Steppe Mammoth

The problem with 2024 The Crow is mostly that they called it a remake

So to begin my breakdown: The 2024 isn't a remake of the 1994 movie. This seems to be a widespread misconception. But in all of the clips and trailers Lionsgate has released, they clarify that it's a "modern re-imagining of the original graphic novel". The movie never claims to be a remake of the 1994 film.

Now a fair debate could be how closely tied (or not) the '24 movie is to the graphic novel, which the two are remarkably different, but based on the reviews and comments I've seen, fans seem more inclined to keep comparing it to the 1994 adaptation despite Lionsgate never claiming they were trying to remake that specific film.

So basically, comparisons between '94 Eric and '24 Eric don't really hold up as valid criticisms in my opinion, because the director had no intention of adapting the '24 film from the '94 movie in the first place.

the original Eric is a killer of bad guys, but he's also pretty charismatic; he loved life, he was gentle with the little girl Sarah he was friends with, he was kind, he was thoughtful, he even jokes around! Which, to many people, Bill's Eric does not resembles even a little bit

'24 Eric is still a killer of killers. He only kills those that attack him first or had something to do with his and Shelly's deaths. He never kills needlessly.

In regards to him loving life, 2024 Eric does in droves! He actively hates having to kill so many people and takes no enjoyment out of it. The opera scene, while fantastic, wasn't a fun moment for him. Since her death, you can tangibly feel that all he wants to do is get back to his simple life with Shelly. He loves her and he loves the life they had.

As for him being charismatic, I can see your point there. In the graphic novels (from summaries I've read), GN Eric does have a morbid sense of humor and at times played around with his kills before finishing the job. His relationship with Sherri was brief but sweet and he gets a cute cat!! He continues to form relationships even after Shelly's death because of his charisma and kindness.

From a writing perspective, I believe all of these moments are intended to humanize Eric given the GN begins with him as The Crow pretty much immediately. We are introduced to him already in the throes of his grief and seeking vengeance.

In contrast, the '24 film paces the transition MUCH slower with the first act being about how Shelly and Eric meet, and the growth of their romance. I believe Director Rupert Sanders used those scenes to humanize the characters instead, which he accomplishes as both Eric and Shelly feel like they're just normal people dealt a shitty hand who only want to live their lives together. You can see the love they shared and how pure it was.

Basically, the core of the characters remain the same, just told in different ways throughout the story. In the graphic novel, James O'Barr humanizes Eric & adds levity in the midst of the carnage, while Rupert Sanders adds it before the carnage. Despite the timeline differences, both succeed in showing that Eric isn't a mindless murdering machine, and is just a regular guy who's been driven to the point of madness.

(It still would've been a nice touch for '24 Eric to adopt a cat for Shelly in the movie though.)

Bill's Eric does not resembles even a little bit of Eric's other than his name and neither does his story matches the themes and soul behind The Crow franchise.

From my understanding, the main themes behind the franchise are grief, the difficulty to move past it, and divine justice.

All three Erics suffer from visions of Shelly, who's memory plays on a feedback loop as they go about their spree. Something both the '94 and '24 films don't do, however, is touch on GN Eric's self harm tendencies. Which isn't a criticism! I'm merely discussing the different ways they show Eric's state of mourning.

The inability to move on is also still prevalent in the '24 movie. It's an active choice Eric makes when Kronos gives him the option to get his life back, and instead Eric submerges deeper and signs away his soul. He steps into it with his eyes wide open knowing he's damning himself forever.

Meanwhile in the graphic novel, Eric is already submerged. He is already a walking corpse, the embodiment of a heart so broken the only way to put himself back together is to weaponize the shards of his loss. I believe this is who '24 Eric develops into after the second act when he signs away his soul.

In the first act, he is human. In the second act, he is transitioning, and in the third act, he has truly become The Crow. Too deep in grief to escape it. The main difference between the '24 version and the GN version is that we see '24 Eric's journey to reach that final stage. It's the difference between character-focused narratives vs parable-like storytelling. Neither is inherently better than the other, just different.

And when it comes to divine justice, hmmm.....

In the GN, Eric and Shelly are killed and brutalized due to a completely random act of evil. The gang that killed them and assaulted Shelly had zero connections to the couple and were just some cruel, awful randos off the street. Based on what I've read, Eric nearly kills all of them without difficulty. Most of his hardship comes from his own bouts of depression and misery.

(By the way, by having the villains all be mediocre average goons, and majority of Eric's troubles be psychological, the GN focuses more on the danger of all-consuming grief, highly likely because of the trauma James O'Barr was experiencing when he wrote it. Meanwhile both the '94 and '24 films have Eric struggle a lot more during his fight scenes, elevating the danger of his physical opponents. But this is a tangent, back to what I was talking about!)

By all of them being average goons, the story gets across that: yes normal everyday people can and are capable of atrocious acts of evil, and yes they deserve to face the brunt of their crimes and divine punishment.

