used to be much more variety on that show way back when, not just slowly recounted and rehashed true crime.

I sure do miss the late 1980's-mid 1990's. RS. Bill Kurtis. John Walsh when he was on top of his game.


City Confidential, the OG, doesn't get the respect it deserves. It was easily the 90s' A&E crime era's best offering.

City Confidential, the OG, doesn't get the respect it deserves. It was easily the 90s' A&E crime era's best offering.

It wasn't bad, but definitely not my favorite for that great era. I'll take the original Cold Case Files, followed by American Justice. Any Bill Kurtis production. He has a wonderful voice and perfect presence for his job as host/narrator, and his shows were presented so engagingly. Not overstated, yet not too little. As a huge added bonus, Kurtis was far from a guy who just read a script. He was fully immersed in and therefore knowledgeable about the cases he presented. The rare time we got to see him interviewing victims/families, he displayed true empathy as well. I kinda wish we were afforded more opportunities to see him conversing with people involved in the cases, but that would likely have interrupted the continuity what was clearly a winning format. He also strikes me as not wanting the flow of his shows to be terribly interrupted by his onscreen presence. That's more a John Walsh ego trip, and we only need one of those. It works for Walsh, but I'd much rather watch Kurtis.

City Confidential could be a little slow at times. Paul Winfield's voice was sometimes welcomed, sometimes not, depending on my mood. His exaggerated vocal inflections could be a lot to take if I just wasn't feeling up to it. If I was in a lighter, comical mood, I loved it!

"Little did Becky Gunderson know that the briefcase she just opened would be the gateway to ANOTHER kind of case...a cold-blooded casssse...of MURRRRDERRR."

This silly wordplay, coupled with Winfield's unique delivery, was what epitomized that show for me.

When you read about all the things Netflix left out it is easy to see that Ray Rivera, Jack Wheeler and Tiffany Valiante are obvious suicides. Buffalo Jim is most likely an accidental overdose.

I agree completely. It's just more proof that Cosgrove-Mueuer have no respect for the fans of the original series. What so you think putting a silhouette of Robert Stack in the opening is enough to appease us?

Everything about it pretty much sucks:

* One Dragged out case per episode that could in most cases be covered in a 5-10 minute segment
* No host - you need one, I realize that no one will be ever as good as Stack but a host just drives the narrative better. Steve French anyone maybe? Having to listen to the family members basically narrate the entire segment is very tedious.
* Music or lack-thereof - One of the best things about the original show was the creepy music, this has none of that and it has no feeling as a result.
* The cases - What's with them? the majority are just plain and obvious. In most cases they are just suicides made out to be more than they are, don't get me started on the UFO ones. I had little interest in those in the original but at least they were entertaining but this ugh.

I could go on but there are the main points, I haven't watched in full since the original parts were dropped and have little interest in returning as they have little interest in making this show good. Forty Eight Hours it is for me for new true crime, now that's a good show.

I
* No host - you need one, I realize that no one will be ever as good as Stack but a host just drives the narrative better. Steve French anyone maybe? Having to listen to the family members basically narrate the entire segment is very tedious.


I've been re-watching the 1997-2001 Canadian series "Exhibit A: Secrets of Forensic Science" as of late. I really like how it was shot. It's a bit of a forerunner to Forensic Files in a way. The host/narrator, Graham Greene, has a great, understated vibe and a very pleasing narrative voice. He's more reminiscent of how Karl Malden narrated UM, but I liked Malden as well. Greene is far more well known in his native Canada than south of the border, but many will recognize him from his numerous appearances in TV and film. He's still alive and working and would likely not command a lot to do the work if they actually decide to try harder with the new UM.

I can't disagree with that logic. I still find FF rather insufferable, though. The only cases I've enjoyed are those which were covered, usually better, elsewhere. I am often surprised at some of the important information FF has omitted. Sometimes, this can be blamed on the 22 minute format.

The early seasons of FF were great. They had a spooky (and sometimes downright scary) quality to them like the early UM episodes did. Then sometime around 2003 or 2004, FF started to decline in quality. The re-enactments weren't as scary and the show became just like any other crime show. I don't even bother watching the later seasons of FF because of this.

I read that part of the reason why crime shows these days don't show the faces of the actors in the reenactments is because some of the actors are part of the production crew and often get used over and over again for each new episode, so their identity has to be concealed so that viewers won't notice. And crime show production teams are of course drawn towards doing this because it allows them to be lazy rather than have to exert effort from recruiting actual actors. Pathetic.

Just imagine if some of the legendary Unsolved Mysteries segments (Edward Howard Bell, Circleville Letters) was filmed using that atrocious "the camera lens look like it's covered in fog and smeared peanut butter" aesthetic that has ascendancy over crime television now. It would've completed taken away from the storytelling element of the narrative and would've been significantly less engaging to view.

