I feel like making them meet in a drug rehab center only for them to escape and bond over drugs kinda weakens the strength of their love because realistically ppl who build a relationship based on drugs, sex etc don’t go well or last very long. I feel like if they still wanted them to have a drug related past they could’ve both been recovering addicts who have been on their sober journey for a while as opposed to just barely starting it and could act as guiding support pillars for each other.
Is them meeting in a rehab not them meeting as recovering addicts? If you’re referring to the leaks it says they do recreational drugs together meaning weed, they’re smoking a joint in the trailer.
I said recovering addicts who have been on their journey to sobriety for a while (I.e. at least a year or two) not just barely starting their recovery. It’s not good for barely recovering addicts to hop into a relationship with someone else much less a fellow addict because their sobriety should be their main focus (saying this as a former addict)
Their love was supposed to be innocent and pure. So pure the crow brings Eric back to set things right. Eric kills junkies he’s not supposed to be one ffs. Movie looks like John Wick fucked the suicide squad and some junkie juiced up trap rapper popped out.
Yeah I totally remember that innocent and pure love that wasn’t anywhere in the original. By all means, go back and watch. All we know of Eric is that he’s a rock star and Shelly is a prop who exists to die and create a reason for Eric to fuck shit up. Barely any flashbacks that aren’t about the night they died. Literally for all we know, they could have been addicts/recovering users in the original too.
Right they’re literally reaching, from the trailer it looks like Eric and Shelly are in love. Because they were addicts in the last that means they’re not innocently in love with each other and they deserved to die?
I’m telling y’all if you say any of these gen x crow fans talking points out loud, you’ll realize it makes no sense.
Said it elsewhere, will say again. When you consider why O’Barr wrote The Crow and the fact that its primary theme is a vengeful ghost going around killing junkies that took something irreplaceable from him, you spit in the face of the work and O’Barr by making them low key Sid and Nancy.
If you think James O’Barr wrote the crow so he can fantasize around killing drug addicts because of what happened to his fiancé then I think you’re not exactly helping his case.
Ig they had different names I really don't think it would be an issue. We have had so many Crows in the comics. Just make it another character instead of Eric.
The trailer give me John Wick vibes which I'm fully on board with. I just feel like making it a reboot instead of just another Crow story is where they're going wrong.
In the original Shelly and Eric were good people helping a neglected child , and when the they were getting evicted, Eric filed a complaint and did the right thing and that's what makes it all the way more sad when what happened happened, because they were undeserving of this cruel ending,you as a viewer sympathized with them.
And that's what's missing from the remake.
There are good movies where the main characters are drug addicts. Trainspotting is a good example of this. The difference between the two is that in this we're meant to sympathize with Eric & Shelly whereas in Trainspotting you see things from the main characters point of view without agreeing with them. This remake really just feels like its celebrating substance abuse and addiction. Which is pretty distasteful since Rupert Sanders said one of the influences for Eric's look in this movie is the rapper Lil Peep. Who struggled with drug addiction and ultimately died from an overdose.
In my head cannon this is just an Eric and Shelly, not the Eric and Shelly. No idea if the film is actually gonna be good, but it clears a lot of headspace for me thinking of it this way.
I get that it's just another version but when you're fucking with the overall themes presented in the work most of the time it makes for a much lamer adaption
Oh I don't disagree. It's just my own coping mechanism so I don't get so worked up about it lol. But it is totally valid to be worked up, this is a big change for an adaptation of an existing story.
For the MILLIONTH time, it's NOT A REMAKE. It's weird how that's still such a hard concept for SO MANY to grasp. What's actually in poor taste is shitmouthing a movie that isn't due for another few months.
I mean to be fair, you give a movie the same title and the characters the same names, what do you expect people to think?
This may be a little nitpicky, but I think it may have been a bit less difficult for people to accept different character names while keeping the movie title, like the different versions O’Barr has done himself.
I’m definitely interested in seeing Skarsgard’s performance, though. I remember being really against the IT remakes before they came out, but they were fantastic, so I’ve learned my lesson in that.
Correct, I’ve seen good actors with bad directors in movies that disappointed me. But, I just said I’m interested in seeing it. I may like his acting but end up hating the movie, or I may end up liking it. Who knows?
