I really hate the language of Hollywood. Remakes have become the norm and there’s really no point bitching about them because they’re here to stay and it’s only a matter of time before hip, young directors from the music video scene start remaking remakes. But when “remake” becomes a marketable term, I have to say something. According to director Stephen Norrington, this Crow reboot features an entirely new story and an entirely new character. It bears nothing in common with the original Crow or any of its sequels.
It’s an entirely new movie. Like a sequel. Like the other Crow sequels. There is no continuity between any of the Crow sequels. They’re all standalone features like the extended line of Crow comics. So why call it a god damn reboot? Is it because every genre movie these days is a “reboot”? Have remakes become such a money property these days that you have advertise that you have no original ideas even when you do just to get people back in theaters?
July 7, 2009 1:07 pm
More than likely, “reboot” is the term that the producers had to use to convince the studio to bankroll the sucker. “What, you mean another Crow movie? Aren’t we just pressing those direct-to-DVD?” “No, see, it’s a reboot!” “How much do you need?”
July 9, 2009 9:50 am
As an old timey James O’Barr Crow comic fan I *headdesk* every time one of these movies get made. The original movie had a tragedy derived free pass with me, especially because Brandon Lee tried so damn hard and loved the material so much. But the power of the original material was partially based on the absolutely maudlin insanity and mostly on the gorgeous darque-all-the-way-through violence. The panel with the cat’n'the’hat blood drawing (one of my favs) let alone the jamming of the needles into himself do not make the cut into the mainstream myth. Will we ever see that aspect of the Crow in movie form? I seriously doubt it as the formula sticks to an even warmer and fuzzier nobility than High Plains Drifter. Iffin’ the movie producers take a long hard look at the popularity of Ledger’s Joker and realize that we’re ready for a sexy madness barely sugar coated with Righteous Retribution, let me know.
July 9, 2009 10:03 am
It’s been a long time since I read the original series, so I don’t remember if they approached this at all, but as much as I like the original movie I like the comics more and I always wished that rather than sow this supernatural bullshit about the actual crow being some kind of power conduit that allows him to take crazy amounts of damage and recover, they just did it like the comic where the supernatural doesn’t really ever come into it and a combination of crazy ass morphine use and unmatched obsession with revenge powered him.
July 9, 2009 11:27 am
My take on the comic was he was a maudlin mental patient Fury and the only superpower on deck was taking enormous damage and getting back up showing it. Duct tape and bullet wounds. Everything else was the grief fueled rage, the need for vengeance, and the bitter sense of loss. The bleak beautiful panels of the train ride for example. The Crow is a dead man walking and like High Plains Drifter some of the creepiness is in the character’s not rightness. Therefore the original movie does qualify for Easter Zombie Celebration movie watching. Maybe Hollywood just can’t make movies this grim and twisted.
Here’s a nice to the point image I found:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f246/ScannerstheTeenMisfit/fear.jpg