Likes: 
Faceplams: Ahh, I hear you now. Thanks for the clarification.Originally Posted by marodi
Only By Night
Ahh, I hear you now. Thanks for the clarification.
Active Member
The violence in the trailer also look unpleasant. The original movie was violent, but it was mostly seeing the bad guys get it. The deaths/assaults on Eric and Shelly weren't dwelled on.
Active Member
Finally watched the trailer...
Euro-Crow ain't my thing at all...
To me, a character in the first movie was the city itself. And even the second one as well... but this... this just feels way too clean for such a messy and dirty story.
I also don't like how it seems the trailer gives everything in the movie away with the exception of how the big bad man dies.
Thinking more on it, I really dislike how they've cheapened why they "had to die". Oh noes, she saw a crime... vs. they were trying to help their community in trying to save their housing.
This is not to say that Euro-Crow couldn't work... I can definitely see situations where it would... but... let's just say unless they really wanted to be political in a statement, probably won't happen. Imagine an Irish and Belfast version of the story during The Troubles. Or... a French and Marseille one. Lots of ways to do it.
Last edited by MrLobster; 03-17-2024 at 04:55 AM.
Active Member
I mean, thats fine to facepalm my post haha.
I guess all I am getting at is...where I am at in life...with kids and such... I don't let things like a Crow reboot bother me as much as it seems to be bothering folks. That's all im saying
FATUM NOS IUNGET
I’m with you. I’m a massive fan of The Crow. Like I’m a massive fan of a hundred other franchises. Ask me how much sleep I lose over anything about them anymore haha. Did you see how people were mad about a little poster in the latest season of True Detective? Just imagine having the effort to worry about shit like that so much!
Only By Night
I even said, if you simply just wanna be entertained, that is fine. But calling people out for being "Grumpy" is a tad egregious.
Brandon Lee died playing the role of Eric Draven, and from what we were presented, it seems to just shat all over it. I'll wait until I see the actual film, but it isn't looking good.
To each their own.
Matador de Froot Loops
I was nobody. Nothing.
they were meant to be, from what i understand, but weren't properly finished due to Brandon's death.
I was nobody. Nothing.
i'm with you guys saying this one's for the kids, and i believe that making Eric Draven look like a sound cloud rapper is part of the point?
Do you think your average zoomer would give a FUCK about a long-haired dude playing a guitar solo on top of a building, or Eric being a grunge/goth rocker?
I don't.
This looks like an UPDATE for the face tattoo, Sadboi generation.
FKA Twigs is Eric's girl, ffs.
I don't think this is FOR most of us, here. Hell, i'll watch it on Plex.
My biggest hope for this flick is that it gives the youngsters at least SOME of the magic WE got with from the OG.
Last edited by elevenism; 03-22-2024 at 06:39 AM.
Active Member
You people, investing your energy on an internet message board generating pages and pages of posts about a 4th sequel to a 30 year old movie that isn't even out yet, when you SHOULD be at home studying your Bible.
Active Member
I was nobody. Nothing.
dafuq?
Active Member
Well said. I couldn't quite say what issue I had. Your post really sums it up.
I was nobody. Nothing.
Way ahead of you, chief.
I'm actually looking at apocryphal books QUOTED in the Tanakh, and hoping someone finds Gad the Seer, and ESPECIALLY, the Book of the Wars of Yaweh, as i think that, if found, it would prove my belief in the Canaanite origin of proto Hebrews. ALSO, the title is just fucking awesome.
I'm also currently noticing parallels between the (in my opinion, gnostic) Ascension of Isaiah, and Enoch, and wondering if that makes the Enoch books gnostic by association. Furthermore, i'm tripping out on the fact that Paul's epistles PREDATE not ONLY John, but the synoptics.
Tangentially, i'm also wondering if this "Secret Doctrine of the Rosicrucians" by one "Magus Incognito" is real, or not.
OH. And i'm TRYING to gear myself up to read this translation of the whole ass Nag Hammadi Library.
You're right in a way, though, as i can rarely tear myself away from watching lectures on all this shit on YouTube, but i manage to do it on occasion.
Last edited by elevenism; 04-08-2024 at 02:19 AM.
I was nobody. Nothing.
