Htydjtk

I've seen references to both Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone, but I can't get the difference between the shows. They seem to be exact duplicates, both have non-persistent characters navigating a bizarre Sci-Fi universe in the hopes of distilling a virtue in the viewer. Is the only difference name and creator? or is their a real difference?

Having only watched a handful of both episodes, I'm not well-versed in each universe to know the conceptual differences. (Multi-verse).

Just like on old time radio, for a while, there were a number of anthology series on TV. (An anthology series does not have a continuing cast and usually every episode is set in its own timeline and story-universe.) On radio, for example, there were anthology shows like "The Whistler," "Inner Sanctum," "Dimension X," "The Witch's Tale," and my favorite, "X Minus 1."

What distinguishes one anthology show from another is the type of stories they tell and the general style and attitude of the series. For example, on radio, "The Whistler" and "Inner Sanctum" tended to deal with mystery and crime. "The Witch's Tale" was more supernatural and the other two were almost all science fiction.

On TV, "The Twilight Zone" dealt with the supernatural, science fiction, horror, psychological drama, and fantasy. It had a broad range of stories and often stories had a moral or there was some social commentary. Out of the five years it was on TV, one year (season 4) had hour long episodes which are rarely seen today and the other four seasons were all half-hour episodes.

"The Outer Limits" was almost always more tightly focused on the science fiction drama and was more about an actual action story than about social commentary.

Both had top science fiction writers of the day (like Ray Bradbury and Harlan Ellison) writing for them.

I mention the radio shows because it helps to understand that up through the 1960s anthology shows were quite common and popular for decades, first on the radio, then on TV. Sometimes it's easier to talk about why shows are similar than why they are different. As many radio shows transitioned to TV, many anthology shows (both dramatic and comedic) showed up on TV. It was often hard to tell an episode of one anthology show from another. As long as the series was entertaining and drew listeners or viewers, it stayed on the air.

Often the focus of the producers was not on, "How are we different?," but on, "How can we get a show done for this week and make sure people like it?"

Twilight Zone was a half-hour show with many episodes adapted from classic sci-fi and horror short stories. Rod Serling being the driving force here.

Outer Limits was an hour-long show which came along a bit later and had a bigger budget, bigger stars, and a stable of writers. I would rate it as "uneven".... Some segments were very good, but many were rather pedestrian.

The original Twilight Zone was a 30 minute show, had a wider variety of subjects, and was more often a strong and clear morality play; the episodes all seemed to meet the Hayes code, as well... Good usually triumphs. Quite often, it's clearly set in an alternate now, instead of a later time.

Outer Limits was an hour, had a more narrowly defined science fiction focus, and often presented a moral quandary rather than a clear moral statement. That is, OL didn't make it clear that the moral message was intended to convince you of its own truth, but instead, to get your thinking. Further, it was more likely than TZ to have the good guys lose. The settings are slightly more often near future rather than now, tho' some are near-now, and a few are alternate history.

The more recent Outer Limits reboot series has season-long metaplots and/or metathemes, as well; the whole season ties together by some common elements.

There is a difference. Having given this thought over the years, I’ll note three aspects, but this not meant as exhaustive. I’m writing with the 1960s versions foremost, including the one-hour TZ (S4).

The basic difference may be clearest looking at famous TZ episodes. TZ plots are contained, using high-concept to illustrate character. Some are entirely twist-based, such as “Time Enough at Last,” “Third from the Sun” and “The Invaders.” Some lack any explanation, such as “Mirror Image” and “Shadow Play”; “It’s a Good Life” is acid satire; “The Masks” and “Kick the Can” are structured for reward and punishment. None of these could be OL, imo, without major revisions.

Ethos: Both series were conceived and produced by intellectuals, and each has a clear voice, including morally. The answer from Jo452 is generally correct but, for me, overstated. TZ is more humanistic, and evildoers usually meet with correction (of course, it's up to the viewer whether such justice/ karma comes from God or some other factor). Typically, TZ confronts complacency, while OL confronts hubris. TZ satirized social conditioning, while OL warned of conspiracy.

OL is more science/tech-oriented, less likely to focus on bigotry. "Nightmare" is a classic exception, although it seems relatively close to a TZ, as does the sentimental “The Inheritors.” OL is colder, more circumspect, its resolution more circumstantial (the 1990s version became somewhat notorious for dark endings).

