No. of Recommendations: 0
Why can't they leave the classics alone?

http://www.joblo.com/upcomingmovies/2013/the-night-stalker-0...

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I guess you are joking.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I guess you are joking."

About what?

Calling the original Darren McGavin "Night Stalker" a classic? IMO, it was. And I don't see Depp pulling it off.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Calling the original Darren McGavin "Night Stalker" a classic? IMO, it was.

I guess you was not joking.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I guess you was not joking."

I were not.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why can't they leave the classics alone?

If people shunned this kind of crap rehash, they would.

--FY
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If people shunned this kind of crap rehash, they would.

In this case, the hurdle to exceed the quality of the original is not that high.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In this case, the hurdle to exceed the quality of the original is not that high.

Yup. This a rehash of crap (albeit one I have fond memories of), not a "crappy rehash" of a classic.

--FY
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Yup. This a rehash of crap (albeit one I have fond memories of), not a "crappy rehash" of a classic."

While I have not watched it for years and years, I have more than fond memories of a show (first with two two hour TV movies - Night Stalker and Night Strangler - that preceded the series) unlike anything else then on. True to the horror genre and often funny (in the same way BtVS later was funny) with the oddball crew that worked on the paper Kolchak worked at, including the old crossword lady.

It's also a classic as a direct ancestor (genre speaking) of The X Files.

Loved how it was set up so it wasn't really clear if Kolchak was a straight reporter/narrator, or just a great spinner of yarns pulling the audience's collective leg.

I also thought the story of Seattle's underground city was fascinating - only recently learned the reality there is somewhat less interesting than the TV version.

Once again, another each to their own.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
While I have not watched it for years and years

More often than not, I find that my nostalgia for a film or TV series from my childhood or young adulthood doesn't survive collision with viewing it today. Such was the case with "Night Stalker", alas. Might be best for you to just remember it fondly.

--FY
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Might be best for you to just remember it fondly."

Could be. I still think it holds a high place in the genre with many descendants based on some similar general ideas - weird sh(t happens, but only one or a few know the truth and have to act to save us all. That includes X-Files, Millennium, Lone Gunmen, Buffy, Dark Skies, The Invaders, The Chronicle, Special Unit 2, etc. - even Men In Black.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I loved Kolchak: The Night Stalker (1974, starring Darren McGavin).

I liked Night Stalker (2005, starring Stewart Townsend), but nowhere near how I loved the 1974 original!

I think I'll eventually watch Depp in the role, but only after I can get it on Netflix.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
More often than not, I find that my nostalgia for a film or TV series from my childhood or young adulthood doesn't survive collision with viewing it today.

I found that to be especially true for The Invaders. I used to so look forward to each new week's show. I tried to watch it recently. Wow, was it bad. :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think it's a great idea. Could be great, could be a total loser. What difference does it make if you remake something? Anything? Gone With the Wind? The Maltese Falcon? (You know, real classics!) In what way does that diminish the original? If you don't like the idea, just don't go see it, or rent it, or download it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
In what way does that diminish the original? If you don't like the idea, just don't go see it, or rent it, or download it.

It diminishes the original by preventing it from being seen. When a remake is made, it's the remake that is usually shown on television, instead of the original. It gets replaced.

For example, my TV listing says The Ten Commandments (1956) was on twice in the past few days. I was looking forward to it. But, no, it was the crappy remake from 2006. I don't know how many times I've tuned it to The Four Feathers to find out it was the sappy Heath Ledger version (although, to be fair, my favorite version from 1939 is also a remake).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"What difference does it make if you remake something?"

Track history on this kind of thing is poor. What made the original "special," even if now seen as dated, is usually lost and the new version feels a need to come up with something that usually really does not work - e.g., Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Sometimes, but IMO rarely, it does - e.g., Bram Stoker's Dracula (with Gary Oldman).

Besides, why not focus on new ideas? Are there no creative people out there?

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
For example, my TV listing says The Ten Commandments (1956) was on twice in the past few days. I was looking forward to it. But, no, it was the crappy remake from 2006. I don't know how many times I've tuned it to The Four Feathers to find out it was the sappy Heath Ledger version (although, to be fair, my favorite version from 1939 is also a remake).

For what it's worth, the 1956 Ten Commandments is also a remake (DeMille remaking his own movie from 1923).

dsbrady
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I sometimes find the reasons given for not wanting to see a film interesting. Two reasons recently got my attention:

1) A poster won't see Headhunters in spite of a positive review by a very discerning and insightful poster (that would be I), my friend and my wife, because he didn't like the way the book was going.

2) A poster won't see Night Stalker because he recalls enjoying a TV version of it decades ago.

I am not being critical of either decision, just expressing interest. I can, however, think of several terrible books that turned out to be good films, most prominent among them Marley & Me. OK, just kidding there. But the Bourne films are good examples of movies being a lot more fun than their source -- in this case Ludlum's often tedious and poorly written novels.

The reason I won't see Night Stalker is Johnny Depp, period. I'm rather tired of him, especially after Alice in Wonderland and The Tourist and all those Keith Richards impersonations.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement