Night Stalker

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.

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.

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.

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.