Surely adaptations of Charles Dickens always have the potential to be a good thing? Er, well...
There are many things wrong with this proposal as described. Let us count the ways:
“Twist” will explore a “sexy, contemporary” take on the classic tale, according to the network. It will star a struggling, twenty-something female (Twist) who “finally finds a true sense of family in a strange group of talented outcasts who use their unique skills to take down wealthy criminals.”
1) There is, of course, implied sex in Oliver Twist, notably Oliver's mother's out-of-wedlock relationship and Nancy's profession (and, for that matter, her out-of-wedlock relationship with Bill Sykes). Given the nineteenth-century thing, though, none of this sex is what you'd call, well, sexy, not least because of the whole "leads to unpleasant and/or brutal death" part. The reader concerned about how NBC is going to reconcile the orphaned pre-teen protagonist and "sexy," though, may or may not be reassured by the next sentence...
2) Nothing objectionable about the gender flip, but...why twenty-something? Doesn't this rather obliterate the entire point of Oliver Twist, which is to dramatize the terrible fates awaiting England's most impoverished children? Hello? Children? Not adult millennials? At least we can guess where the "sexy" is coming in.
"But why bother?" she says, puzzled.
3) Let me see if I understand this correctly. Fagin's gang is going to turn into Robin Hood and his Merrie Men? Or perhaps Brownlow & company are going to have a Bat Cave stashed under their terraced house in London? (I'm not sure which of the two options is more appalling and/or ridiculous.) And aren't "talented outcasts" something of a low-rent genre cliche? And (I'm beginning to hyperventilate here) in what universe would any version of Dickens' OT have sufficient gumption, let alone talent, to become a vigilante?