Night Stalker

My expectations confessedly did not run very high when word of this project came to me. I mean, let's be honest, the original Night Stalker was a one of a kind gem that only happens once in awhile. It was a show ahead of its time, and its legacy has grown tremendously over the years despite its one year run. Star Trek ran for only three years you might remember. I also understand that things must change for different audiences. But why would writers with some ability(from The X-Files - a great show I might add)change everything except the names The Night Stalker, Karl Kolchak, and Vincenzo. They are the only links this new show has with the old. The way the series is shot is markedly different, the tones of the stories markedly different, the actors(for lack of a better word) are markedly different and so on. I can guess what might have happened: genre writers who grew up on the old show pitched the idea of remaking the series to the networks wanting to pay homage and make a new, exciting series. I think they probably wanted to stay close to the heart of the old show. A great central character that was affable, unflappable, and played by a guy that could act would be needed. They probably knew that the show's success would hinge on this actor's representation of the role. Darren McGavin was a great actor, and yes, now he is way too old to assay this role. But why in the world did the producers get some guy like Stuart Townsend. He looks like he popped out of the pages of GQ magazine and has so little range. This is the guy that is going to convey humor in much of what he says and does amidst the surroundings of stark horror and investigative reporting? Is anyone out there buying him as a gritty reporter in Los Angeles or anywhere else? You know how little faith the producers had in him when they assigned him a beautiful helper. Gabrielle Union, a beautiful woman but an average at best actress, wanders through the inane dialog with little conviction. She is helping Kolchak? I was just flabbergasted with how bad this remaking of the series was from the perspective of looking at the show's foundation. Maybe if it wasn't called The Night Stalker then I could accept it for the mediocre sci-fi rehash that it is. But when you call it something that brings smiles to the faces of horror fans from the seventies you then have an obvious comparison to make. There is no comparison at all. Absolutely none. This is dreck when placed on those standards. The show is talky with little action or suspense. It fails miserably in evoking any kind of fond memories for anyone who is watching it because of its name. Just a pitiful shame and a pitiful show.

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.

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 see a lot of raves, people pumping the "new" Night Stalker on this site. I can't imagine why, other than they work for the production company or are related to the actors. Because this thing is terrible. And I don't want to hear from people angry about its dismal comparison to the original series. If the makers of the show didn't want a comparison, they shouldn't have called it Night Stalker and named its leading character Carl Kolchak. (And, by the way, I'm not against all contemporary remakes. The "new" Battlestar Galactica is a wonderful show, light years ahead of its infantile predecessor.)

Aside from its failure as a true descendant of the original series (that honor goes to this season's WB series, Supernatural), Night Stalker is a clunker because of its too loose story lines, its cast members who look like fashionistas, and its failure to come to grips with an interesting Carl. This one is a moody adolescent. Not too surprising, since the major networks seem intent on catering to 19 year-old nitwits whose notion of deep seated drama comes from watching anime. I could care less what happens to this Carl, the useless Perri Reed, and the bookend of the overly obvious gender bending of names, Jain (the fact that the little name game is what passes for humor in this series makes the effort even more pathetic). In fact, while I made it through the pilot episode, I only lasted 35 minutes into the second episode before I had had enough. Cross this one off the list. It deserves to die.

When the show was first announced it sounded promising, mostly because producer Frank Spotnitz was a veteran of "The X Files"...and as we all know, several "X Files" veterans were big fans of the original "Night Stalker" movies and series.

Now, whenever a cultural icon is reinvented for a new era, one always expects a few changes. I don't think we were expecting this many.

Carl Kolchak, as you may recall, was a down-on-his-luck loner, a middle-aged, average-looking has-been reporter whose primary positive qualities were his investigative skills, his tenacity and his flair for mocking authority. He had a part buddy/ part adversarial (mostly the latter) relationship with his boss, Tony Vincenzo. The adversarial part of their relationship came to a head when Kolchak came upon the story that first piqued his interest in the supernatural: a killer who appeared to be an actual vampire. The police, not wanting to look stupid, were not about to admit that there really might be things that go bump in the night running around their city...and Vincenzo (being not exactly akin to Ben Bradlee) was only too happy to quash the story in order to keep the authorities happy. This, of course, rubbed Kolchak the wrong way. Kolchak was dedicated to getting the truth out, no matter what.

Well, that brings us to the new Kolchak.

In ABC's latest incarnation, Kolchak is changed almost beyond recognition. Now he is young, good-looking and morose. He no longer seems to have arguments with Vincenzo. Most surprisingly, perhaps...he was married. His wife was killed by one of these bumpy-night-things, and now he pursues stories about them. Instead of operating alone, he's joined by his partner Peri and staff photographer Jain.

This makes for an awfully weird feel. Watching a young, handsome Kolchak investigate a story with his capable partner Peri and wide-eyed photographer Jain, you get the feeling you're actually in Metropolis with Clark, Lois and Jimmy.

Those changes alone are enough to alienate a number of the "Night Stalker" faithful. But there's an underlying feeling, a style, that's also very different from the original books, movies and series.

Whereas the "old" Kolchak used to narrate events in a snappy, factual way, Spotnitz has fallen back into his "X Files" habit of just using opening and closing narration which, even then, is more on the philosophical than factual side. It's a change that removes a considerable amount of the pacing and realism from the show. And if you're looking for the old Kolchak who had a smart mouth and was ever quick with a quip...forget it. He's not here. This Kolchak is more moody than mouthy.

Even the music is languid. In the original movies, the score was jazzy yet kind of morbid, a style that fit the stories to a T. Here, you'll find music more like what you'd hear on...well, "The X Files".

Then there's the Vincenzo thing. "Old" Kolchak had to battle not only the authorities but his boss. This one is clearly Kolchak's pal, which removes half the conflict from the show. Believe it or not, there are none of those wonderful Kolchak-Vincenzo screaming matches here. Instead, we're offered an FBI agent who wants to pin the death of Kolchak's wife on Kolchak himself. Shades of The Fugitive. (Ironically, the agent's name is Fain. Bernie Fain was an FBI agent buddy of Kolchak's in the original novel.)

One truly bizarre feature of the show: this Kolchak drives a newish yellow Mustang and lives in a penthouse suite with a built-in swimming pool. Give me a break!

The true test of whether this is a worthy "Night Stalker" or not is...if you removed the title from the show, and changed the names of the characters to Smith and Jones...would anybody recognize it? Chances are, beyond the fact that the stories are supernatural and the hero works at a newspaper, no, you would not. Kolchak no longer resembles Kolchak, either figuratively or literally.

The one bright spot in the show was a digitally-inserted "in-joke" in which Darren McGavin, replete with seersucker suit and straw hat, was inserted into the foreground of a shot of the newsroom. Unfortunately, it served only to remind the viewer of the big difference between the original Kolchak and Spotnitz's Kolchak.

And finally -- without giving away spoilers -- there's the puzzling shot of Kolchak's hand at the end of the episode which ties in with the murder of his wife. That was just weird.

The fault does not all lie with Frank Spotnitz. In a TV Guide interview, he stated that the "mission" aspect of the show -- finding the killer of Kolchak's wife -- was inserted at the insistence of the suits at ABC, who felt Kolchak needed a stronger motivation for going after ghoulies and ghosties. Nevertheless, this "Night Stalker" does not have the jazzy music, the narration, the pacing or the comic patter -- in other words, the feel -- of the original. It looks more like "The X Files" than "The Night Stalker".

Oh well. It's not a bad show. It just should've been much, much better.