Accessibility: like most TV anthologies of the era, original TZ had an on-screen narrator. For most Americans, these hosts were the Other, usually British (Alfred Hitchcock, Boris Karloff), or in Rod Serling’s case, Jewish. They represented older cultures, acting as guides to the unknown, including the future (e.g., the British being post-imperial).

In contrast, OL had a (Control) Voice, possibly inhuman. Where Serling elegantly introduced the unusual, the Control Voice suggested the viewer was unusual. OL was on ABC, the also-ran network, and could be more experimental (perhaps too much so, in that it was cancelled after two years). TZ was on CBS, the "Tiffany network": it was the popularizer, the show non-fans would watch.

It's been said TZ is ordinary people in odd situations, OL is extraordinary people in odd situations. As such, Black Mirror seems more like TZ. Both shows were psychological, but TZ’s paranoia was more existential, OL’s more political. Overall, OL had more of a kick, with gothic style and always a “Bear,” meaning a monster or other shock, often blamed for nightmares.

Influence: TZ's is broader and deeper in both directions. Whereas OL stays within s.f. with horror elements, TZ also takes in B-movies, fables and parables, and the short story (e.g., "The Lottery," "The Monkey's Paw," O. Henry). TZ featured more prose adaptations (not always remembering credit). OL was more Shakespearean: the protagonists are admirable with a fatal flaw.

Today, TZ’s influence can be invisible because so vast: it created the audience for Jacob's Ladder, Fight Club, Being John Malkovich, The Purge. OL is evoked by films about moral and political conflicts in a scientific context, such as Contact, Splice, and the Bourne movies. Watchmen (the graphic novel) seemingly lifted a plot element from “The Architects of Fear.” James Cameron famously described The Terminator as a ripoff of OL (Harlan Ellison sued and won). M. Night Shyamalan is TZ, John Frankenheimer and Ridley Scott are OL.

Well honestly I think it is simple in a grand view, complex in a microcosmic view; but both shows focus on one core theme, humanity. The Twilight Zone(TZ) is a based on a optimistic view of humanity and the state of humnan condition, and on the fantastic, as it relates to modern human society (at the time specifically American); while The Outer Limits(OL) rested primarily, or rather, was grounded in pessimistic view of humanity, and for that matter - the horror, which can lie within. Although both shows included frequent non-human characters, both attempted to demonstrate the very real aspects of human nature, as it is projected through aliens, angels, demons, animals, artificial intelligence, etc. The Twilight Zone featured stories of characters trying, and succeeding despite their limited disposition, knowledge or even moral center. It was, in the TZ, as view of humanity and any humanoid, and human inspired creatures, as being given limitless potential even if liberty and possibility was narrowed, if not captive. However, the OL portrayal of that same limitless potential for humanity was that, humans or even humanoid characters frequently failed by theirs, or the same nature, within their counterparts, in the same story/situation/ episode. Basically in the TZ, "Sky's the limit", in the OL, the "limit is Our sky"; or rather, we're just as likely to doom ourselves, each other and everyone(everything) else, as much as saving all of existence.

For me,the allure,the beauty,the wonder of the Outer Limit's series had nothing to do with technical perfection nor scientific uneven-ness. I was drawn in by the "mood" and cinematic style. Stark,black and white images of a cosmic nature. Creatures,aliens with a "soul" and a heart to connect with. As a human entity I found myself identifying with the aliens,thier "humanity". The originality and imaginative stories for me have yet to be equaled. As a boy of 8-10 originally,I was taken away to another world. A world of darkly lit,fantastical places of my own imagining. Inspired by those images and ideas which reached from my inner mind and beyond to...the outer limits. James Velmoth

i have seen both. you know rob Serling does not play in both. the times are different(outer limits 1 hour, twilight zone 30) the Twilight zone had a more complex story. it always made you ask "what happens next" even if you thought you had it right. the outer limits way predictable if you go back and watch the again. the best way to prove this is to chose a ep. that you have not seen. The outer limits had more a a storyline though it would drag its episode out for one hour. now dont get me wrong i like both of them equally its just I would rather watch something that makes me want to watch more of that show and twilight zone got that for me. the outer limits did not.