Can you like, come to my house and sit me down and explain Dune to me?
This is coming from someone who has 6 terabytes of MOSTLY arthouse films and such, and, who is a David Lynch fanatic.
But that new Dune...goddamn.
Maybe i just need a youtube vid, or perhaps i should read the books.
Matador de Froot Loops
The Crow Reboot Shifts Release Date to Late Summer
Safe to say, nobody it's excited for this...
Active Member
Forgive me if anyone already knew this but was strolling through the IMDB halls and found this little nugget of info... and I have to say that the irony of this (given the "perceived" hate for this reboot on this board) was quite hilarious to me.
The director, Rupert Sanders, just so happen to have directed this music video a few years back...
Does this mean anything...no. But I did find it quite funny.
Happy Monday everyone!
Hairy Member
He was married to Atticus' sister at the time, if I'm correct. And ended up fucking that marriage up by cheating on her with Kristen Stewart.
Active Member
Ah. Well don't know nothin' about that -- if its true thats a shame.
Was just posting it for the sake of the connection with the NIN community and the new Crow film. I try not to let personal life stuff affect how I see a person's art... obviously unless they'd done something horrible (sexual assault, murder, etc...)
Matador de Froot Loops
Active Member
I look forward to illegally downloading it, not watching it and deleting it.
Matador de Froot Loops
LOL
I'm not excited either, but i want to see it just to see if it's really that bad
...i'm pretty sure i will regret it
Active Member
I really don't understand why they just wouldn't call him someone else. Eric Draven wasn't the only Crow. Should of said it was Michael Korby from Wild Justice.
Active Member
@Frozen Beach - they called him Eric Draven because the character in James O'Barr's original comic is Eric Draven -- this movie is a reinterpretation of the comic.. NOT A REMAKE OF THE '94 movie. Stop comparing it to the '94 version. There are other Crow sequels that exist and no one is complaining about those. Go into this knowing this is just a reinterpretation of the comic and has NOTHING to do with the original film other than they share the same source material.
--
Ok - wife and I went and saw it yesterday for a afternoon showing.
SPOILERS AHEAD
Spoiler: The movie wasn't bad at all. Great? No. Re-watchable? Sure.
The Good:
1. It's a good looking film. Some really beautiful shots. Rupert Sanders being a music video director first, definitely shows here.
2. The music. The score is really good. Obviously a subjective opinion. At one point my wife whispered, "So Trent didn't want to do this?" and I laughed. My wife is not a NIN fan and puts up with my Trent obsession with grace. Also, this version did a great job at giving itself its own identity with the music tracks selected -- it didnt try to be the 94 version with all industrial bangers. The music in this one is much more ethereal and moody. The scene with the Enya track worked VERY well.
3. Unpopular opinion but I actually really enjoyed this version of Eric and Shelly (pre-death) and the way they played more into their characters a bit (see bad section for additional info).
4. The film's very slow burn was actually pretty cool -- it is a long movie and the build up takes a VERY long time. But thats not a bad thing. I love long slow films and books. You can feel the build up to the final act and once it gets there you are ready.
The Bad:
1. The Final Act. Good god. This is the worst part of the movie. Everything about this movie was just fine until the Opera House scene. Keep in mind, the build up was there and I was ready for it but... the REVENGE lost all credibility with the stupid, over-the-top, Tom Savini level of gore. Eric proceeds to slice and dice 15+ tuxedoed guards all while be shot to shit. This I have no issue with but they made the same mistake that Rambo: Last Blood did by make the violence almost laughable. The way he kills these guys is not cool and edgy but just a gorehound greatest hits. Swords in eyeballs, swords through jaws, swords through heads, etc... It was lame. Then comes the operatic showing of the heads...where Eric tosses two heads into the crowd who run away screaming in fear but somehow NEVER heard the 5 dozen gun shots in the main entrance... ok.
The only redeeming part of the final act was the final showdown with the main villain, Danny Huston. The epilogue was fine as well.
2. They speed rushed the intro of Eric and Shelly -- while it was nice to see them for so long pre-death, it felt rushed. Maybe better if they had already known each other because that portion of them just immediately falling in love didn't feel genuine.
