Talk:The Twilight Zone (2019 TV series)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Twilight Zone (2019 TV series) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television: The Twilight Zone Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Twilight Zone task force (assessed as High-importance).

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Blue Scorpion Episode is Different

I just finished watching the first season - downloaded, not on CBS All Access - and the plot summary for Blue Scorpion is different than what I watched, specifically the part where Jeff Storck shoots the burglar. What version of the episode if the "correct" one? Saint Dmitri 20:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintdmitri (talk • contribs)

The title screen in wikipedia feels 'squished'

I apologise for causing too much edit in the twilight zone 2019 wikipedia page since it feels so difficult,but the reason I am writing this section is that the title section feels squished ,I was hoping if someone can find a way to make it straight.I wish to edit but I don't want to cause any trouble,therefore I am writing this to see if anyone can straighten the title screen image to normal. Belrien12 (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's "squished". It's the title card used in the episodes themselves, and hence that's what we use. It is "straightened to normal". -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to the screenshot from my screen the title screen still feels 'Squished' : https://i.imgur.com/vGCK5yN.jpg and again I apologise for causing an "edit ruckus" ,I hope you forgive me for this Belrien12 (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Clear your cache, that's the issue. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Belrien12 (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reboot's mixed reception

Just an opinion seeing that the the 2019 reception gain some mixed reception which is 76% in rotten tomatoes but 56% for top critics with some giving average reviews,some giving positive review and some giving negative reviews ,Is it alright that the reception will be official mixed or just mixed to positive? Belrien12 (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the area and can't see anything out of the ordinary. For example with Metacritic TV pages always quote the consensus to describe reviews, so if its "mixed or average" that's whats used. Esuka (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers in episode summaries

The episode summaries currently summarise the entire plot of the episodes, twist included. While there isn't any precedent on wikipedia for whether or not this is appropriate, is it really necessary to spoil the twist in the episode guides of a show where the whole point of watching is for the twist? Can't we just have broad summaries of the episodes here and spin off full descriptions into separate articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.187.19 (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of precedent for whether or not it's appropriate—and the precedent is that it is appropriate. Look at shows that took exceptional efforts to prevent spoilers before broadcast, like Game of Thrones (season 8), or Doctor Who (series 6). Or, for maybe the most famous spoilers in history, see The Empire Strikes Back (or Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker) or The Sixth Sense. See Wikipedia:Spoiler for the history and rationale.

Or look at prior incarnations of The Twilight Zone. Sure, the summary pages like The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series, season 5) usually only spoil a few of the episodes—but that's because each episode is notable enough to have its own article, which spoils things far more thoroughly (see, e.g., To Serve Man (The Twilight Zone), I of Newton, or It's Still a Good Life), so the summary table tries to cover each episode in a single sentence. --157.131.246.136 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Serling

90 Years old, Rod Serling's widow and a producer of this 2019 series. Surely there's more to be said about this. JohndanR (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there should be a section that transcribes each intro/outro monologue by Peele?

I think this would be helpful since some people (me included) just want to read and be reminded of the monologues. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickd98x (talk • contribs) 08:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1015

The number 1015 is referenced in multiple episodes and several times during each episode, therefore it stands to reason it has some meaning even homage to the original. Though its meaning has not been revealed as of yet surely a section in the main article is worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.107.33 (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Six Degrees of Freedom description

I updated the description for Six Degrees of Freedom [1]. Sorry for the typo in my edit summary I meant physically harmed. But as said in my summary I didn't see anything like that nor did I see anything in recaps so I assume this just refers to how Brandt tells Langford that she Brandt is the commander of a suicide mission and Langford is the mum who has to take care of them all. Eventually Langford breaks down saying she doesn't want to be the mum revealing the stress this had placed on her. While I'm not saying it's wrong to call this "significant harm", I think many readers are going to assume physical harm like I did so I feel the wording needs to be clearer on what happened. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually while investigating this, I found that the "significantly harming" part came from this edit by User:Gorba [2] where they changed "devastating" to "significantly harming". I don't know why they did this, as devastating is a fine word to use but significantly harming is IMO not for the reasons I outlined above. Anyway I reverted my change and instead just changed "significantly harming" back to "devastating" [3]. I see Gorba also changed apathetic to unemotional in the description of Wunderkind [4] although apathetic is accurate but unemotional is not. While they did self revert, [5] I wonder if it might be worth checking their other edits for changes they made which introduced inaccuracies or other confusing language. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback. Please note that "unemotional" is a synonym of "apathetic." Devastating means to "cause great damage, harm, or injury." Further, the sentence accurately states the consequence, "significantly harming fellow crew member Katherine Langford." Please be aware that when editors make syntactical edits, if they don't explicitly change the meaning, then they are fine. The choice of words is the editor's prerogative, and editors should be free to choose appropriate words. Gorba (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]