ABC (ended 2005)
| jamoon2006 wrote: |
| It may not have had a full season, but the episodes that were shown weren't all that good, and neither were the lead actors. And I think it was deliberately set up to ape The X-Files: moody believer motivated by an unexplained tragedy in his past, paired witha smart, sexy skeptic? I think if the show had done more "stand-alone" episodes instead of trying to roll out a cumbersome (and not terribly interesting) mythology so early, it would have played better. Also,if it had stood on its own and not been billed as a "reimagining" of the great 1970s series, I think people wouldn't have had higher expectations that were hard to live up to. |
Well said, Scrantonicity. The biggest difference between then and now in TV is that lead actors tended to be selected more for their acting chops in the 1960s and 1970s (Peter Falk, Telly Savalas, McGavin, Raymond Burr...none of these guys are underwear models) and today it's a search for the youngest, biggest "pretty boy" leading man they can find. Hence, you have Stuart Townsend moping his way through scenes. And in case he's not pretty enough, here's two young sidekicks! Night Stalker was a turkey, pure and simple.
| Scrantonicity wrote: |
| It also bugged the crap out of me how every one of the leads was Hollywood actor attractive and far too young for their roles, including Vincenzo. |
| Scrantonicity wrote: |
| I agree. It also didn't help that it was terribly, terribly dull and more than a little muddled. This had more to do with trying to ape X-Files than the original series on which it was based. It also bugged the crap out of me how every one of the leads was Hollywood actor attractive and far too young for their roles, including Vincenzo. And not one of the actors had the chops of Darren McGavin, rest his soul, or even Simon Oakland. He was never what I would call conventionally handsome, but he was masculine and a had a certain gravitas you just can't get from actors nowaday. He LOOKED like he'd been knocked around and had street smarts and learned a thing or two in Korea. And where was Miss Emily (my favorite character on the show, next to Kolchak)?!? Ptui. |
Here is an opinion of mine.
If the show was an exact carbon copy of the old show, people would be complaining about that, but since it strayed into a lot different territory than the old show, people are complaining. As genre fans, we are hard to please, and that can pose a problem to the not many genre shows out there. I for one, loved the direction the show was taking.
Back in the days of "Kolchak: The Night Stalker", people weren't accustomed to long-story arcs, but the whole "monster-of-the-week" thing. Nowadays, genre fans love long story arcs. The monster of the week thing wouldn't have flyed today. Yes, Stuart Townsend doesn't have the acting chops as Darin McGavin, but he created his own Kolchak and that worked fine with this show. This is a Kolchak for the new millenium people
| CJJohanson wrote: |
Here is an opinion of mine. If the show was an exact carbon copy of the old show, people would be complaining about that, but since it strayed into a lot different territory than the old show, people are complaining. |
Okay, I admit, the show probably would have gotton off the ground better without the "Night Stalker" logo attached, and was trying to make a success off the coat tails of the old movies/show. But that doesn't mean the show wasn't an exceptional piece of work that deserved one full season. As I said before, even if it borrowed from the format of the original, it wouldn't have lasted long, longer than what was shown, probably, but not more than a season. People don't like monster-of-the-week series anymore. Frank Spotnitz was trying to "update" for the genre fans of today.
Stuart Townsend does suck as Kolchak, but thats if we compare him to McGavin's Kolchak, which we shouldn't.