------
tl:dr - Its NOT a horrible movie and everyone saying it is before even seeing it is just complaining. I genuinely feel bad for the crew that worked very hard on this film as they probably are very proud of their work yet people are boycotting this film before even seeing it. All because they dont want to tarnish Brandon Lee's memory -- give me a fucking break. Its a movie. And tis a movie that doesnt even claim to be trying to remake the 94 version. They specifically said, its a new interpretation of the comic. Case Closed.
Based on the opinions of most people here - I'd say wait to see or don't see it at all. My wife and I had a good time seeing it on the big screen especially since we had a 2 hour break from our kids hahaha.
rant over.
Active Member
I'm not watching this for two -closely entwined- reasons. The original movie is pretty much my own "coming out to myself as a goth" movie. The signs were there before, but 94 is THAT year where I realize that how I feel makes sense in a larger context.
I'm also well-aware that it's a niche movie, not a masterpiece, an oddity without anything really original about it, and that it shines bright in my very own context. Not only in a "you had to be there" way, but in a "you had to be me" as well. I'd watch another adaptation of "Tank Girl", sure, hell, throw in "Barbed Wire" in there as well. Not that one.
Watching that one just doesn't make a lick of sense. I saw the other one, I don't need another version, I wouldn't even be curious or appreciative of 94 Crow if it wasn't for my personal history with it.
As for many remakes or re-adaptations for the new generations, I'm fine with it, and consider I'm not the target audience. It's one of those stories that can't be updated, because it's too tied up with my own history, and there's no updating that.
Matador de Froot Loops
I gotta say that even though the original is sacred for most of us (the soundtrack too!), it has it's flaws (like many great classic movies we remember...), but i think this movie was doomed the moment they used the "Eric Draven story", Skarsgård is a great actor, but Brandon Lee will always be Eric Draven.
I would still watch it sometime, not sure when, i'm not really interested or in a hurry of seeing it; but i'm pretty sure it can't be worse than "City of Angels"...
also:
Throbbing Member
Lots of talk about Eric Draven here in the ETS Crow thread.
Who wants to dive into some The Crow minutia? Come with me as I waste precious minutes of my finite existence(and yours) breaking down the significance of a 30 year old fictional movie character's name when I should be home reading my bible.
First, here's a quote from James O'Barr(the original story and comic author of The Crow) from an article discussing a different, ultimately unmade version of a Crow film...
“I'd also remind them that Eric Draven was a creation of the movie – if you read the comic, Eric and Shelley never have their last names revealed. Hopefully, this is one area the new movie being more faithful to the comic will come into play, and Eric won't be going by Eric Draven in the new film. Luke Evans may play Eric, but Brandon Lee will forever be Eric Draven.“
There's the Draven rule from the writer himself. Eric is fair game, but Eric Draven belongs to Brandon Lee for obvious reasons.
The other film sequels in the franchise, awful as they may be, stuck to a tradition of following the narrative of a different protagonist than Eric Draven. These protagonists were: Ashe Corven, Alexander Frederick Corvis, and James Cuervo.
And so, all the die hard fans are justified by being outraged at the audacity of this new film going back to the original protagonist from the first movie. I mean if that were to happen, the original film would disintegrate from existence or something, wouldn't it?
Not so fast! It turns out this very thing already happened in 1998 when a Crow TV show(one that I have never seen) was made with the protagonist being credited under the name "Eric Draven." Heresy I say!
So the sacred Draven rule has already been broken after all! But what's that? TV shows don't count? This new film is an even more egregious blasphemy against our dark-winged(duck?) lord and savior???
Well, hold your horses mall kids, there's even more to the plot!
According to both Wikipedia AND Imbd, the protagonist of this brand new 2024 film is credited simply as "Eric". Could it be possible that BOTH Wikipedia AND Imbd could be wrong? I highly doubt it. But as I have yet to see this newest film, I can't say for certain.
If that is indeed true, it seems to me this film could be safety placed in the same category as all the other sequels. Inconsequential? Yes. Disrespectful to Brandon Lee's legacy? Probably not. Did anyone who has seen the new film notice this minute detail? Inquiring minds would like to know. The fate of the fanbase may depend on all ye who braved see this new iteration.
To make matters even more complicated, it seems that in the leadup to the release of this film, multiple outlets reported casting as being for, you guessed it, "Eric Draven", further muddying these waters.
