I hate the phrase "reboot" when talking about movies.

How about coming up with some fresh ideas for a change, then you can reboot them in a few years like the Hulk.

C

Reboot is something you do to a computer or if you're Bob, the protector of Mainframe.

A franchise is a set of places where you can get the same old crap as all the others in the set.

These terms do not apply to motion pictures and television series.

If your going to make "The Shadow" many people instead of 1 or Lamont Cranston than you have no idea who or what The Shadow truly is.

I am actually a big fan of the Alec Baldwin movie. Too bad so much time has gone by as I'd like to see a sequal.

I was a fan of it as well. Have it on DVD. i wouldn't mind seeing a new though. Looks interesting.

I really don't get what was so bad about the first movie. I guess cause it wasn't like Burton's “Batman” or even “The Crow” people put it down.
I really liked the way it worked and yeah it could have been a bit darker cause of how the character works but all in all it was good.

Sorry griff --
Lamont Cranston wasn't the Shadow -- Kent Allard was. Cranston was one of many identities the Shadow assumed over this varied career.
Though a lot of his history was altered and changed over the course of his pulp life, the idea of the Shadow's multiple identities has always been a running theme.

Yeah, but The Shadow was always just one person, even if most people were never quite sure what HIS real identity was because he adopted so many. Yes, he had multiple identities, but only one guy was ever The Shadow; in the pulps, it was Kent Allard (Cranston was one of his false identities), on radio it was Lamont Cranston. I'm not sure what to make of Uslan's quote about the "comic book" roots, since The Shadow didn't appear in a comic book until the 1950s, well after the heyday of the concept. And the pulp and radio versions differed dramatically, so how can you get back to the "roots" of both without ending up with the hybrid that was the 1994 movie?

There are times I want to hit Empty TV (MTV) with a rolled up news paper and say 'No! NO! BAD!'

The Rocky Horror remake and this are reasons for this feeling.

The Shadow was not lame. It's a classic. And making it 'more like a force of nature that can be many people' is NOT closer to the original radio drama. Just because most of us are too young to have been around for the original radio drama does not mean we don't know the history.

I know this isn't exactly MTV's fault but I need someone to blame and MTV has become my scapegoat.

The Shadow, like most pulp heroes, is a man of mystery, but he is a man (and just one guy). He is not a force of nature. So can we not have that please.

I also think the 1994 movie was pretty good, I'm not sure what some people want out of movies....

I too enjoyed the Shadow movie (BTW, the Jerry Goldsmith score is excellent!), though it wasn't perfect. If they had grimmed it up a bit and actually showed Cranston's transformation from reprobate to good guy, it would have worked better. But geez, Alec Baldwin in his prime, John Lone as your baddy and the electric sex appeal of Penelope Ann Miller: what more do you want?!

Hello!
I tough the movie was good. But for this specific character it should have been more darker. I imagine the studio had it's hand at dumbing it down for money sake.

Yes! I understand is a business!
But; If you follow that tough, then you'll understand that a good QUALITY PRODUCT, SELLS MORE THAN SAY MANURE!

GET IT!!

I`m a long-time fan of The Shadow, and while I recognize the `94 film as flawed, it was not the overall disaster that it is made out to be by most people. They attempted to reconcile the permutations of the character from Pulp and Radio, but strayed too far from the mystique in the process.
As for this new effort; I will hope for the best... but that 'The Shadow may be many people' comment BETTER be an oblique reference to the character`s penchant for disguise, rather than The Shadow personna being sort of a 'tag-team' effort.
The real problem with translating The Shadow to the big screen is that while the mystery-man aspect of the character works well in an episodic format, it does not lend well to a finite effort. Movie Heroes have to engage the audience. You cannot get people involved in a character that they cannot get to know....because he is SOOO mysterious.

Gibson kept magazine readers hungering for more so they would want to read more next issue. Movies set up a story and have to end it, all in a short period of time. That is why The Shadow cannot work in a film EXACTLY as done in the Pulps. He has to be presented and humanized all in one dose in order for the audience to respond. (A tv series would work better for a long-term reveal...Think of a Shadow series done as a long arc, ala` Babylon 5 or Lost)

Ah well...Hope for the best....

I have to agree that the Alec Baldwin Shadow was perfecctly fine and seemed mostly rooted in the radio programming with a touch of comic sensibilities.

Still, seeing them go back to the pulps is a decidedly interesting proposition. The Shadow is clearly one person in the pulps though supported by an interesting cast of characters. How they handle that dynamic would be interesting to say the least. Most likely it will be told from the perspective of someone new to the Shadow's support cast and not the Shadow himself.

When the last Shadow film was being pitched it had Jeremy Irons attached to star. I looked forward to that version. The script was pretty much the same as shot with Alec Baldwin. Mike, Sam...the actor you choose should have the chops, the gravitas and the look to make it a serious film. Remember, Orson Welles created The Shadow for radio.

Let's all give thanks that Frank Miller won't be involved.

Ooohh... the Shadow... Does Hollywood have any NEW ideas?

So far the only thing I have ever seen that was worth the effort to "reimagine" has been Battlestar Galactica.

his roots aren't in comics and radio, his roots are in novel-length stories published in the pulp fiction magazine The Shadow Magazine