The Crow Reboot

[TheFuture]

I'll give the film a degree of patience, as if you were to look at the promotional materials of the 90s version, they didn't convey the full picture of the character. Based on those materials, and assuming you were unfamiliar with the source, you would have thought the character was sinister and one note.

Of course, Lee ended up giving a beautiful performance full of not just vengeance, but sensitivity, pause and tenderness. Skarsgard is up there as being someone I'd trust to get close to that performance.

The look though is extremely jarring and most level headed people must be able to see that. I genuinely can't understand how dumping all over Leto Joker's look was ok, but criticizing how The Crow has been conceived here as old men complaining. The comparison is more than fair.

To put it succinctly, Lee's Crow and look ended up being a pop culture event; in comparison Skarsgard here seems to be aping a trend, not inspiring it. Can anyone actually argue this is 'it' in regards to what they were expecting or hoping?

 

[Da-Scribe]

I didn’t dump on Leto’s Joker design until after I saw the film and because it highlighted the issues with that characterization.

But also this Eric doesn’t have like “Crow” tattooed on his stomach so it just doesn’t bother me that much.

I’ll have to see his performance to decide if it works or not.

 

[TheVileOne]

I don't like the photos, but I'm still willing to give the film a chance. And it's mainly because of Bill Skarsgaard. But Rupert Sanders kind of has a spotty track record as well. His best film is Snow White and the Huntsman which I thought was average-ish.

 

[Deck Rickard]

I’ll give the movie a chance but the whole “it’s the anti-Marvel movie” thing rubbed me the wrong way. Like, dude, no one expects The Crow to be like a Marvel movie. Yes, it’s based on a comic book but so was Road to ****ing Perdition. You don’t need to constantly be taking shots at other CBM adaptations just to prop up your movie. I get that the MCU is struggling a bit now and it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but I’m really getting sick of the pile-on mentality lately. Especially when the alternatives often suck. It reminds me of when Henry Golding made some snide comment that his Snake Eyes movie would be superior to most superhero movies and, lo and behold, his movie turned out to be a total piece of s*** and he was the worst part of it. Hell, I’ve even seen a few people recently act like Madame Web is better than the majority of the MCU. Give it a **** rest already.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I never like to pre judge a film, but I hate the design choices. I'll still give it a chance though.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I’ll give the movie a chance but the whole “it’s the anti-Marvel movie” thing rubbed me the wrong way. Like, dude, no one expects The Crow to be like a Marvel movie. Yes, it’s based on a comic book but so was Road to ****ing Perdition. You don’t need to constantly be taking shots at other CBM adaptations just to prop up your movie. I get that the MCU is struggling a bit now and it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but I’m really getting sick of the pile-on mentality lately. Especially when the alternatives often suck. It reminds me of when Henry Golding made some snide comment that his Snake Eyes movie would be superior to most superhero movies and, lo and behold, his movie turned out to be a total piece of s*** and he was the worst part of it. Hell, I’ve even seen a few people recently act like Madame Web is better than the majority of the MCU. Give it a **** rest already.

Pressman was just referring to how it isn't a studio film. It wasn't a shot at Marvel.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

This thread got me to thinking, do any of you remember the Stairway to Heaven tv spinoff?

I just remember Sci-Fi Channel used to play it all the time, but I don't remember the story except it was about Eric.

 

[JakeStyles]

This thread got me to thinking, do any of you remember the Stairway to Heaven tv spinoff?

I just remember Sci-Fi Channel used to play it all the time, but I don't remember the story except it was about Eric.

I forgot about it, I must rewatch it, I keep rewatching all 90s shows, I'm a total boomer.

 

[Da-Scribe]

This thread got me to thinking, do any of you remember the Stairway to Heaven tv spinoff?

I just remember Sci-Fi Channel used to play it all the time, but I don't remember the story except it was about Eric.

I watched it when I was a kid. Can only remember the makeup was like a transformation lol.

 

[TheVileOne]

Pressman was just referring to how it isn't a studio film. It wasn't a shot at Marvel.

How is someone supposed to take it by calling it an anti-Marvel film?

 

[Filmfreak]

How is someone supposed to take it by calling it an anti-Marvel film?

 

[Da-Scribe]

How is someone supposed to take it by calling it an anti-Marvel film?

Maybe just read the full quote before taking anything any sorta way.

 

[Dr.]

I’ll give the movie a chance but the whole “it’s the anti-Marvel movie” thing rubbed me the wrong way. Like, dude, no one expects The Crow to be like a Marvel movie. Yes, it’s based on a comic book but so was Road to ****ing Perdition. You don’t need to constantly be taking shots at other CBM adaptations just to prop up your movie. I get that the MCU is struggling a bit now and it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but I’m really getting sick of the pile-on mentality lately...

Snyder trilogy fan says: welcome to my world. :wink:

 

[The Shape]

How is someone supposed to take it by calling it an anti-Marvel film?

I mean, we all know what most Marvel movies are like so it's pretty easy to deduce what someone means when they say things like "anti-Marvel film" or "not a studio film" in terms of common sense.

Not made within the confines of studio mandates, not necessarily following the typical superhero movie formula, more adult, likely ultra-violent, likely slower paced, less action packed or less focused on action set pieces, less comedic, not focused on setting up sequels, etc.

None of that means or suggests that "Marvel films suck" or "this film will be better than Marvel films".

 

[Deck Rickard]

Snyder trilogy fan says: welcome to my world. :wink:

Yeah well, most MCU fans don’t typically spam the hell out the internet with BS whenever they don’t get their way. They don’t wish for bodily harm on actors who replace ones they like better. They’re not a cult.

 

[Luigi]

I don't like the photos, but I'm still willing to give the film a chance. And it's mainly because of Bill Skarsgaard. But Rupert Sanders kind of has a spotty track record as well. His best film is Snow White and the Huntsman which I thought was average-ish.

Wait, Sanders is directing this? Hoo boy.

 

[Filmfreak]

The interesting thing about Sanders is that while he's a mediocre director at best, his previous movies were at least visually good, especially Ghost in the Shell. This one, granted just from a few photos, looks something between ugly and bland, so we probably won't even have that. Hopefully that's not the case with the final product.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Ghost in the Shell was one of the most tedious movies I’ve ever seen. I don’t know how I made it to the end. At least I saw it on a plane, which is absolutely the way it was meant to be viewed, lol.

 

[TheVileOne]

I mean, we all know what most Marvel movies are like so it's pretty easy to deduce what someone means when they say things like "anti-Marvel film" or "not a studio film" in terms of common sense.

Not made within the confines of studio mandates, not necessarily following the typical superhero movie formula, more adult, likely ultra-violent, likely slower paced, less action packed or less focused on action set pieces, less comedic, not focused on setting up sequels, etc.

None of that means or suggests that "Marvel films suck" or "this film will be better than Marvel films".

Except they didn't say anti-studio film. Even then, that can be considered a knock on studio-mandated films or populist entertainment.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Except they didn't say anti-studio film. Even then, that can be considered a knock on studio-mandated films or populist entertainment.

I really don’t think it’s that deep. Pressman just seemed excited at the possibility of crafting a franchise outside of the studio framework. Based on everything we’ve seen over the last couple decades, I don’t feel it’s unfair to say that developing IP-based projects in a studio structure comes with a lot of challenges. Quality aside, it’s tough to pull off.

 

[TheVileOne]

I really don’t think it’s that deep. Pressman just seemed excited at the possibility of crafting a franchise outside of the studio framework. Based on everything we’ve seen over the last couple decades, I don’t feel it’s unfair to say that developing IP-based projects in a studio structure comes with a lot of challenges. Quality aside, it’s tough to pull off.

I dunno, making a reboot off of a fairly established well-known IP like this kind of flies in the face of that. I think a far better example would be like Sin City. Not to mention, this reboot has been in the works for literal years.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I dunno, making a reboot off of a fairly established well-known IP like this kind of flies in the face of that. I think a far better example would be like Sin City. Not to mention, this reboot has been in the works for literal years.

My man, all I’m saying is it wasn’t some dig at Marvel. He’s just excited for a potential indie CBM franchise. That’s all.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

You're entitled to your opinion but I beg to differ. I think they are timeless because you still see many films today copying them or being influenced by them and marching to their beat. Meaning what they did back in the 1980s or 1990s still works or is influencing filmmakers today. So I'd argue that they are timeless and not dated from those respects.

That's fair, but again, I'm not talking about influence, I'm talking about aesthetics and both Robo and the Crow are not timeless in that regard in my opinion. They both capture very specific points in time.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

Sarah told not one lie.

 

[The Shape]

I think you guys have been debating and confusing the difference between words like "timeless" and "dated".

A literal definition of "timeless" would be referring to something that is everlasting and enduring -- something that is so good, it cannot be affected by things like changes in society, fashion, or aesthetics. Something that is just as good now as when it was created.

"Dated" would be referring to something that displays the style or aesthetics of the past rather than the present. Things that are "dated" may seem slightly old-fashioned or out of style in today's society, but may have once been considered to be fashionable or modern in the time it was created.

Both things can be true of something at the same time. There are countless examples of timeless films and songs that have stood the test of time and are still well-regarded in pop culture today, but that are also noticeably dated in many ways. This is also true of The Crow. The first film is timeless for me in that it is a modern day classic that still holds up today and is still effective. I continue to re-watch it and it never gets old for me. However, many things about the film -- the style, fashion, action, music, dialogue, etc -- are all very 90s and the film is clearly a product of its time. There is nothing wrong with that.