I read that part of the reason why crime shows these days don't show the faces of the actors in the reenactments is because some of the actors are part of the production crew and often get used over and over again for each new episode, so their identity has to be concealed so that viewers won't notice.

I touched on this upthread but I think the disappointment in Netflix UM stems from us all thinking they would have invested more into it (Netflix has the money, they just use it for higher-profile projects).

Of course we all hoped they'd pull out all the stops for it but sadly they cut all of the same corners that every ID/Oxygen run-of-the-mill true crime show does.

Granted, NBC had upwards of 16 million viewers at its peak during the original run. I doubt Netflix was going to get anywhere near that had they attached a star to host it, but I guess we'll never know. When they originally announced the reboot with "from the producer of Stranger Things" I think it filled us with false hope that they were investing a lot into it.

I touched on this upthread but I think the disappointment in Netflix UM stems from us all thinking they would have invested more into it (Netflix has the money, they just use it for higher-profile projects).

Of course we all hoped they'd pull out all the stops for it but sadly they cut all of the same corners that every ID/Oxygen run-of-the-mill true crime show does.

Granted, NBC had upwards of 16 million viewers at its peak during the original run. I doubt Netflix was going to get anywhere near that had they attached a star to host it, but I guess we'll never know. When they originally announced the reboot with "from the producer of Stranger Things" I think it filled us with false hope that they were investing a lot into it.

Netflix does not have the money, if they had the money they could adaquately fund this and other projects.
The issue comes down to market fragmentation. It is causing all entertainment to degrade in quality. A very ironic effect of streaming.

Netflix does not have the money, if they had the money they could adaquately fund this and other projects.


If they can afford to get Ryan Reynolds, Dwayne Johnson, and Gal Gadot in one movie they can definitely afford to adequately fund UM. They just choose to spend the money elsewhere

I don't necessary love it or hate it, to be honest. It's ok for what it is personally, it's not the best show it could be for various reasons. The lack of a host is a pretty poor argument for it not being good. Adding re-enactments does nothing to bolster the show itself either. Both re-enactments and having a host narrate a case made the show what it was, it went hand in hand. It's a totally different era in investigating the paranormal, the unexplained, and whatever else we find interesting. YouTube has a plethora of channels and content providers who offer more current cases and a heck of a lot more evidence in what UM used to allow on the air. I'm fairly certain producers would leave out key pieces of evidence in order to bolster the re-enactment of a case to generate buzz or illicit a feeling that a case may never be solved and remain "unsolved" as the show implies. Just like I'm pretty sure the new series does the same thing. The netflix series has some unique cases. There are about 3 cases I find legitimately interesting, but that's about it.

I'll admit I reactivated my netflix account in anticipation of new cases being featured. After season 1, it just became apparent they were trying to copy what youtube content creators were doing just on a larger scale and more time devoted to the case. 50 minutes plus is a long time to talk about 1 case. When a youtube channel has roughly what? 12 to 20 minutes at best in laying out a case, best case scenario is they have 30 minutes.

We're all a lot older now than we were in the 80's. I was 10 when I first started watching UM. As I approach my mid 40's I'm a lot smarter in discerning fact from fiction in a case. Perhaps we all grew up and just evolved past what made the hair on our necks stick out.

I dont watch it........ I miss Bob!!





IT WAS MUCH BETTER THEN!!!!!!!

This reboot was better left as a thought because when it came to fruition the masses were disappointed.

Other than the name and the makeshift intro nothing about this show is even reminiscent of UM.

When I read the original producers were attached I had high hopes we would get segments, reenactments and a decent host.

My dream host was Dennis Haysbert (Allstate man) and I even posted it on here when it was announced UM was coming back a few years ago. I see someone listened he is now the narrator / host of American Justice since 2021.

Netflix had the money to put behind the show especially a few years ago. I think the just wanted to cash in on UM's name and the fact they knew there was a loyal fanbase online still. However, they made the mistake of thinking they could just do us any kind of way and we would be okay with it.

Thanks, but no thanks.

