@Gary:
In the pulps, the Shadow has several identities, most of which are borrowed from real people, and a number of agents he recruits to spy on the underworld. He is also a master of disguise who can look like anyone. He’s less powerful than the Baldwin version, but much darker and interesting.
I can imagine filmmakers using more than one actor to portray the Shadow, although the character is really just one person.

I love all the non-corny bits of The Shadow with Alec Baldwin. He really nailed the character. However, I would have preferred less of a backstory, which is almost entirely acanonical with the pulps or radio show.

Although, I have to type a bit of a qualifier to my previous post. I’d had “The Shadow” in my NetFlix queue to watch online anyway, and this thread got me curious to see it. I just finished watching it, and I’m really surprised to see it was a better movie than I remembered. I think a lot of the credit goes to the actors. They managed to make a lot of the camp stay grounded just enough to work. And jeez! I had no clue that Ian McKellan was in that film (can’t wait to surprise my wife with that bit of trivia).

I can understand why some people outright hate what was done for “Charlie’s Angels,” but I also think it would be foolish to say those films weren’t staying true (somewhat) to the original series. After all, those old shows were pretty goofy, too. It’s kind of like the old Batman TV series. I loved it as a kid, but now that I’m grown up, watching them kind of makes me cringe.

No need to be sorry.

I don’t think The Shadow OR Charlie’s Angels are shining examples of filmmaking and I FULLY understand if people don’t like them. I just don’t understand actual hatred against these particular films.

In perspective, you’ll always get an Uwe Boll for a Christopher Nolan, but a hell lot of “normal” filmmakers in between.

And McG is no Boll.

Actually, NO ONE apart from Boll is Boll.

Luckily.

Interestingly, this whole thread made me think about a more “back to the roots” version of Charlie’s Angels. More 3 hard-ass women (possibly with tragic backstories) that do their secret agent thing…
Could have been possible. Definitely.
But we have to sit out 2 more sequels before they reboot the franchise.

And anyway, isn’t Joss Whedon’s DOLLHOUSE coming out soon, anyway??

One more thing for Bill:
just curious: what movie DO you hold up as an example of how pulp hero concepts should be adapted to film?

That said, I will confess to having enjoyed the Alec Baldwin “Shadow,” but even I couldn’t hold it up as an example of how pulp hero concepts should be adapted to film. Sorry.

The dog wasn’t that big.
And the movie gets better on the second viewing. But not much.
Great crime movie though.

Dammit. I feel like I should be ashamed for not raving about it. I LOVE the character … but this one … I don’t know what went wrong.

Ok, I will end this discussion before it actually begins.

“Begins” … *sigh*

It would end up with me crying and sobbing in a fetus position anyway.
A pitiable sight.

Which I will spare you.

G’night, sir.
Until next time!

GREAT post dude!!

“The films serve the same purpose like a well made porno.”

LMAO…and was your third choice a certain costumed vigilante who got bitten by a really big dog?

And you didn’t steal anything from me that I wasn’t prepared to surrender..although maybe a little more time than neccesary as I am a S-L-O-W reader..but as I stated to Ken J awhile back my purchases of Volumes 1 & 2 of the Electric Company are helping improve my reedin and com-pree-hen-shun skills..By-the-way, if you read this consider us even on the time-theft issue

WUU-HA-HA-HA !!!!

Cheers

The Phantom joined the strange “under the radar” club of “kinda great comic book movies”, but I prefer The Shadow over Billy Zane in a pink stretchy. If only he’d have switched costumes with Catherine Zeta Jones … *sigh*

Anyway, let me clarify my “Angels” opinion.

I never understood it when people said “relax, it’s only a movie” until I saw the two Angels flicks.

Being a total and complete movie enthusiast, I HATE it when a film acts like it’s just “for fun” … especially when there’s beloved source material involved.

That WASN’T the case with Charlie’s Angels. The show was meh and what “McG” (crappy name) did with it was actually kinda clever.
He created a self-contained universe in which 3 hot chicks kick unrealistic ass.
The films serve the same purpose like a well made porno.
You watch it, it ends, you’re satisfied.
If you’re a fan of the original show or demand a realistic approach … the two Angels films are a friggin disgrace, true.

But chained to a chair Clockwork Orange style, I would watch them ANYTIME over Indy 4, Quantum Of Solace or … a certain other movie that I won’t mention now because of the incredible wave of “WHAT???” replies that would break loose.

Phew.

This post didn’t change anything, right?
At least I stole you, the reader, a few seconds of precious life-time!
*Cue evil laughter*

I agree the Shadow had a good cast for it’s time although I think Tim Curry was over-the-top unintentionally and it was written by David Koepp (although my opinion of him is changing since Indy 4). I’m just of the opinion that we don’t need another Shadow film ( although if I stuck by my logic on that one then I would not have supported another Batman film after Batman & Robin ). I also enjoyed The Phantom with Billy Zane but I am in no hurry to see another Phantom movie…

But Charlie’s ANgels dude? It’s like saying you need another bacterial pneumonia on top of the viral pneumonia you already have…

So … many people being the Shadow?
No thanks!
Actually, put it on halt altogether, there is no need for another Shadow movie. It’ll probably try too hard to be Dark Knight anyway.

Why for the love of Mike Why?

I guess it goes to show that fear and common sense are not factors involved in film making in Hollywood…