However in both the '94 and '24 movies, Eric and Shelly's deaths are not random and are planned crimes to silence Shelly. And both come up with a "big bad" for Eric to face off against. In the '94 movie, it was Top Dollar, a criminal kingpin, and in the '24 movie it's Vincent Roeg, a rich executive who's also a crimelord.

BUT what the '24 film does differently is that Roeg is also a supernatural being himself, who's made a pact with the devil to trade innocent souls for immortality.

This is probably the only area in which I agree with OG fans on that a central theme was changed. Because by making the main antagonist "unnatural", it's no longer about everyday, normal people committing horrible evils. It's about a supernatural entity on par with The Crow.

I think Rupert Sanders wanted to focus more on the supernatural aspect of The Crow universe. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing and definitely made for a fun movie, but I do agree with OG fans that the "grounded" nature of casual human cruelty was lost in that regard.

By implementing this change, the weight of Eric's vengeance is also changed. Because now it's no longer just personal. As the character of Kronos says in the movie, they need Eric to kill Roeg because he and all the deaths he's caused are unnatural and they essentially need Eric to tip the scales back into balance. While Eric's primary motive is still about doing right by Shelly, there's now an element of saving the world from an unnaturally superpowered tyrant, rather than the everyday cruelties of man.

So in this aspect, I do agree that a core theme was changed between the graphic novel and the 2024 movie. This still doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad story, just that Rupert Sanders had different intentions.

Because this still connects to the previous theme, the inability to move on and cope with death. Except now it's portrayed in the antagonist as well. His power is completely about his refusal to accept his own mortality. However, this does, like I said, detract from the normality of evil theme. So it's basically a gain and a loss 😅

(Plus, as I was writing this, I thought about how Eric's motivation is changed as well. In the '24 movie, Eric's goal is still to do right by Shelly, but it's to save her. Because if he succeeds, Shelly will be resurrected. This adds a noble spin to his killing spree, whereas the GN and the '94 film are solely about overwhelming rage at the loss of a loved one. There is no resurrecting Shelly. It's about enacting divine justice against their killers before traveling to the afterlife together. They're already dead and there's nothing GN Eric can do to change that, unlike 2024 Eric.

On the flip side, while this "nobler" take may feel like a negative change, I think it's countered by the fact that Eric succeeds in saving her, but is still dissatisfied because he's unable to actually be with her. GN and '94 Eric were able to find peace and reunite with their loves. '24 Eric only gets about 5 minutes before she's resurrected and he's stuck in purgatory forever.

At the end of the '24 film, both Eric and Shelly are dissatisfied as they can no longer be together. It's a bittersweet ending that feels more bitter than sweet. So while there is a "nobler" cause behind Eric's actions, the tone of the story is still very grim.

This is also why I believe the way the 2024 movie ended was with the intentions of a sequel where Eric does achieve his own peace. But that's a different conversation!)

...the easiest thing to avoid all this controversy and review bombing would've been just be like "Hey, we're making a new Crow movie, but we have created our own original protagonists for it!" just like people have been doing for years, because that's what 2024 Shelley and Eric feel like to people — original characters who just happen to share the names of the OG's.

Sure! I don't disagree. Well, I don't really think anything deserves to be review bombed unless it's content that's actively harmful. But I don't disagree with the original protagonists angle. Changing the names couldn't have hurt.

That said though, and I say this as gently as I can, Eric's character existed before '94 Eric and does not need to end with the '94 movie. I think it'd be one thing if the 1994 movie created the story of The Crow and that was the first iteration of Eric's character. But... it's not.

Multiple re-imaginings and adaptations of books / comics have been around since forever. The show Smallville and Man of Steel both adapt Superman in wildly different ways. Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew has had five different adaptations, and yet no one shits on 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) or Deliver Us From Eva (2003) for being modern re-imaginings. Awhile ago, me and my friend were discussing our favorite adaptations of the Little Women novel. Her favorite is the 1994 film while my favorite is the 2022 modern Kdrama!

I bring up all of these examples to say that there is REALLY nothing wrong with doing modern re-imaginings of older works, and tweaking characters and plotlines to reflect the changed style of the story and time period.

What's most important is that the heart of the story is kept. At the end of the day, The Crow is about an innocent man who enacts divine justice against he and his lover's murderers, while struggling to cope with her loss. Based on the graphic novel and what I've seen of the 1994 movie and the City of Angels sequel, the world of The Crow says that life can be fair and that no matter how high, or low, or cruel, or spineless, someone is, that karma is a bitch and it IS possible for them to reap what they sow.

I truly think the 2024 adaptation captured that feeling, even if it may look different than what people might be used to or expected.

Instead of being upset about how unexpected it is, try going in with an open mind and seeing the story Rupert, Bill, and FKA Twigs wanted to tell. I've read and seen a few interviews by now, and these three were genuinely passionate about the characters & story, and you can feel that in the movie.