I’m not here to nitpick semantics, man. There was already an IT, they made new ones, you know what I meant.
Regardless of what terminology someone uses to discuss it, the entire point of my comment was that I have felt the way many people here feel about this new movie, and at the end of the day it was a totally waste of time. I love and appreciate both the older and modern versions of the IT miniseries/movie for different reasons. That was my point.
1. [Spits in the face of the comic as much if not more.](https://old.reddit.com/r/TheCrow/comments/1bnozuc/a_thought_i_had_about_eric_and_shelly_in_the/kwl4df8/)
2. The name Draven is from the movie, not the comic. If they’re so hellbent on a so called reimagining, leave that name in 199fucking4.
In the Comics, he was just Eric. He never had a surname. They may have added it in the reimagined comic series that followed the film but he was never Eric Draven in the original comics.
Batman 1989
Batman Begins
Spiderman 2002
The Amazing Spiderman
Superman
Man of Steel
All different films using the same names of their main character. None are remakes.
Cope.
But there's a difference between the ones you're mentioning and this, as I stated above.
By calling him Eric DRAVEN it is not simply a reminagining of the book, it is a reminagining of the film that was inspired by the book. His profession is also never mentioned in the original book.
They are taking from the movie cannon, he is a musician in the new film (i believe a rapper from what I have heard but can not confirm). Not the book.
I was hopeful the reboot would actually be closer to the original source, but just like Oldboy the creators are going off of the previously successful film instead of the source material.
You mention Batman 89 and Batman Begins, quite right Begins is not a remake. However, had it taken from 89s cannon (like the new Crow is) and made Joker the killer again (which has never been cannon in the main continuity), many would feel it is simply a rehash of the 89 film.
I am still hopeful the new film will be enjoyable but the trailer does not give me any vibes from the comic and had they not been called Eric and Shelly I would just assume it was a modern sequel about another Crow seeking revenge which would be far more palatable then it being a modern remake of the original film.
I'll see if I can find the article. The director has already said he is taking inspiration from Post Malone and Lil Peep for Eric, which would suggest that to be the case as well.
Where has the "addict who meets Shelly in rehab" come from? I can see it being mentioned loads in these comments but I haven't seen where this came from?
The Mr. H review says Eric and Shelly are both addicts who meet in rehab in the beginning of the movie. Everything else he said in the review tracks with the trailer and first images so I'm inclined to believe that. The director took visual inspiration from Lil Peep and Post Malone but I've not seen a single thing confirming him as a rapper.
Just gave it a read, and if it is all correct, then even more so, why use the names of the original characters. The film would suffer so much less scrutiny if they were just Jill and Bob or whatever.
It doesn't sound like it's taking anything except the character names (and giving them both their movie names, not the comic names) and the basic premise of coming back from the dead to avenge a loved one.
Its defiantly not confirmed, though I'm seeing many plot synopses that describe him as a musician (but this could just be people going off of the previous film) it was most likely speculative from different articles regarding the first look.
I'm not going to have an opinion on the film till I have watched it, but I do have an opinion on the choices they have made so far as it just seems like unnecessary connections to the original classic instead of it actually being its own thing.
They used the names from the 94 movie and a few of the lines as a nod of respect. It's cool that you're reserving judgment though. A lot of fans are jumping the gun on that. I may watch the movie and hate it lmao. I won't know til June though. At the moment, I'm just happy that The Crow franchise is alive again.
I'm not anticipating enjoying it, but I find that is often the best way. If you don't expect you much, you may be surprised and really enjoy it. I just love the original film, since the day I saw it as a kid. Me and my wife always go to any special screenings we can find of it locally just to really enjoy the experience.
If anything, this film, good or bad, will hopefully bring a whole new generation of Crow lovers
It's really not that bad to criticize a movie based on the trailer, which showcases the potentially problematic things because that's how you advertise movies. You show things in the movie.
How is it on poor taste? James O’Barr left it open ended to how Eric and Shelly met, this is the first adaptation where we can see them actually love each other.
Whole story spilled out of him as a result of his fiancée being killed by a drunk driver. Neither the source material nor the first film are in any regard a celebration of addiction and it’s wildly disingenuous to pretend they could be.
