#nor do i think it tarnishes the graphic novel

[hinasho]

I'll tell you what people's problem with The Crow 2024 is — I'm a longtime fan by the way, I own the comics, I watched all the movies, so on.

The Crow 1994 managed to get the soul of the source material (comics). The Crow is a story about overcoming grief and acceptance of death — the author wrote Eric's story during his darkest periods of grief after his girlfriend was killed. So the story of Eric and Shelley have meaning, they are meaningful characters to a lot of people. Brandon's movie, while with some differences from the original story, still carried the same themes beautifully and the tragedy that happened during the filming made people (me included) turn protective over the memory of The Crow and it’s meaning.

There were three other movies after The Crow 1994 but they never dared to touch on Eric's character, instead they created new ones like Ashe Corven, Jimmy Cuervo and Alex Corvis. And those movies suck, don’t get me wrong, but people don’t have a problem with them because they didn't touch on Brandon's Lee legacy and di their best to stay on theme — grief and acceptance. They are their own thing, and that's that.

So did the comics. Eric story is the first main one, but no one took him and tried to continue it, he's pretty much untouchable, he has his beginning and his end. Instead, they created new Crows for their stories: Joshua, Iris Shaw, Mark Leung...There's a long list of existing Crows with their own stories.

The problem with 2024 The Crow is mostly that they called it a remake and took Eric's names to a character that doesn’t even resembles the original Eric — and I'm not saying in physical appearance, I'm saying his essence because the original Eric is a killer of bad guys, but he's also pretty charismatic; he loved life, he was gentle with the little girl Sarah he was friends with, he was kind, he was thoughtful, he even jokes around! Which, to many people, Bill's Eric does not resembles even a little bit of Eric's other than his name and neither does his story matches the themes and soul behind The Crow franchise.

The main gripe The Crow community has with the 2024 version is them taking Eric's and Shelley story, then changing it so much and losing it's soul when the easiest thing to avoid all this controversy and review bombing would've been just be like "Hey, we're making a new Crow movie, but we have created our own original protagonists for it!" just like people have been doing for years, because that's what 2024 Shelley and Eric feel like to people — original characters who just happen to share the names of the OG's.

Anyway, I watched the 2024 version and while Bill did a phenomenal job as always with what he was given and he looks so damn good, the story just...Didn't get me at all. There's not one bit of The Crow essence in there for me.

Hello, thank you for sharing your thoughts! 💞 I finally watched The Crow 1994 and City of Angels today (still need to watch Salvation & Wicked Prayer) so fortunately I now have a bit more context.

The problem with 2024 The Crow is mostly that they called it a remake

So to begin my breakdown: The 2024 isn't a remake of the 1994 movie. This seems to be a widespread misconception. But in all of the clips and trailers Lionsgate has released, they clarify that it's a "modern re-imagining of the original graphic novel". The movie never claims to be a remake of the 1994 film.

Now a fair debate could be how closely tied (or not) the '24 movie is to the graphic novel, which the two are remarkably different, but based on the reviews and comments I've seen, fans seem more inclined to keep comparing it to the 1994 adaptation despite Lionsgate never claiming they were trying to remake that specific film.

So basically, comparisons between '94 Eric and '24 Eric don't really hold up as valid criticisms in my opinion, because the director had no intention of adapting the '24 film from the '94 movie in the first place.

the original Eric is a killer of bad guys, but he's also pretty charismatic; he loved life, he was gentle with the little girl Sarah he was friends with, he was kind, he was thoughtful, he even jokes around! Which, to many people, Bill's Eric does not resembles even a little bit

'24 Eric is still a killer of killers. He only kills those that attack him first or had something to do with his and Shelly's deaths. He never kills needlessly.

In regards to him loving life, 2024 Eric does in droves! He actively hates having to kill so many people and takes no enjoyment out of it. The opera scene, while fantastic, wasn't a fun moment for him. Since her death, you can tangibly feel that all he wants to do is get back to his simple life with Shelly. He loves her and he loves the life they had.

