Night stalker - Le guetteur

Okay. I understand that Chris Carter and his *The X-Files* crew were inspired by the original *Kolchak: The Night Stalker* TV movies and series. I understand that Frank Spotnitz, the head writer for the 2005 *Night Stalker*, was a member of Carter's X-Files crew. I also understand that Darren McGavin is in his 80s and ailing, and even if he were in perfect health he'd be too old to reprise the role of Carl Kolchak.

I'm a pushing-50 baby boomer who watched the original Kolchak movies on ABC's Movie of the Week when I was in high school and watched the one season of *Kolchak: The Night Stalker* when I was in college. I'll even point out that I grew up watching reruns of George Reeves in *The Adventures of Superman*, and never had a problem accepting Jeff East, Christopher Reeve, Dean Cain and now Tom Welling taking over the role of Clark Kent/Superman in his various subsequent incarnations. I wish I could say the same for Stuart Townsend's incarnation of Carl Kolchak, but I can't.

Inspiration and imitation do NOT equal replication. Kolchak may have inspired *The X-Files*, even to the point that Chris Carter and Frank Spotnitz may have created a guest character for Darren McGavin in that show in tribute, but Spotnitz missed the mark completely on what Carl Kolchak was about. Kolchak was an irreverent, sarcastic and wisecracking rogue who could get knocked down but never out, who always got back up laughing, still irreverent and sarcastic and ready to keep swinging. Humor and irreverence were the lifeblood of the original Carl Kolchak, and Spotnitz sucked it out of this incarnation of Kolchak as thoroughly as Janos Skorzeny, Dracula, Nosferatu, Lestat or any other vampire who appeared on the big or small screen.

Many are touting *Night Stalker* as "the new X-Files," and I can't disagree with that; Stuart Townsend's Kolchak doesn't resemble Darren McGavin's original Kolchak so much as he does Fox Mulder-- if Mulder were taken off Prozac. It's obvious that the Generation Xers (pun definitely intended) like their TV shows about the supernatural dark, depressed and humorless; this show may be the new X-Files, but don't try to pass it off as the new *Kolchak: The Night Stalker*!

Somebody stake this vampire before it hurts anyone!

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.

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.

When I was a kid, the original show bearing this name was awesome and one of my all time favorites. Enough so that I bought the Series on DVD when it became available. This show is virtually nothing like the original. While disappointing, it is not as terrible as some reviews have made it out to be. It is just...different. I discovered it on YouTube and have actually enjoyed watching it. The stories are interesting and hold your attention. The characters are fine so long as you don't try comparing them to their namesakes from the '70s. It would've been nice to see how another season would've turned out. Particularly if you consider some of the real dreck that was on network teevee back then...

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.