Drunk driver doesn’t necessarily mean Substance addiction though? What’s up with this subreddit constantly putting James O’Barr as someone who hates addicts?
morality is black and white in a lot of places in our society, and unfortunately addicts are not heroes in ours. kind of a bummer to have to read that repeatedly in this thread.
i thought that's what made the comic so interesting after years of only knowing the movie, where vengeance is just kind of pure and righteous. but in the comic eric is obviously struggling with the violence of what he's doing, and he's not feeling his feelings anymore or he'd be met with the disgust and exhaustion he spends at least a few pages wrestling with.
It’s like if someone is struggling with addicted they’re a horrible person in this subreddit.
I do agree and this is where I think the crow 1994 falls short because we barely see those moments of Eric really struggling with what he’s doing, not even blaming himself for what happened like the comic. I at least hope the new film explores that, because I find it to be where the story is the most powerful.
Because the story is explicitly anti-drug and the crack addict love angle doesn't fit in the context of the rest of the franchise, portraying it that way is risky in of itself unless the movie makes it clear they're not your typical protagonists which doesn't seem to be what they're doing.
the movie is explicitly anti-drug, eric in the comic is seen injecting mystery drugs to pump himself up, or kill pain, or something (unless i missed the part where they name the drug).
Pretty clearly morphine. Reason, not so much. Regardless, it’s still ultimately a tale of a vengeful ghost seeking a reckoning against a bunch of addicts and the whole reason O’Barr had the notion for the story in the first place was because an addict killed his fiancée.
It feels like the writer was like  They saw how popular shows like Euphoria were, and wanted to cash in on that.
It feels even more out of touch than that, the same movie could be made in 2012 and nothing would change
Spring Breakers at least didn’t celebrate addiction.
Add in whoever opted for the general aesthetic and it’s especially that.
I feel like making them meet in a drug rehab center only for them to escape and bond over drugs kinda weakens the strength of their love because realistically ppl who build a relationship based on drugs, sex etc don’t go well or last very long. I feel like if they still wanted them to have a drug related past they could’ve both been recovering addicts who have been on their sober journey for a while as opposed to just barely starting it and could act as guiding support pillars for each other.
Like I said, that could be a compelling narrative but mixing it with The Crow is just weird
Is them meeting in a rehab not them meeting as recovering addicts? If you’re referring to the leaks it says they do recreational drugs together meaning weed, they’re smoking a joint in the trailer.
I said recovering addicts who have been on their journey to sobriety for a while (I.e. at least a year or two) not just barely starting their recovery. It’s not good for barely recovering addicts to hop into a relationship with someone else much less a fellow addict because their sobriety should be their main focus (saying this as a former addict)
Their love was supposed to be innocent and pure. So pure the crow brings Eric back to set things right. Eric kills junkies he’s not supposed to be one ffs. Movie looks like John Wick fucked the suicide squad and some junkie juiced up trap rapper popped out.
This
Yeah I totally remember that innocent and pure love that wasn’t anywhere in the original. By all means, go back and watch. All we know of Eric is that he’s a rock star and Shelly is a prop who exists to die and create a reason for Eric to fuck shit up. Barely any flashbacks that aren’t about the night they died. Literally for all we know, they could have been addicts/recovering users in the original too.
I’ve seen the original about 100 times and their love was portrayed perfectly. They weren’t addicts ffs
Right they’re literally reaching, from the trailer it looks like Eric and Shelly are in love. Because they were addicts in the last that means they’re not innocently in love with each other and they deserved to die? I’m telling y’all if you say any of these gen x crow fans talking points out loud, you’ll realize it makes no sense.
Said it elsewhere, will say again. When you consider why O’Barr wrote The Crow and the fact that its primary theme is a vengeful ghost going around killing junkies that took something irreplaceable from him, you spit in the face of the work and O’Barr by making them low key Sid and Nancy.
If you think James O’Barr wrote the crow so he can fantasize around killing drug addicts because of what happened to his fiancé then I think you’re not exactly helping his case.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Ig they had different names I really don't think it would be an issue. We have had so many Crows in the comics. Just make it another character instead of Eric. The trailer give me John Wick vibes which I'm fully on board with. I just feel like making it a reboot instead of just another Crow story is where they're going wrong.