As for him being charismatic, I can see your point there. In the graphic novels (from summaries I've read), GN Eric does have a morbid sense of humor and at times played around with his kills before finishing the job. His relationship with Sherri was brief but sweet and he gets a cute cat!! He continues to form relationships even after Shelly's death because of his charisma and kindness.

From a writing perspective, I believe all of these moments are intended to humanize Eric given the GN begins with him as The Crow pretty much immediately. We are introduced to him already in the throes of his grief and seeking vengeance.

In contrast, the '24 film paces the transition MUCH slower with the first act being about how Shelly and Eric meet, and the growth of their romance. I believe Director Rupert Sanders used those scenes to humanize the characters instead, which he accomplishes as both Eric and Shelly feel like they're just normal people dealt a shitty hand who only want to live their lives together. You can see the love they shared and how pure it was.

Basically, the core of the characters remain the same, just told in different ways throughout the story. In the graphic novel, James O'Barr humanizes Eric & adds levity in the midst of the carnage, while Rupert Sanders adds it before the carnage. Despite the timeline differences, both succeed in showing that Eric isn't a mindless murdering machine, and is just a regular guy who's been driven to the point of madness.

(It still would've been a nice touch for '24 Eric to adopt a cat for Shelly in the movie though.)

Bill's Eric does not resembles even a little bit of Eric's other than his name and neither does his story matches the themes and soul behind The Crow franchise.

From my understanding, the main themes behind the franchise are grief, the difficulty to move past it, and divine justice.

All three Erics suffer from visions of Shelly, who's memory plays on a feedback loop as they go about their spree. Something both the '94 and '24 films don't do, however, is touch on GN Eric's self harm tendencies. Which isn't a criticism! I'm merely discussing the different ways they show Eric's state of mourning.

The inability to move on is also still prevalent in the '24 movie. It's an active choice Eric makes when Kronos gives him the option to get his life back, and instead Eric submerges deeper and signs away his soul. He steps into it with his eyes wide open knowing he's damning himself forever.

Meanwhile in the graphic novel, Eric is already submerged. He is already a walking corpse, the embodiment of a heart so broken the only way to put himself back together is to weaponize the shards of his loss. I believe this is who '24 Eric develops into after the second act when he signs away his soul.

In the first act, he is human. In the second act, he is transitioning, and in the third act, he has truly become The Crow. Too deep in grief to escape it. The main difference between the '24 version and the GN version is that we see '24 Eric's journey to reach that final stage. It's the difference between character-focused narratives vs parable-like storytelling. Neither is inherently better than the other, just different.

And when it comes to divine justice, hmmm.....

In the GN, Eric and Shelly are killed and brutalized due to a completely random act of evil. The gang that killed them and assaulted Shelly had zero connections to the couple and were just some cruel, awful randos off the street. Based on what I've read, Eric nearly kills all of them without difficulty. Most of his hardship comes from his own bouts of depression and misery.

(By the way, by having the villains all be mediocre average goons, and majority of Eric's troubles be psychological, the GN focuses more on the danger of all-consuming grief, highly likely because of the trauma James O'Barr was experiencing when he wrote it. Meanwhile both the '94 and '24 films have Eric struggle a lot more during his fight scenes, elevating the danger of his physical opponents. But this is a tangent, back to what I was talking about!)

By all of them being average goons, the story gets across that: yes normal everyday people can and are capable of atrocious acts of evil, and yes they deserve to face the brunt of their crimes and divine punishment.

However in both the '94 and '24 movies, Eric and Shelly's deaths are not random and are planned crimes to silence Shelly. And both come up with a "big bad" for Eric to face off against. In the '94 movie, it was Top Dollar, a criminal kingpin, and in the '24 movie it's Vincent Roeg, a rich executive who's also a crimelord.

BUT what the '24 film does differently is that Roeg is also a supernatural being himself, who's made a pact with the devil to trade innocent souls for immortality.

