Shark Bytes

They messed up this "re-make," "revival" or "re-telling" or whatever it was categorized as, so freakin' much that there was absolutely no resemblance to the original.

The original was a scruffy, low-budget, (relatively) realistic example of noir fiction. Kolchak was a street-tough reporter and the urban atmosphere was appropriately gritty. The stories, while based around the supernatural, also had some realistic elements that made it feel rooted in the real world of the time.

Unfortunately, the 2005 version of NS was a smooth, glitzy disaster. Someone commented about the comparison to X-Files, and that is true to some extent -- X-Files combined with BtVS. Kolchak had no soul anymore, and you could never say that he had been anywhere near the streets. Gabrielle Union, although I really do love her, had no place in the show -- the role was utterly miscast. The change of the newspaper to an upscale office further removed any "grit" and replaced it with "cool" which turned "cold" instead.

The idea to re-work NS into a more modern setting is not inherently a bad idea, but this particular "vision" of it was way off the mark. It didn't keep enough of the old show to make it worthwhile to borrow the namesake.

I grew up on the original pilot and series and this modern version had NO chance to succeed. I was looking forward to seeing it, but it took 2 episodes before I realized this was doomed! I think they should have stuck with the old formula and told scary stories every week.I would rather they re hashed the old stories then try to change Kolchak and the series. R.I.P Darrin and Simon

I have seen it--it's stupid. It completely misses the boat . The old Night Stalker was fun in a B-movie sort of way, and had a vein of humor running through it; the new version tries to take itself way too seriously, as if it were 'CSI:Kolchak' or something. These modern yuppies can't redo any classic television show without completely forking it up. The originals aren't 'cool' or 'hip' enough for them, I guess.

I'd never seen the "Night Stalker" revival. Judging from Jack's commentary, thank Cthulu I didn't. I loved the original show, and Darren McGavin. Wouldn't want to sully fond memories with a half-baked remake, so I think I'll continue to steer clear of it.

Day One. Reviving "Night Stalker" wasn't a bad idea (particularly today when very few creepy sci-fi shows are on TV), but it was poorly executed. Frank Spotnitz couldn't move far enough away from his old X-Files stomping ground, and the result was more a continuation of that show than it was its own entity. It was a Mulder and Scully-lite pair who didn't have great chemistry and who were stuck in a muddled mythos right from the start. Stuart Townsend was awful (he always seemed like he had woken up from a nap) and his Kolchak was bland beyond belief. Not that anybody could top Darren McGavin, but there had to be better choices...I remember reading an interview with Spotnitz where he considered John C. Reilly and Ted Danson before deciding to make the character younger. I think saddling Kolchak with a partner was a mistake, even though Gabrielle Union gave the character all she had. Tony Vincenzo had no fight in him at all (RIP Simon Oakland), so you never got the sense that Kolchak was this renegade reporter who would go to huge lengths to get the truth. And giving Kolchak a past tie to the paranormal (his wife, the mark on the wrist) was just a bad move. Not every show needs a convoluted mythology - while Spotnitz and Co. were trying to weave their tale of supernatural bikers, they passed up the chance to do some scary storytelling. Best episodes were the "non-mythology" episodes: the one about the bioterrorist, the prisoner convincing people to kill their loved ones and the demonic kid. With better direction and less focus on the half-baked mythology, Night Stalker might have been more than a footnote.