I really liked the first Crow movie but I was quickly bored with the subsequent sequels beating a dead horse. So I was less than curious about the proposed Crow remake by Stephen Norrington.
That is until I heard it won’t be at all like the original, and will have its own take on the legend.
We then learned that it wouldn’t be a remake of Proyas’ 1994 gothic stylized take on the story, and that Norrington planned to create a new character and story for the film. He also has said the new movie will be more realistic, hard-edged and mysterious, almost documentary-style. He hopes to bring the franchise a sharpened different tone for 21st century audiences.
Now it looks like a draft of the script has been completed. A source close to the production revealed to Mania.com that Norrington’s current draft of the script has been “very well received” by Relativity.
I imagine it will still revolve around themes of revenge, but perhaps the title persona of the Crow will not be supernatural at all.
Now I am itchy curious to see what it is that is so different yet still required the purchase of the rights to create. Suddenly I care about the Crow remake.
This is interesting news, indeed. After all of the craptacular sequels, a reboot was probably the only option to savage whatever dignity the original had left.
I wonder just how the film will go, with it aiming for a more realistic tone? Perhaps you’re right when you guess that it won’t dwell far into the supernatural, Rodney. If I wanted to see The Crow go a certain way, it would be something like this:
The whole mythos of the Crow involves a spiritual deity (in all cases, a crow) bringing back to life someone’s spirit that seeks vengeance, right? The concept would remain the same, but one thing; What if the crow made a mistake and brought back the wrong soul? Like a mass murderer who wants to hunt down the very people who turned him in? This would still be in line with the mythos, yet be a fresh enough take on the series as it would be portrayed through the perspective of the victims instead and show the “Crow” as an antagonist.
I know it sounds like a typical horror movie, but in this series’ case, it would be a new direction.
In the second film, City Of Angels, the bad guy captured the bird, crucified it, then drank the bird’s blood, turning him into a ‘Crow’ like personality. Then it was, for an all too brief time, a Crow vs. a Crow.
That’s true. But the potential of a “Crow VS. Crow” was nowhere near realized due to the boneheaded filmmaking of the entire film. Even after he turned the bird into a voodoo doll, the villain just stood there and tried glaring the real “Crow” to death lol.
But that wasn’t the point I was getting at when I said the Crow could be an antagonist. I didn’t mean just have some dribbling idiot of a witch doctor take the power for himself; I meant that what if it was the product of a simple error on the bird’s part? It’s been more or less explained that the crow only resurrects souls that have been wronged and want vengeance. But, that’s only if the conditions are right. However, what about the souls who have done wrong and want retribution regardless, like they had unfinished business that was malicious in nature, or at least more so than the good souls?
The crow could be confused by the individual strengths of a soul’s need of revenge and accidentally sends back the wrong soul? A genuinely evil soul? A “good” soul could be summoned later in an effort to take the evil soul back to purgatory. That would be a true “Crow VS. Crow” scenario right there. ^_^
As much as I would like to see Stephen Norrington make his first flick since the disaster of LXG…
I’m not sold. I could understand if the “remake” was more in line with the source of James O’Barr’s graphic novel- but I’m a little shocked.
If it isn’t a remake, is it a sequel? There have been different actors playing different characters who become The Crow. The only connection they have is the supernatural aspect with brings them back from the dead to avenge.
So if one were to take that element out…
What we wind up with is a dude who is presumed dead, paints his face, and goes out for payback. In a nutshell ANOTHER BASIC REVENGE PICTURE
True, the first film strayed away somewhat from O’Barr’s material, but it kept the basics, specifically Eric Draven rising from the grave as a grim avenger. Now, we want to get rid of that *and* Eric Draven too?
Please tell me your “I care” was in jest, Rodney. Because if you really did care, you’d think Norrington has flipped his lid.
I don’t see this getting filmed.
The original graphic novel is a lot more compelling than just some dude in search of payback. In fact, I would submit just the opposite of what you are saying.
What made Eric’s survival after being shot in the head so powerful was that while this was the context, the subtext was that he was back from the dead. It was symbolism. Powerful symbolism. But when you strip all that away, you just have context. Not as intriguing.
And what made The Crow being a symbol of death so powerful was that Eric Draven wasn’t actually undead. Just dead inside. That’s why he painted himself like that. Not because he was on a revenge spree. And that’s why he pumped loads of morphine and adrenaline into his heart before his last victim, withstanding tons of gunfire to his body before finally catching up to and killing the last person that wronged him on that day. He couldn’t stand to live anymore.
The Crow isn’t your typical revenge story. It’s way, way better. It’s loaded with powerful imagery and depth, and I think that a lot of that could be translated to screen in a faithful adaptation. If the right people did it.
“But when you strip all that away, you just have context. Not as intriguing.”
Jake, that’s what I said.
No. No, you didn’t. At least, according to what you wrote. You said that we shouldn’t go back to the novel and take out the supernatural stuff.
Quote:
“The only connection they have is the supernatural aspect with brings them back from the dead to avenge.
So if one were to take that element out…
What we wind up with is a dude who is presumed dead, paints his face, and goes out for payback. In a nutshell ANOTHER BASIC REVENGE PICTURE”
You were arguing for subtext as context. I said that without the subtext, The Crow is not intriguing. We said the exact opposite things. Unless I’m missing something.
I’m fine with it. The first movie was very different then the comic it was based upon and it’d be interesting to see a more faithful adaptation.
You think that the guy who directed The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is interested in a faithful adaption?
Yeah, this is tedious at best, the 1st one was good based on it’s roots and Star Power of Brandon Lee all the others were just goth ripp-offs and un watchable.
Eric Draven is rolling in his grave.
What we really need is a director’s cut for “The Crow”, so much footage was taken out; an entire subplot was deleted.