Talk:Kolchak: The Night Stalker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kolchak: The Night Stalker article.
Article policies
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] The New Night Stalker

So anyone catch the new revival, or re-imagining Kolchak? I saw the preview clips on the web, formed my opinions, and then saw the last 45 minutes of the pilot, and had my opinions confirmed.

“Re-imagining a classic series” usually means removing all charm, lightheartedness, and uniqueness of the original series, and replacing it with sex, gore, more sex, and immature concern for being considered serious art. Witness the redone Battlestar Galactica .

As I was watching, I had two thoughts. First, this is so different from the original series, why bother with the franchise? All it will do is confuse people, and anger the loyal fans. Remember—fans pay the bills.

Second, it seems more like an episode of the X-files , or a cross between the X-files and The Lone Gunmen . Same camera angles, same pacing, same lighting, and the same characters (believing guy, skeptical female), and same feel. So why not call it “ X-files: Los Angeles ?” You have the name recognition and the ready-made fan base, all without poisoning the original series?

Yeah, I know it is on ABC , and not Fox Broadcasting Company , but any good lawyer and enough money can get you anything you want.

There is too much cannibalism going on, such as the movies based on classic TV shows that has been cascading for about a decade now. Also, attempts at reinventing classics, such as “Planet of the Apes” and “Battlestar Galactica,” both of which bear a pale resemblance to the original series. The worst offender was the film “I, Robot.” I grieve for the people who saw the film, then bought Asimov ’s book, and got confused.

All of these new series are strong enough to be their own franchise, and if they weren’t, then don’t make them. There is no reason to go grave robbing a cancelled series, and take their names in vain.

Señor Cardgage 03:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I, too, caught this incarnation of Night Stalker, having not seen the original. My understanding is that the 2005 series borrows from The X-Files, which in turn borrowed from the original Kolchak: The Night Stalker. Frank Spotnitz was a chief creative force in The X-Files and the Night Stalker revival/reimagining/whatever-you-call-it, so the similarity seen in the two is probably as much his responsibility as anyone else's. I do agree with your points, Señor Cardgage, about both the intellectual cannabilism and the validity of creating the new series as an independent franchise. I say this, though, even as I admit to liking remakes in general that honor the creative spirit of the original work and provide an innovative spin on the original.
The new series was very dark in tone to me, which doesn't detract from quality in my mind. But also, it was literally too dark to see some of the action of the episodes, proving a bit of a stumbling block. And like The X-Files before it, I could tell there were quality elements to be found, but it was a show that would have to grow on me a bit. Turns out, it didn't get the chance.
Also, I like the new Battlestar Galactica, but that's for another talk page. — ArkansasTraveler 14:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Talk pages are for discussion of the article and related Wikipedia activities. It's not a place to host your blog on what you hate about modern television. This isn't a fan appreciation site, it's an encyclopedia. Canonblack 17:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 1974 show

I'm slowly going through and mapping out Kolchak's personal life through the two movies and the television series. I thought that this would provide an intersting insight into the character. What do you guys think? -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-10-31 T 02:06:05 Z

I think this is an excellent idea. Before someone complains that you're creating a Carl Kolchak article that will be too long and should be spun into its own article, there really isn't a lot of detail about these characters' pasts. Most of the characterization was in the performances, not in the writing, and a lot of character history that was introduced in the scripts tended to be ignored or discarded later at the writers' convenience (e.g., Gail Foster was the love of his life and he wanted to marry her, yet she's never mentioned again after the initial film). But it would be useful to gather whatever there is and present it in one place. Canonblack 17:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the image for the Night Stalker DVD cover, and I have moved the Primetime Thursday template to the section devoted to the 2005 series. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-10-31 T 15:26:10 Z

[edit] Spoilers? From 1974? Are you kidding?

