MovieChat Forums > The Crow (1994) Discussion > Why did this series go to hell?

Why did this series go to hell?

posted 7 years ago by PrimeMinisterX (8418)
8 replies | jump to latest

Recently I did a Crow marathon where I watched all the movies, starting with The Crow and ending with Wicked Prayer. Each film proved a significant drop in quality from the one that came before it, as I saw the series devolve from a legitimately edgy, well-made revenge film to, well, a joke. Like, a literal joke. It was obvious that even the actors didn't take Wicked Prayer seriously.

The first film is fantastic. That's all that needs to be said about it. The second film had editing issues and a terrible villain, but it still was well-designed and atmospheric, and I thought Perez brought something interesting to the titular role. Salvation was not a very good film, but I also wouldn't quite call it an embarrassment. It was just an average early 2000s straight-to-video movie. Wicked Prayer is a piece of shit and hilarious in the worst ways.

The Crow: 8.5/10
City of Angels: 6.5/10
Salvation: 5/10
Wicked Prayer: 3/10

So what happened exactly? Why did those involved allow the franchise to sink so low? Why did they not take a stab and maintaining the quality and prestige that the first film established?

[–] Prelude (1443) 7 years ago

I guess it's just the law of diminishing returns, where they were having to reach and reach for thinner and thinner material or new ways to play out the basic premise.

That's always going to be something that makes more and more of a sow's ear out of the silk purse of the original.

City of Angels was the only sequel worth giving a watch, but even with that, I've always thought the casting of Perez was just....odd. Why him? Nothing about it made much sense. He was *good* but still, I found it weird casting.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8418) 7 years ago

It was obvious the budget was slashed more and more, especially after City of Angels. Wicked Prayer looks like they spent about 15 bucks on it. With smaller budgets you're usually going to get less talented writers, directors and actors. I guess they felt like since City of Angels underperformed at the box office it wasn't worth making another attempt at a decently-budgeted theatrical release.

Apparently City of Angels was not edited according to the director's wishes and that's a big reason for why the film is the way it is. According to Wikipedia:

"While the filmmakers and studio originally intended to create a substantially different film to the first one (out of respect for Brandon Lee), Miramax ordered the film to be re-edited so as to resemble the earlier one as much as possible. Tim Pope refused and he, along with David Goyer, eventually disowned the film, as it did not represent their vision."

I would really like to see the original director's cut.

[–] Prelude (1443) 7 years ago

I didn't know that about City of Angels -- very interesting! It's always a shame when that kind of bickering happens over a production and the director's vision is compromised. It certainly would be something to see a director's cut.

[–] fountainhead (319) 5 years ago

Here's a good video giving background info on what happened with City of Angels. Quite sad. It sounds like there was a good movie in there, had the studio not butchered it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtDGkNH301U

[–] kaleidoscope0_0 (479) 7 years ago

The Crow is an iconic movie. I imagine it's an extremely hard act to follow.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8418) 7 years ago

So hard that it seems like they gave up after the second film. . .

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

There was no need for any movie after The Crow. That movie, and Brandon Lee in particular, just nailed it. You are never going to equal a legend who died. Every Crow movie that followed was purely driven by greed. "'Mother' is the name for GOD on the lips and hearts of every child." There are a lot of great movies that don't have even one line as great as that.

Plus, the sequels were directed by hacks. Alex Proyas, who also directed Dark City, had vision and passion.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8418) 7 years ago

I think the second film has some good things going for it, even if it's not a great movie overall. It at least has a good visual style and I thought that Vincent Perez put his own interesting twist on the character with his performance.

It's obviously not the classic the first film is, though.