It's amazing how all true crime shows are shot the exact same. Blurry, distant, slow-motion footage and overhead scenes of vacant lots and corn fields captured on a drone. The new Unsolved Mysteries is so generic that these images from the show could be mistaken for any other crime show on television.

https://occ-0-2794-2219.1.nflxso.net/dnm/api/v6/9pS1daC2n6UGc3dUogvWIPMR_OU/AAAABQV5eRBOnUj8n_Tvb70Cqjff65kjYWqTcY6pab8T9b2YnFbPC4GtG-JijRd5S4XRNhQ5zqkIbJGVU9qKQfSUPoGnsby-Ltth7otYV85jnCLJ0N4Y7Uo0zym4.jpg?r=9db

https://occ-0-2794-2219.1.nflxso.net/dnm/api/v6/9pS1daC2n6UGc3dUogvWIPMR_OU/AAAABbhp9JkhXR_7NgmbnIbmZ7q8CimedBEUFn256nDj0AHUcPEiI6Ce2heZAfPUfqx71yWgyT3d5V_1kHpz060aSwP497AqmsDTHicFyXqWO0P5PY8U6VuP73WJ.jpg?r=64c

https://occ-0-2794-2219.1.nflxso.net/dnm/api/v6/9pS1daC2n6UGc3dUogvWIPMR_OU/AAAABTzsZ4krsu7xI7QsZwg3K7ZltwFG9wbJHpv6Ioj1bnMtre0x3dAv4GUO-GmGgqTzkqKF5FUl7TeZTMQT2ypWqXcHu6rrXmuL8l0N8OCFIJ3ZwczOsgplj8u9.jpg?r=a0d

Blurry, distant, slow-motion footage and overhead scenes of vacant lots and corn fields captured on a drone.

My thoughts exactly. This is why I always refer to the new UM as Dronesolved Mysteries. It also is a perfect analogy compared to the Stack episodes: some of these cases are slowed way down to fill the timeslot.

Maybe folks can help me here.

What would determine if this reboot is a success?

Is it the number of times episodes are streamed?

New subscribers to the download platform (Netflix)?

Sponsors breaking down Netflix's door demanding ad time?

I really don't understand the parameters or benchmarks used to determine which shows are successful and should be continued or further developed.

Its crap that shouldnt be on!!

The reboot would have been a success if it was loved by the fans (who were already pre-disposed to liking it). Let's face it, in 35 years no one will be talking about the reboot.

They should replay Bobs shows!!!!!!!!!

They do! 24/7 on Pluto TV and on demand on YouTube. I bet the viewership numbers for the originals are much much higher than the reboot. The audience has spoken John & Terry!

It's amazing how all true crime shows are shot the exact same. Blurry, distant, slow-motion footage and overhead scenes of vacant lots and corn fields captured on a drone. The new Unsolved Mysteries is so generic that these images from the show could be mistaken for any other crime show on television.

https://occ-0-2794-2219.1.nflxso.net/dnm/api/v6/9pS1daC2n6UGc3dUogvWIPMR_OU/AAAABQV5eRBOnUj8n_Tvb70Cqjff65kjYWqTcY6pab8T9b2YnFbPC4GtG-JijRd5S4XRNhQ5zqkIbJGVU9qKQfSUPoGnsby-Ltth7otYV85jnCLJ0N4Y7Uo0zym4.jpg?r=9db

https://occ-0-2794-2219.1.nflxso.net/dnm/api/v6/9pS1daC2n6UGc3dUogvWIPMR_OU/AAAABbhp9JkhXR_7NgmbnIbmZ7q8CimedBEUFn256nDj0AHUcPEiI6Ce2heZAfPUfqx71yWgyT3d5V_1kHpz060aSwP497AqmsDTHicFyXqWO0P5PY8U6VuP73WJ.jpg?r=64c

https://occ-0-2794-2219.1.nflxso.net/dnm/api/v6/9pS1daC2n6UGc3dUogvWIPMR_OU/AAAABTzsZ4krsu7xI7QsZwg3K7ZltwFG9wbJHpv6Ioj1bnMtre0x3dAv4GUO-GmGgqTzkqKF5FUl7TeZTMQT2ypWqXcHu6rrXmuL8l0N8OCFIJ3ZwczOsgplj8u9.jpg?r=a0d

While I personally didn't have any problems with the Netflix version, and in fact quite enjoyed it, you are spot on with this right here. The stylized generic drone shots aren't interesting. The original UM & the UK Crimewatch till about 2000 had the right way of doing it. New YouTube channels like Mysterious WV do it correctly: just give us the information with a good narrator voice, some spooky music, and graphics pertaining to the specifics. If they have to do recreations, have the narrator describe why what we're seeing matters.

As I tell my wife they should call the new UM, "Fun with Drones."

I haven't paid attention to new True Crime in years because I hate the direction the genre has gone. We used to get 4-5 stories per episode of Unsolved Mysteries, because UM knew how to distill a story down to the facts that you need to know.

Now we get entire docuseries for one case and most of it is just fluff.

Might as well rename it Unsolved Drone-styries.

I got a better name: Unsolved crap reported from morons.....

It should just go off the air!!!

I got a better name: Unsolved crap reported from morons.....

It should just go off the air!!!

Or here's an even better one: "Unsolvable Fantasies, featuring stories where nothing gets solved because there is no mystery to solve"

Not bad-aside from Mothman, that was totally ridiculous.

While I personally didn't have any problems with the Netflix version, and in fact quite enjoyed it, you are spot on with this right here. The stylized generic drone shots aren't interesting. The original UM & the UK Crimewatch till about 2000 had the right way of doing it. New YouTube channels like Mysterious WV do it correctly: just give us the information with a good narrator voice, some spooky music, and graphics pertaining to the specifics. If they have to do recreations, have the narrator describe why what we're seeing matters.


I tried with the new Unsolved Mysteries, I really did. I gave it the benefit of the doubt for a while. I didn't really mind the endless boring drone shots In lieu of creepy recreations. I didn't really mind the silly ghost stories cuz you got to have a couple of those I guess, even the classic UM had some stinker segments.

But the season 4 premiere episode is Jack the Ripper? Talk about phoning it in. Compiling a bunch of Jack The Ripper podcasters (who have some fantastic in depth podcasts I would recommend btw) to do all the work for you isn't an interesting segment. Plus they didn't even scratch the surface on a true crime case ANYONE watching UM already knows about. Just an exhausting excuse to see the same hyper stylized shot of a victorian era dressed person in shadows slowly following a woman.

I didn't even watch the rest of the episodes I was so bummed.

Not bad-aside from Mothman, that was totally ridiculous.

Meh, I liked it for what it was and didn't take it too seriously. I enjoyed this round of episodes much more than the other new ones.

But the season 4 premiere episode is Jack the Ripper? Talk about phoning it in. Compiling a bunch of Jack The Ripper podcasters (who have some fantastic in depth podcasts I would recommend btw) to do all the work for you isn't an interesting segment.

I will agree that the Jack the Ripper and Mothman episodes were complete wastes. Those spots could have been filled by actual cases that need attention.

I didn't even watch the rest of the episodes I was so bummed.

Give the remaining episodes a try. Aside from Jack the Ripper and the Mothman, they were really good.

But the season 4 premiere episode is Jack the Ripper? Talk about phoning it in. Compiling a bunch of Jack The Ripper podcasters (who have some fantastic in depth podcasts I would recommend btw) to do all the work for you isn't an interesting segment. Plus they didn't even scratch the surface on a true crime case ANYONE watching UM already knows about. Just an exhausting excuse to see the same hyper stylized shot of a victorian era dressed person in shadows slowly following a woman.

I watched it, but I didn't pay that much attention to it. If they aren't going to bring any new info, and I'm not sure how they even could at this point, then the episode was not needed as there are 100 other documentaries about the Ripper.

At this point, I’m convinced yall just watch to have something to complain about. ��

Agreed. While I do 'hate' it, I find it unboring and knot hard to sit through

I've been trying to watching an episode of season 2 since it's been out but I do in fact have the willpower

At this point, I’m convinced yall just watch to have something to complain about. ��

Well we just would like G00D stuff on again!!

I tried with the new Unsolved Mysteries, I really did. I gave it the benefit of the doubt for a while. I didn't really mind the endless boring drone shots In lieu of creepy recreations. I didn't really mind the silly ghost stories cuz you got to have a couple of those I guess, even the classic UM had some stinker segments.

But the season 4 premiere episode is Jack the Ripper? Talk about phoning it in. Compiling a bunch of Jack The Ripper podcasters (who have some fantastic in depth podcasts I would recommend btw) to do all the work for you isn't an interesting segment. Plus they didn't even scratch the surface on a true crime case ANYONE watching UM already knows about. Just an exhausting excuse to see the same hyper stylized shot of a victorian era dressed person in shadows slowly following a woman.

I didn't even watch the rest of the episodes I was so bummed.

Yeah the JTR episode was genuinely terrible. No original research, no new insight, nothing. Must've cost about $5 to make.

Meh, I liked it for what it was and didn't take it too seriously. I enjoyed this round of episodes much more than the other new ones.

Haven't watched MM yet, but at least that might have some entertainment value. The others were quite good and I endorse this take.

Well it turns out it can get worse, if anyone's seem what Filmrise has done to Forensic Files via a AI "HD Remaster" that's been put out over the last few weeks and now the only way to watch it.

With plans to extend this process to other titles in their catalogue one can only hope it doesn't include Unsolved Mysteries.

Well we just would like G00D stuff on again!!

I think you’re expecting way too much from a show that ended 25ish years ago who had a heyday 30 years ago. It is what it is and the Netflix show, while leaving something to be desired, isn’t bad. It’s not great, but it isn’t bad.

Honestly the best episode was the Japanese tsunami ghosts one and nothing has ever come close to topping it.