And what's that? Did even I, myself, fall into this tangled web of confusion and lies? I was surprised to learn that 6 months ago on this very message board I posted the following:
What an entitled sounding little prick! Like, WHO even is that person from back then? And WHAT exactly were they ON that day? Weed. It was weed.
Oh, and let me take a second to formally apologize to anyone who happens to have a face tattoo. That particular character design felt lazy to me, that's all. I just didn't do a good job of articulating that. Leto's Joker design copy/paste kind of thing is the vibe I got. I mean my dude's nipple was an eye for Christ's sake. Who is your tattoo artist Mr. New Crow? But hey, I've seen examples of face tattoos I thought were awesome so I'm not against it in theory, just this particular execution. But I digress...
The marketing did a piss poor job of letting people know what this new movie was supposed to be. It seems as if the corporate overlords who own the IP to The Crow still have no idea WHY fans have such a reverence for the original film in the first place, nor how distancing the new one from Brandon Lee's all time classic might actually HELP sell it.
Is it perhaps possible that all of this nitpicking by The Crow's cult fanbase on the internet could have been avoided all along? Will the fallout here lead to all the goths being forced back underground? Tune in next week to find out. Same bat time, same bat, er I mean, Crow?, channel.
But seriously, it really is a unique situation. Many fan bases say "you shouldn't remake the original." But in the case of The Crow, you actually CAN'T remake it. The tragedy of Brandon Lee's untimely death and the loss suffered by his fiancé at the time coupled with the parallel gothic, romantic, melancholic spirit of that film allowed it to transcend into something else entirely, something irreplicable.
But irreplicable films that capture a fleeting moment in time don't make millions in profit for studios do they?
I can't help but notice there are similarities in the discussion being had here with the one being had over in the Alien: Romulus thread. I think people who tend to defend the original films are just annoyed at seeing EVERY half way decent original film that ever existed turned into a hollow corporate recreation done for a quick cash grab.
I also think those same fans often misdirect their frustration toward other fans who might enjoy the newer stuff despite it being sanitized popcorn fodder when they should instead criticize the system that has deemed film to be more commodity than art. And as others here already pointed out, no one need lose any sleep over this stuff. Me? I blame the general public!
I'm in the crowd that isn't really digging the new stuff coming out these days in franchise cinema and as a result probably won't bother seeing these films until they hit streaming, if at all. But I'm also not about to rain on someone else's parade for the crime of....liking a movie. If you can enjoy a movie, you win.
The real tragedy with all this franchise stuff is that it can distract from the fact that we're kind of in the middle of a great era in film. The amount of good to great original films I've seen in the past year alone is incredible. To the point where I feel I don't even have enough spare time to keep up with it all. The more that trend continues, the harder it's going to be for franchise properties to gain my attention. That's a good thing.
After all, Morphine is bad for you.
Last edited by burnmotherfucker!; 08-25-2024 at 10:00 AM.
Unintelligible Whispering
The only thing I have to contribute is that I immediately understood that this movie wasn't for me. In every sense of the phrase.
It's the industry attempting to repackage something that worked for one generation in a new format that appeals to the next one, simple as.
This is a lesson I learned with Mortal Kombat. Things reboot. One has their time, the things that are special to them. But it can't last forever.
And it can be a painful feeling - like someone's treading on your hallowed ground, like who you are, the things that speak to you, that feel like they're part of you - they're being pushed aside, considered unimportant now. And it's hard to acknowledge that you've had your time, that maybe you're getting older.
But the presence of a new thing doesn't invalidate the old. It's still there and so are you. It can only lose its relevance to you if you let it. Who cares if the world, the industries, have moved on? Who cares if the new thing sucks, or even if it's better? It's only as important as you let it be to yourself.
Funny. As I write this on lunch break, I'm listening to a Cure show from 2022. Burn just came on.
Last edited by Shadaloo; 08-28-2024 at 12:42 PM.
Active Member
The original movie is still great – I rewatched it a few months ago when I got the 4K version (I've now purchased it 3 times – DVD, Blu-ray, and now 4K) and it still rocks and looks better than ever. This new remake looks almost as bad as the sequels and I probably won't ever bother watching it.
Active Member
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote