UM’s Reenactments vs. AMW’s Reenactments

[mikewho]

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

[Jericho-79]

For both UM and AMW-

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

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

[dynoguy88]

Originally Posted by Jericho-79

For both UM and AMW-

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

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

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

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

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

[Jericho-79]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you guys think?

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by Jericho-79

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

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

Yes, I think they did at times.

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

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

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

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

[Jericho-79]

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

Here's UM's reenactment-

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


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

[TheResearcher]

Lets analyze every aspect of the re-enactments

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CanadianGuitaris]

Originally Posted by ontarioboi

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

I think the latter is extremely debatable. Even if the general consensus in a number of cases is "guilty" (Pollis, Larry Gibson), there were many cases where UM probably helped make our minds up. I will agree re: Stack, however. Though he was likely reading a script, Stack's voice was, of course, very steady; a raise in tone or inflection could do a lot to colour someone's opinion (and that's not limited to true crime or anything).