“Who Knows” If We’ll Ever See a Sam Raimi Shadow Feature

batmanpp:
Let me just say that I'm not here to debate Sam Raimis' talent as a film maker. Nor do I want to debate whether or not the financial success of a movie determines if that movie is any good. Those are your own subjective opinions and you're welcome to have them. I'm here to dispell the nonsense you have spouted about the character The Shadow, as well as the merits of The Shadow Movie by Mulcahy.

First, based on what you've written, it is blatantly obvious that you know nothing about The Shadow. Here , as you put it, "is some education for you". The Shadow movie was a horrible representation of the character as conceived on both the radio show and in the Pulp Novels and Comic Books. Let us start with some of your own laughable comments. You say:

"this film by Mulcahy stayed extremely true to the whole spirit of the Shadow idea, it’s literature, it’s style, the comic books and it’s entire mythology"

This is completely false and has absolutely no basis in fact if you know anything about The Shadow. The ridiculous origin we are given for the character is Mulcahy and Koepps vision and theirs alone. The Shadow was not a drug dealer in asia, he wasnt so full of evil that he needed a mystic "Scarf" to contain it. His real name isn't even Lamont Cranston!

First, The Shadows name was Kent Allard, a WW1 pilot who faked his own death at the end of the war. He traveled the world for years using various identities. He gained the power to cloud mens minds from a mystic in Delhi. Years later he assumed the identity of millionaire Lamont Cranston. He told Cranston that he needed to use his identity, the real Cranston played along and left the states to travel overseas so that they wouldn't both be seen. This is all told in the Shadow Pulp stories "The Shadow Unmasks", "The Shadow Laughs" and "The Shadows Shadow" as well as aluded to in the orson wells Shadow radio show story "Temple Bells of Neban". But you know nothing about any of this apparently.

You also say:

"And not once does the movie give any hint of avoiding gut-wrenching research on the subject; these boys really knew what it was all about. And clearly even beyond just professional research but as major fans of it. If Mulcahy and crew were not fans before the heavy research, then they certainly became fans after as the entire movie proves."

Wrong on so many levels.

This statement of yours would be laughable if it weren't so painfully lacking in truth and shockingly uninformed. There are many books available on the history of the Shadow, including one written by Shadow pulp writer Walter Gibson himself. Apparently neither you, Mulcahy, Koepp or the movie crew had or have ever read this book, let alone anything else on the Shadow. It appears they only looked at reprints of the covers to these stories, as the shadows clothes and names of various characters are the only thing that are remotely accurate. The truth flys against the completely illogical and untruthful and downright silly statement that you make when you say:

"Mulcahy does not stray in character for the Shadow, even in margins, and does not stray from the visual either. He delivers the Shadow AS IS. 100%."

No, batmanpp, he does not deliver at all, and certainly not 100%. Again, since you know nothing about the shadow, others that may read your post must take such blatant lies and ignorance with a grain of salt or outright ignore it.

The Shadow is not a comedy. There were some nice moments of wit in the radio shows, but for the most part they were serious crime/horror/suspense stories almost akin to the graphicness of the EC crime/horror comics. The "chasing the rolling bomb" bit of slapstick was unforgivable. It belonged in a Three Stooges movie, NOT in a movie about the Shadow. It was disgraceful.

The story itself, the main plot, the origin, has nothing to do with any shadow story ever written, PERIOD. Based on the casting, inane comedy was the intent all along. Penelope Miller is relentlessly annoying and, unlike Agnes Moorhead (the best of the radio show 'margos') Miller was horribly cast as was Peter Boyle as cabbie Moe. Otherwise excellent actor John Lone goes completely over the top in an embarrasing performance as Shiwan Khan. Alec Baldwin vacilates between acting blissfully unaware and confused, as though he can't remember the number of his agent so that he can call and try to get out of the horrible mess of a film he's found himself in. And the manic, horribly innapropriate comedic performance of Tim Curry is the final nail in the coffin for this horrible bit of nonsense. I suppose I would find it all very funny as well, if it were'nt for the fact that I love the character of the Shadow. Mulcahy didn't even bother to cast an actor that looks remotely like the Shadow. Instead we are given a stupid and ridiculous plot device in the "scarf" to physically alter Baldwin into the classic pulp cover hero.