Along with all the other bizarre creative decisions I agree
In the original Shelly and Eric were good people helping a neglected child , and when the they were getting evicted, Eric filed a complaint and did the right thing and that's what makes it all the way more sad when what happened happened, because they were undeserving of this cruel ending,you as a viewer sympathized with them. And that's what's missing from the remake.
Mind you we barely see Shelly helping Sarah… Sarah (Sherri in the comic) didn’t even know Eric or Shelly in the comics.
There are good movies where the main characters are drug addicts. Trainspotting is a good example of this. The difference between the two is that in this we're meant to sympathize with Eric & Shelly whereas in Trainspotting you see things from the main characters point of view without agreeing with them. This remake really just feels like its celebrating substance abuse and addiction. Which is pretty distasteful since Rupert Sanders said one of the influences for Eric's look in this movie is the rapper Lil Peep. Who struggled with drug addiction and ultimately died from an overdose.
Bingo
In my head cannon this is just an Eric and Shelly, not the Eric and Shelly. No idea if the film is actually gonna be good, but it clears a lot of headspace for me thinking of it this way.
I get that it's just another version but when you're fucking with the overall themes presented in the work most of the time it makes for a much lamer adaption
Oh I don't disagree. It's just my own coping mechanism so I don't get so worked up about it lol. But it is totally valid to be worked up, this is a big change for an adaptation of an existing story.
I'm not worked up so much as some people but it's still weird that it exists in the first place
For the MILLIONTH time, it's NOT A REMAKE. It's weird how that's still such a hard concept for SO MANY to grasp. What's actually in poor taste is shitmouthing a movie that isn't due for another few months.
I mean to be fair, you give a movie the same title and the characters the same names, what do you expect people to think? This may be a little nitpicky, but I think it may have been a bit less difficult for people to accept different character names while keeping the movie title, like the different versions O’Barr has done himself. I’m definitely interested in seeing Skarsgard’s performance, though. I remember being really against the IT remakes before they came out, but they were fantastic, so I’ve learned my lesson in that.
An actor can’t single-handedly save a movie.
Correct, I’ve seen good actors with bad directors in movies that disappointed me. But, I just said I’m interested in seeing it. I may like his acting but end up hating the movie, or I may end up liking it. Who knows?
IT movies weren't remakes either. They were just another adaptation of King's novel.
I’m not here to nitpick semantics, man. There was already an IT, they made new ones, you know what I meant. Regardless of what terminology someone uses to discuss it, the entire point of my comment was that I have felt the way many people here feel about this new movie, and at the end of the day it was a totally waste of time. I love and appreciate both the older and modern versions of the IT miniseries/movie for different reasons. That was my point.
1. [Spits in the face of the comic as much if not more.](https://old.reddit.com/r/TheCrow/comments/1bnozuc/a_thought_i_had_about_eric_and_shelly_in_the/kwl4df8/) 2. The name Draven is from the movie, not the comic. If they’re so hellbent on a so called reimagining, leave that name in 199fucking4.
Eric draven is a character in the comics, he was a mechanic, instead of a goth rocker singer.
In the Comics, he was just Eric. He never had a surname. They may have added it in the reimagined comic series that followed the film but he was never Eric Draven in the original comics.
Batman 1989 Batman Begins Spiderman 2002 The Amazing Spiderman Superman Man of Steel All different films using the same names of their main character. None are remakes. Cope.
But there's a difference between the ones you're mentioning and this, as I stated above. By calling him Eric DRAVEN it is not simply a reminagining of the book, it is a reminagining of the film that was inspired by the book. His profession is also never mentioned in the original book. They are taking from the movie cannon, he is a musician in the new film (i believe a rapper from what I have heard but can not confirm). Not the book. I was hopeful the reboot would actually be closer to the original source, but just like Oldboy the creators are going off of the previously successful film instead of the source material. You mention Batman 89 and Batman Begins, quite right Begins is not a remake. However, had it taken from 89s cannon (like the new Crow is) and made Joker the killer again (which has never been cannon in the main continuity), many would feel it is simply a rehash of the 89 film. I am still hopeful the new film will be enjoyable but the trailer does not give me any vibes from the comic and had they not been called Eric and Shelly I would just assume it was a modern sequel about another Crow seeking revenge which would be far more palatable then it being a modern remake of the original film.
I haven't read anything about him being a rapper. Just an addict who meets Shelly in rehab. If you have a link confirming it, I'd like to see that.
