Night Stalker

Let's forget for a moment that this pathetic excuse for a television show (which would fittingly describe 99% of what's on TV at this time - have you watched "The War at Home" lately?) is a remake of a cult classic of television, and judge it by itself.

It still sucks.

This show is the usual slickly shot, professionally made crap. It's a pile of rotting blubber wrapped in a fancy package. The writing sucks, the acting sucks. Gabrielle Union once again proves herself to be excellent at playing the cheerleader from BRING IT ON. Maybe add another character to your portfolio, Gabrielle? Every time the main character (was this guy just some underwear model before this show?) said his name was "Carl Kolchack," I shuddered. This show is an insult to the makers of the original (though I did see Dan Curtis listed as an Executive Producer; I hope he simply allowed them to use his name and didn't actually have any involvement in this atrocity).

I remember when movies and TV cast actors like Darren McGavin, Elliot Gould, George Segal, Shelly Winters, Richard Roundtree, Warren Oates, Jill Clayburgh... They were cast because they could ACT. Not because they were impossibly good-looking. They fit the character.

Now, the main criteria is that actors be as generically attractive as humanly possible, and their acting ability (or lack thereof) seems to be the last thing considered. I blame the audience as much as the filmmakers for this repugnant trend. Anyone who doesn't think that American audiences are becoming more and more superficial as each decade passes should take a look at the new NIGHT STALKER. There's your proof.

All right, I will be the first to admit, this is nothing really like the original. However, as one person already commented, it would be an insult to the original story and actors if they remade it exactly the way it was. However, the original only made it ONE SEASON. ABC (and every other network) is trying to appeal to the younger demographic (not always an intelligent decision, but they do it anyway). However, they're changing the character of Kolchak himself: he's no longer the goofy, fraidy cat of the newspaper world, and he's about 20 years younger. For the character they've made, Stuart Townsend is a better choice than most. The new Kolchak is a somewhat darker, creepier version than the old, so you can't have someone like William H.Macy (another suggestion) with the lead. No one would believe he was a possible murdering psycho. Townsend, on the other hand, is a kinda creepy guy, who can act. Personally, I liked the pilot (except since I was only half paying attention, I got a little messed up with how the little girl fit in with the murdered pregnant woman). Anyway, if you don't want to watch it, you don't have to. I personally like it a lot better than CSI at the moment, so I'm going to keep watching it.

Also, what a lot of people don'r realize is that Darren SKIPPED OUT on the original show because he didn't like the humor in it. Obviously the audience did, but he hated it enough to cut and run on his contract.

If this were on its own and had a different name, I'd recommend this show and get right behind it right away. Don't get me wrong, the writing is good, and most of the cast, Townshand included, can act, but the problem lies within its name.

I have no idea what possessed these people to give it the Night Stalker license. Its intriguing, its entertaining, but it sure as hell isn't Night Stalker.

The first problem is that this isn't the Karl I know. McGavin did a great job with the character and his attitude and wit made the original show the hit it is today.

Townshand meanwhile doesn't just have that magic. I'm well aware that nobody, and I mean nobody, can be as good as the original, but if you're gonna use the license, use it right and give him at least some of what made Koltchak Koltchak.

The second problem is that this is set in LA. The original was set in Chicago and that's fine, but the new one just becomes "Yet another supernatural tale set in LA." If it were set in any other city, maybe it'd have more merit.

Also, this just doesn't feel like Night Stalker. It's supernatural and the first ep was thrilling, but this just doesn't feel like the original.

So while this show is good, its not Night Stalker and it would have been better if it were something else.

i watched the pilot too. and i really liked it i liked how Stuart Townsend portrayed Carl Kolchak, and the best part is that the character is different from the first series. this is a different Carl Kolchak from the one in the other series.he is younger and has more energy in seeking the truth. Gabrielle union is good but not at the same level as her's partner (Townsend). some things could have been different, for example it is a little bit to dark in some scenes and people can't see very well what is happening. the part with the mystery is very well created so people can't wait to see the next episode to find out more. i hope this show will be successful, because i think it deserves it.

Well, aye was able to see this bloody awful show, and I can honestly say it is the worst thing that I have ever seen. My mates had me over to view a few episodes they have down-loaded, and we all had to laugh at what right horrid tripe was presented! Having bought the original DVD set, I half-hoped that the name of such a good show would not be blighted by the likes of a crassly poor remake. What bullocks! The lead actor is not suited at all for the role, and his sidekicks look like refugees from the Benny Hill show. What's up with the photographer? Gawd, I can't believe that anyone would have green-lighted such drivel. Gabrielle Union hasn't a bleeding clue. What's she doing on that show? The whole cast seems to be working this as some kind of summer-stock. I gather none of them has made any long-term plans to stay on. Seems like they joined the cast so they could collect a few quid between gigs.