The Crow Reboot

I also think trimming out excessive fat in a script, before it goes into production, can also help costs. Like if you’re making a sequel to a highly successful movie, introduction of the main characters is done. The plot can move a bit faster and keep things short and sweet.

Like in the five Bayformers movies, there was 70-90 minutes worth of movie in his bloated 2.5 hr extravaganzas. Could’ve been less expensive and less butt numbing.

Yeah, in the case of sequels, there’s always a feeling that you have to go bigger with more effects, big names for new characters, and longer runtimes. And yet, I keep going back to Wrath of Khan - one of the best sequels of all time that was made for about a quarter of the budget of its predecessor and has a shorter runtime. Yet it’s superior in pretty much every way, and holds up to this day; seriously, aside from a couple scenes, the practical effects in that film look better than a lot of the $300 million CGI extravaganzas that studios release today.
 
218b51f8e965784115f57823ff2456803fc0c33a.gif



giphy.gif



b341b97001eb5628de4fc61919b0ac196f22d57a_00.gif



What a film. What a performance.
 
218b51f8e965784115f57823ff2456803fc0c33a.gif



giphy.gif



b341b97001eb5628de4fc61919b0ac196f22d57a_00.gif



What a film. What a performance.

There’s always that pall of Lee’s on-set death that permeates the film. I always wonder how his career would’ve fared had that incident not occurred. He showed real versatility and vulnerability in that role.

It’s ironic that my favorite scene in the movie was done after his death— the one where Shelly visits Eric’s apartment, sees the burned photographs and hugs Eric. That gives the movie its heart and emotional depth that resonates in the final scenes.
 
Last edited:
Producer Sam Pressman Talks ‘The Crow’ Reboot And Honoring Father’s Legacy – Deadline

The Crow has been a very central and integral part of our company and I’m really proud of the progress and the work that has been done,” says Pressman. “I think the movie is just going to blow people away. Our partners want to approach it in a very 360 way, whether it be video games, an animated series or a universe, but it’s got this cosmic legacy that can expand beyond a singular story.”

He adds, “We’re finally at a point where we can really explore those other avenues because it’s such a unique property in that it is not a studio film, it’s not a Marvel film – it’s kind of an anti-Marvel film. I have the highest hopes for that and I really love what Molly Hassell has done in pushing it up the hill and Rupert Sanders is such a visionary.”
 
Not sure how this turns out. I'm still in shock they actually finished making it.

Thing is...it's Lionsgate. They don't have a great track record at this. Look at how badly they handled the release of Dredd. The marketing for the film was terrible.
 

We’ll be the judge of that, I think.
 
LOL I think every time a CBM comes out that’s not in the MCU, someone says something to this effect. We’ll see.

It’s become as bad of a cliche as WB execs claiming every damned DC movie is “the best one since The Dark Knight!”
 
As good (and terrifying) Bill Skarsgard was in the It movies, I doubt he’ll bring the same kind of tragic quality Lee brought to Eric.

I don’t know if Sanders’ movie will have any scenes that have the poignancy of the Eric/Shelly scenes or the scene where Eric visits Ernie Hudson’s character after his resurrection. They have a high bar to reach in terms of keeping the movie emotionally grounded.
 
As good (and terrifying) Bill Skarsgard was in the It movies, I doubt he’ll bring the same kind of tragic quality Lee brought to Eric.

I don’t know if Sanders’ movie will have any scenes that have the poignancy of the Eric/Shelly scenes or the scene where Eric visits Ernie Hudson’s character after his resurrection. They have a high bar to reach in terms of keeping the movie emotionally grounded.

I think we need accept it's not gonna be as good as the original. But if it's a good movie in its own right and does a few things differently, both can exist and be enjoyed.

Hope we get a 4K release of the original also.
 
As good (and terrifying) Bill Skarsgard was in the It movies, I doubt he’ll bring the same kind of tragic quality Lee brought to Eric.

I don’t know if Sanders’ movie will have any scenes that have the poignancy of the Eric/Shelly scenes or the scene where Eric visits Ernie Hudson’s character after his resurrection. They have a high bar to reach in terms of keeping the movie emotionally grounded.

One of my favorite scenes. "Believe me, nothing is trivial."
 
I'm going into this with extremely low expectations as a huge fan of the original film. That way, I can take it in as it is. Based on who is involved, at least I feel confident in saying it can't be as bad as the sequels.
 
Oh, I forgot to mention... I'm honestly quite surprised that if the filming has wrapped as reported that there has been no leaked pictures or video of Skarsgard as Draven.
 
Oh, I forgot to mention... I'm honestly quite surprised that if the filming has wrapped as reported that there has been no leaked pictures or video of Skarsgard as Draven.

I came across this awhile ago.

 
Interesting if that will be Draven's hairstyle in the film.
 

Bill Skarsgård plays Eric Draven this time around, and apparently, we don’t even see him in the iconic makeup until the third act, which is… an interesting choice… though I suppose this movie had to do something different to distinguish itself from the beloved original starring the late, great Brandon Lee.

The first act develops the character of Eric and his romance with Shelley Webster (FKA Twigs), a couple of drug addicts who break out of a rehab facility to live the high life together in an unnamed city. The twist here is that the villain, Mr. Roeg (Danny Huston), not only has a connection to Shelley’s past, but he also has supernatural powers that grant him the ability to sacrifice innocent souls and extend his own time on Earth.

Also, there are multiple crows as opposed to one magical bird, as the creature serves as more of a symbol this time around rather than Eric’s eye in the sky. His ability to self-heal isn’t tied to the bird’s health, either, so Eric heals much more slowly this time around and as a result, the vigilante feels much more vulnerable.

Anyway, Shelley sees something she shouldn’t have, and Mr. Roeg sends his henchmen to kill her and Eric, whose soul is subsequently caught between the land of the living and the realm of the dead. Given the chance to sacrifice his soul to save Shelley, Eric decides to come back to put the wrong things right.

It was refreshing to hear that director Rupert Sanders (Ghost in the Shell) didn’t try to ape Alex Proyas’ gothic style and instead did his own thing visually. But it was disappointing to hear that Mr. Roeg’s henchmen came across as fairly generic and easily disposable, as one of the strengths of the original 1994 film is how memorable Funboy, T-Bird, Tin Tin, and Skank were, and how each one was given a distinct personality.

On the bright side, I’ve heard that Skarsgård is pretty good — he’s covered in tattoos and has a mullet — and that the film is pretty violent, which is what fans of The Crow are hoping for and expecting. An action scene set at an opera house is said to be a particular highlight. I forgot to ask about the film’s soundtrack, but my source didn’t mention it. It’s probably best to not even invoke the original’s soundtrack, which is one of the best ever… and also of a very particular time in music.
 
None of this sounds all that encouraging, but we'll see.

Rupert Sanders' movies are Snow White and the Huntsman and live-action Ghost in the shell.
 
So Draven has a mullet?

Good God, why is everyone trying to bring mullets back?!! They are rightfully mocked for a reason! Let them die already!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,611
Messages
21,995,722
Members
45,793
Latest member
khoirulbasri
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"