This is probably the only area in which I agree with OG fans on that a central theme was changed. Because by making the main antagonist "unnatural", it's no longer about everyday, normal people committing horrible evils. It's about a supernatural entity on par with The Crow.

I think Rupert Sanders wanted to focus more on the supernatural aspect of The Crow universe. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing and definitely made for a fun movie, but I do agree with OG fans that the "grounded" nature of casual human cruelty was lost in that regard.

By implementing this change, the weight of Eric's vengeance is also changed. Because now it's no longer just personal. As the character of Kronos says in the movie, they need Eric to kill Roeg because he and all the deaths he's caused are unnatural and they essentially need Eric to tip the scales back into balance. While Eric's primary motive is still about doing right by Shelly, there's now an element of saving the world from an unnaturally superpowered tyrant, rather than the everyday cruelties of man.

So in this aspect, I do agree that a core theme was changed between the graphic novel and the 2024 movie. This still doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad story, just that Rupert Sanders had different intentions.

Because this still connects to the previous theme, the inability to move on and cope with death. Except now it's portrayed in the antagonist as well. His power is completely about his refusal to accept his own mortality. However, this does, like I said, detract from the normality of evil theme. So it's basically a gain and a loss 😅

(Plus, as I was writing this, I thought about how Eric's motivation is changed as well. In the '24 movie, Eric's goal is still to do right by Shelly, but it's to save her. Because if he succeeds, Shelly will be resurrected. This adds a noble spin to his killing spree, whereas the GN and the '94 film are solely about overwhelming rage at the loss of a loved one. There is no resurrecting Shelly. It's about enacting divine justice against their killers before traveling to the afterlife together. They're already dead and there's nothing GN Eric can do to change that, unlike 2024 Eric.

On the flip side, while this "nobler" take may feel like a negative change, I think it's countered by the fact that Eric succeeds in saving her, but is still dissatisfied because he's unable to actually be with her. GN and '94 Eric were able to find peace and reunite with their loves. '24 Eric only gets about 5 minutes before she's resurrected and he's stuck in purgatory forever.

At the end of the '24 film, both Eric and Shelly are dissatisfied as they can no longer be together. It's a bittersweet ending that feels more bitter than sweet. So while there is a "nobler" cause behind Eric's actions, the tone of the story is still very grim.

This is also why I believe the way the 2024 movie ended was with the intentions of a sequel where Eric does achieve his own peace. But that's a different conversation!)

...the easiest thing to avoid all this controversy and review bombing would've been just be like "Hey, we're making a new Crow movie, but we have created our own original protagonists for it!" just like people have been doing for years, because that's what 2024 Shelley and Eric feel like to people — original characters who just happen to share the names of the OG's.

Sure! I don't disagree. Well, I don't really think anything deserves to be review bombed unless it's content that's actively harmful. But I don't disagree with the original protagonists angle. Changing the names couldn't have hurt.

That said though, and I say this as gently as I can, Eric's character existed before '94 Eric and does not need to end with the '94 movie. I think it'd be one thing if the 1994 movie created the story of The Crow and that was the first iteration of Eric's character. But... it's not.

Multiple re-imaginings and adaptations of books / comics have been around since forever. The show Smallville and Man of Steel both adapt Superman in wildly different ways. Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew has had five different adaptations, and yet no one shits on 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) or Deliver Us From Eva (2003) for being modern re-imaginings. Awhile ago, me and my friend were discussing our favorite adaptations of the Little Women novel. Her favorite is the 1994 film while my favorite is the 2022 modern Kdrama!

I bring up all of these examples to say that there is REALLY nothing wrong with doing modern re-imaginings of older works, and tweaking characters and plotlines to reflect the changed style of the story and time period.