Someone wants to add "spoiler warnings" for Night Stalker movies from thirty years ago. Adding a "spoiler warning" for a movie from 30 years ago is simply ridiculous. Personally, I'd cap "spoiler warnings" at 30 days, but 30 years is clearly way, way past the point of meriting a "spoiler warning". -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-12-9 T 03:00 Z

Spoilers aren't time-sensitive. If you don't think that the template should be used like that, general Wikipedia consensus disagrees; see what other articles Template:Spoiler [1] and Template:Spoilers [2] are used on. -Sean Curtin 07:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course spoilers are time-sensitive. Things "spoil" on their own when they are old enough. You can't "spoil" them further. Darth Vader is Luke's father. Rosebud is the sled. Dil's a dude. The logical result of having things kept supposedly "fresh" forever is that you'd have "spoiler warnings" plastered all over every article devoted to anything fictional. I hope we can all agree, that is simply ridiculous. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-12-9 T 07:55 Z
And yes, I can see rom your links that there are a few people who have foolishly plastered "spoiler warnings" on works of fiction even older than Night Stalker. I am not going to make it my mission in life to correct that nonsense, but I can certainly put forth an effort to keep such foolishness out of this article. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-12-9 T 08:00 Z
Sorry, totally disagree with Bblackmoor. Kolchak is a cult success, but there are a number of people who've heard of it but never seen it or who have never heard of it. If you think otherwise, you're spending too much time with genre geeks (I am one, it's not meant as an insult). The release (finally) of the entire series on DVD opens up the series to a new audience and a new generation of potential fans. Do you want to spoil it for them? Despite its age, The Night Stalker is still a very watchable film, and I still recommend it to people. I certainly wouldn't want plot details spoiled for me if I was watching it for the first time. That said, I don't see anything in the article that would actually qualify as a spoiler, except perhaps for labelling Janos Skorzeny as a vampire or mentioning immortality-through-alchemy, but anyone picking up the DVD is going to know that just from reading the back cover notes. Canonblack 17:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I concur. I have only recently discovered "Kolchak" and I love it. Not to mention there are literally thousands of films and books that I have never seen because of my young age. Any time you are gouing to reveal a plot you need that warning, in case some people don't want to know it in advance. This is true if the series is 30 or 100 years old. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 19:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I did some work on several Dickens articles around the turn of the year, and even those have spoiler warnings. That's 130 to 160 years ago. Canonblack 04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [EDIT] Plus, the items BBlackmoor mentions (Darth Vader, Rosebud, Dil) were spoiled by the body of pop culture references, and anyone coming along now who hasn't seen those revelations has already had it ruined for her by the repetition of those references. Other works, such as cult TV, classic lit, etc., have not been so exposed. Even so, I would still put spoiler warnings on articles for those "ruined" stories, simply because there may be a handful of individuals who have been oblivious to the pop cultural revelations, or because someone not oblivious may not know all the details of the story or those identity revelations and may still want to see it for herself. Canonblack 13:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Unwilling to reprise"

In light of McGavin's recent passing, I was perusing this page and was struck by the phrase "unwilling to reprise his Kolchak character." Does this mean he was asked to actually REPRODUCE THIS SPECIFIC CHARACTER in the X-Files? This phrasing suggests that he was, and that the copyright was cool with it, but that McGavin, personally, felt sorta iffy about this and didn't want to go that far (for whatever reason). If this is so, I think it should be rewritten as such, and if not, some clarity is in order. Wencer 06:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't recall Carter actually trying to shoehorn Kolchak into The X-Files, but McGavin was recorded as stating he had no interest in revisiting Kolchak. I think this is two separate ideas that were confused by the writer, or perhaps Carter pitched the idea to McGavin as a Kolchak-like character, and McGavin insisted that the character not be like Kolchak. This needs not just clarification but also source citations. Canonblack 17:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope I'm not being too rude jumping in the conversation here, but that's right about McGavin being asked to reprise his "Kolchak" character for the X-Files and not wanting to do so. (Just call me 216)

Okay, but we need a source for verification. Can you link a website that has that information? Not to sound insulting or distrustful, but your say-so isn't proof. We need something like a news story or a quote by someone involved with the programme. Canonblack 04:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Scenes?

According to the article, the Jimmy Stacks scenes were restored to The Night Strangler prior to the DVD release. However, I have the Universal DVD and there are no such scenes, nor do I see any options to view such scenes. Is this just factually inaccurate, or am I missing something?

    : Yes, I also feel that this is an error.  I own both the individual Night Stalker/Night Strangler dvd as well as the series compilation, and neither contain the Jimmy Stacks character.  Is there a chance that a UK release is in existence?  Otherwise I would suggest dropping the claim. Pjg1066 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)