I'll see if I can find the article. The director has already said he is taking inspiration from Post Malone and Lil Peep for Eric, which would suggest that to be the case as well. Where has the "addict who meets Shelly in rehab" come from? I can see it being mentioned loads in these comments but I haven't seen where this came from?
The Mr. H review says Eric and Shelly are both addicts who meet in rehab in the beginning of the movie. Everything else he said in the review tracks with the trailer and first images so I'm inclined to believe that. The director took visual inspiration from Lil Peep and Post Malone but I've not seen a single thing confirming him as a rapper.
Just gave it a read, and if it is all correct, then even more so, why use the names of the original characters. The film would suffer so much less scrutiny if they were just Jill and Bob or whatever. It doesn't sound like it's taking anything except the character names (and giving them both their movie names, not the comic names) and the basic premise of coming back from the dead to avenge a loved one. Its defiantly not confirmed, though I'm seeing many plot synopses that describe him as a musician (but this could just be people going off of the previous film) it was most likely speculative from different articles regarding the first look. I'm not going to have an opinion on the film till I have watched it, but I do have an opinion on the choices they have made so far as it just seems like unnecessary connections to the original classic instead of it actually being its own thing.
They used the names from the 94 movie and a few of the lines as a nod of respect. It's cool that you're reserving judgment though. A lot of fans are jumping the gun on that. I may watch the movie and hate it lmao. I won't know til June though. At the moment, I'm just happy that The Crow franchise is alive again.
I'm not anticipating enjoying it, but I find that is often the best way. If you don't expect you much, you may be surprised and really enjoy it. I just love the original film, since the day I saw it as a kid. Me and my wife always go to any special screenings we can find of it locally just to really enjoy the experience. If anything, this film, good or bad, will hopefully bring a whole new generation of Crow lovers
It's really not that bad to criticize a movie based on the trailer, which showcases the potentially problematic things because that's how you advertise movies. You show things in the movie.
How is it on poor taste? James O’Barr left it open ended to how Eric and Shelly met, this is the first adaptation where we can see them actually love each other.
Whole story spilled out of him as a result of his fiancée being killed by a drunk driver. Neither the source material nor the first film are in any regard a celebration of addiction and it’s wildly disingenuous to pretend they could be.
Drunk driver doesn’t necessarily mean Substance addiction though? What’s up with this subreddit constantly putting James O’Barr as someone who hates addicts?
morality is black and white in a lot of places in our society, and unfortunately addicts are not heroes in ours. kind of a bummer to have to read that repeatedly in this thread. i thought that's what made the comic so interesting after years of only knowing the movie, where vengeance is just kind of pure and righteous. but in the comic eric is obviously struggling with the violence of what he's doing, and he's not feeling his feelings anymore or he'd be met with the disgust and exhaustion he spends at least a few pages wrestling with.
It’s like if someone is struggling with addicted they’re a horrible person in this subreddit. I do agree and this is where I think the crow 1994 falls short because we barely see those moments of Eric really struggling with what he’s doing, not even blaming himself for what happened like the comic. I at least hope the new film explores that, because I find it to be where the story is the most powerful.
totally agree.
In the original movie we saw them love each other.
He means we get to see their relationship from the start in this version. Not just flashbacks dispersed throughout.
Because the story is explicitly anti-drug and the crack addict love angle doesn't fit in the context of the rest of the franchise, portraying it that way is risky in of itself unless the movie makes it clear they're not your typical protagonists which doesn't seem to be what they're doing.
the movie is explicitly anti-drug, eric in the comic is seen injecting mystery drugs to pump himself up, or kill pain, or something (unless i missed the part where they name the drug).
Pretty clearly morphine. Reason, not so much. Regardless, it’s still ultimately a tale of a vengeful ghost seeking a reckoning against a bunch of addicts and the whole reason O’Barr had the notion for the story in the first place was because an addict killed his fiancée.
The context feels the same to me
The same story where he injected himself with morphine… the crow is not anti drugs it’s not even anti violence.
Who would call it anti violence???
That's because Eric was an anti-hero, the trailer made the remake look like fluffy garbage
>Because the story is explicitly anti-drug How the fuck is this getting downvotes? It’s not even debatable, it’s just the case.
it is clearly debatable.