What's most important is that the heart of the story is kept. At the end of the day, The Crow is about an innocent man who enacts divine justice against he and his lover's murderers, while struggling to cope with her loss. Based on the graphic novel and what I've seen of the 1994 movie and the City of Angels sequel, the world of The Crow says that life can be fair and that no matter how high, or low, or cruel, or spineless, someone is, that karma is a bitch and it IS possible for them to reap what they sow.

I truly think the 2024 adaptation captured that feeling, even if it may look different than what people might be used to or expected.

Instead of being upset about how unexpected it is, try going in with an open mind and seeing the story Rupert, Bill, and FKA Twigs wanted to tell. I've read and seen a few interviews by now, and these three were genuinely passionate about the characters & story, and you can feel that in the movie.

And even if you still have no interest, the other parts of the franchise you do enjoy aren't going anywhere. The 2024 adaptation doesn't effect them in any capacity. The stories you love still exist and the new addition can't harm or take them away from you.

[hemant567]

"13 Reasons Why" it deserves to be watched once

13 Reasons Why is the new Netflix series that has everyone talking, and no, it isn’t a superhero show this time. It’s based on the 2007 novel by Jay Asher that hit #1 on New York Times’ Best Selling list in 2011. The story follows high schooler Clay Jensen (Dylan Minnette, Don’t Breathe, Lost, Prisoners), when he comes home one day to a package from his classmate, Hannah Baker (Katherine Langford), who recently committed suicide. The package contains thirteen cassette tapes, recorded by Hannah herself, detailing the thirteen reasons that led her to end her life. Each tape is in regards to a particular person and how they fit into her suicide. Each classmate before Clay has listened to all 13 tapes already and now it’s his turn. There are only two rules: 1. you listen, and 2. you pass the tapes along. It’s a daunting story of tragedy, love, abuse, and teenage troubles. The novel itself has led to numerous youths stating it saved their life and helped them through trying times. It’s refreshing, sincere and honest. And now I’m going to give you a run-down of exactly why you should be bingeing the Netflix adaption 13 Reasons Why.  CASSETTE 1: SIDE A – Netflix has been providing numerous shows lately and almost all of them have been high-quality television. This show has the cinematic look of a movie with the setup of a short-season television show. CASSETTE 1: SIDE B – Finding a movie with a great soundtrack is pretty common, but finding a TV show with killer music value? Now that’s rare. Once you get done bingeing the show, you’re going to be bingeing the soundtrack and enjoying the nostalgia of some of those tracks. CASSETTE 2: SIDE A – Katherine Langford as Hannah Baker. She perfectly portrays everything the book and show needs her to. Her talents are vehemently displayed in every segment so well that you would never guess she’s only done a couple of short films beyond this show. She’s truly an up-and-coming actress you will want to follow. How about that American accent? She has it perfected. CASSETTE 2: SIDE B – Adaptations are usually push-and-pull for book readers. Constant criticisms about how “this shouldn’t have changed” and “that should be different”. The way Netflix adapted this novel is actually highly impressive. It’s so uncommon to find an adaptation that works better than it even did before. The improvements, changes, and additions to the show make it all the more immersive and unnerving. It adds to the quality, not just the quantity. I won’t specify too much on the differences – even though there are quite a few – but one thing that is quite noticeable is Clay doesn’t listen to all the tapes in one night as he did in the book; he has his reasons and they become clearer as the episodes go on. Most of the adjustments are logical and help boost the show where it needs to be to maintain the viewer’s attention. CASSETTE 3: SIDE A – Kate Walsh (Grey’s Anatomy, Private Practice) as Mrs. Baker is exactly how a grieving mother would react. She’s relentless in looking for answers, she’s sorrowful, she’s angry, and she misses her little girl. She gives us a deeper look at how Hannah’s parents continued their lives without her, which was never distinguished in the book. Walsh had the perfect depiction of this character using such raw emotion and without her, 13 Reasons Why would truly be missing something. CASSETTE 3: SIDE B – Through this show, the producers and crew are giving insight into the signs of someone who is suicidal and resources for suicide prevention. They destroy the barriers that hold suicide in what feels like 4 steel walls where no one is supposed to talk about it. The stigma surrounding suicide is tarnished. They subtly help you realize that it can happen to anyone at any time and that even just one person reaching out can make a difference in someone’s life. They reiterate that we should all be more kind and gentle with others. That is something I, personally, can get behind. CASSETTE 4: SIDE A – Not only do we have a show from Netflix that breaks stigma surrounding suicide and mental health, but we have a show that isn’t afraid to include diverse characters while normalizing them. You aren’t slapped in the face with interracial couples, LGBT couples, or any of those “traditional differences” and it helps youth relate. They are just “there” and the rest of our characters standardize this – it isn’t made out to be an issue. The diversity is great and it’s not even diversity for the sake of being diverse. CASSETTE 4: SIDE B – Another outstanding casting: Christian Navarro as Tony. His character is difficult to explain without giving details away, but let’s just say that he’s the guider for Clay’s journey listening to the tapes. He’s sort of mysterious through most of the show, but he’s an excellent addition. He is the all-wise one who adds a feeling of depth and balance to the show. He seems to know everyone even though he keeps to himself and certainly doesn’t strike me as a high school student. CASSETTE 5: SIDE A – Yet another wonderful casting choice: Dylan Minnette as Clay Jensen. This is one of the best casting choices on the show, not only because Dylan is great and handles his role perfectly, but because he portrays Clay how the book does. Granted, there are variances to Clay’s character in the show from the book, but he manages to captivate the role of an introverted, shy, somewhat ditzy kind of guy wonderfully. I was hooked with him leading the show from episode one and I can’t imagine another actor taking on this role now that I’ve seen Minnette in it.  CASSETTE 5: SIDE B – 13 Reasons Why is absolutely binge-worthy, especially since it’s only 13 hours worth of television. This is one you won’t be able to stop thinking about when you’re taking a break to eat lunch or grabbing a shower. Take one day to yourself, find some tissue, and have a seat. You won’t be able to take your time with this series. CASSETTE 6: SIDE A – Any Marshmallows out there? There are some serious Veronica Mars vibes in this show, especially in the second half of the season. If you were a fan of the first season of Veronica Mars, you will LOVE 13 Reasons Why. If I’m right, you owe me a dollar. CASSETTE 6: SIDE B – The ending. DON’T WORRY – I won’t spoil it for you. I want you to enjoy that journey all on your own. However, I want you to understand how well they wrapped it up. We get enough questions answered that if it doesn’t get a second season, we won’t be left on edge. If we’re lucky enough to get another season (with as much talk and stream-time as it’s getting, I’d be more surprised if we didn’t get one more), we will have plenty of story to continue with. CASSETTE 7: SIDE A – I’ve already gone through how important and crucial it is to talk about the issues of suicide, depression, and abuse and that we need to break the stigma surrounding those topics. Yet there is something else that Selena Gomez, Brian Yorkey, and others were able to do within 13 episodes. They were able to bring to life the serious nature of this situations and subtly walk you through the warning signs. The second half of the season is much more tension-building and frankly, some parts are hard to sit through. When the graphic scenes appeared, they didn’t romanticize them. They didn’t make it look graphic for shock value, they showed you just enough to understand how detrimental abuse and bullying can be. There are advisements at the beginning of the episodes to forewarn you on the graphic nature, please take them seriously. They are not comfortable by any means, nor are they intended to be. These situations happen all of the time, and those who experience abuse and bullying are by no means comfortable either. CASSETTE 7: SIDE B – Overall, you’re in for a journey that takes you back to your childhood, or if you’re a teenager right now, helps you relate to what you’re currently experiencing. I’m still struggling to find something wrong with the show now that I’ve finished it. I’m also having a hard time not going back and watching it a second time through. 13 Reasons Why is more than standard entertainment. This is the rare TV series that can not only alter perceptions, it could change someone’s life.