Even the musical score is horrible. Jerry Goldsmith seems to be phoning this one in. Giving us "superhero music 101" instead of anything remotely original or inventive. Goldsmiths unforgivable crime here is the fact that he fails to incorporate the classic music of Camille Saint-Saens Le Rouet d' Omphale (Omphale's Spinning Wheel) the wonderful music that was used in the opening of the old Shadow Radio Show. Instead we are given a sub par score as well as being treated to the always shrill, Streisand wanna-be, 80s has-been Taylor Dane!

We are not given subtle wit or dark humor. We are instead given broad comic banter. If you had ever read any of the original Pulp stories about the classic and epic confrontations between the Shadow and Shiwan Khan then you would know that they would hardly be making any jokes about their "brooks brothers" suits and ties. This is insulting to Gibsons great Shadow/Khan pulp stories like "The Golden Master" and others.

Regarding the Shadows "abilities", in the movie, they are all over the map and sloppily inconsistant. The Shadow does not "levitate" objects. He does not have the power of "telepathy" with Margo that he enjoys in the Mulcahy Movie. He, as told in both Pulp, Radio and in Comics, has the power to "cloud mens minds". He hypnotizes them into not seeing him. And he uses the cover of night and shadow to enhance that ability. He does not actually become a literal shadow as Mulcahy has him do in the movie to an unintended, terribly cheesy comic effect. His agents do not all have "red rings". And he doesnt sign his notes to his agents with the Shadow Movie Logo.

batmanpp: I dont know what your agenda was or is in writing the nonsense you posted about the Shadow. Perhaps you are one of those sad little individuals that like to sound smart by talking about something which you know nothing about. Perhaps you just don't like Raimi and are lashing out by propping up the horrible Mulcahy movie as a benchmark piece of art that Raimi will never achieve. Or, maybe, you just don't know anything about the Shadow, liked the movie anyway, and took offense that it was a horrible failure. I personally don't care what your agenda is.

But as a fan of The Shadow, as someone that has listened to almost all available radio shows by voice talents like Readick, Wells, Morrison, Johnstone and Archer, as a fan of the early 40s strip by Gibson/Greene/Coll, as well as the pulp stories, I take great offense at your shamless attempt to lay claim that the horrible Mulcahy movie is a great adaption of the character. This notion is completely false on all levels. You apparently don't even have a wikipedia enthusiasts knowledge of The Shadow. Couldn't you at least have made an attempt to do what Mulcahy and Koepp failed to do? ACTUAL RESEARCH! Instead you ramble on nonsensically about a subject you know nothing about, shamefully passing it off as "truth".

Mulcahy and Koepp do a disgraceful hatchet job on this wonderful character that influenced so many comic book heroes, including Batman. They have deconstructed the character to such a horrifying degree that he is virtually unrecognizable to any true fan of the Shadow. Something that you obviously are not.

And please do not compare mulcahys Shadow to Superman The Movie. It is an insult to Donner and the actors and crew who worked on Superman to make it a "TRUE COMIC BOOK ADAPTION" classic. Mostly it is a insult to Christopher Reeves, who actually succeeded in embodying an Icon. Somthing that Baldwin failed completly and utterly to do in Shadow.

If anyone reading this is looking to kill a couple hours with a silly, inconsequential piece of nonsense, then this movie is for you. However, if you are a true fan of the Shadow, avoid this movie like the plague that it is. You will be utterly dissapointed and it will leave a bad taste in your mouth that all the listerine in the world will fail to remove. For those that are fans of the Shadow and seek to learn and read more about his adventures, then I urge you to seek out the trade paperback reprints by Nostalgia Ventures Press that are available at amazon and many other bookstores. I urge you to seek out the radio shows, also available at most book stores. Seek out the still relatively innexpensive Denny O'Neil/Kalluta Comic Book version of the 70s. There is where you will find the TRUE SHADOW.

On a final note. Batmanpp, regarding your statement:

"The one thing about good old Spidey that stands him out from the rest of the superheros is that for over 38 years he is the funniest man in comic books."

Apparently batmanpp, apart from knowing nothing about The Shadow, you also know nothing about Spiderman. You're statement shows a profound misunderstanding of the character as originally conceived by Lee/Ditko and other writers who followed over the decades. Spiderman is one of the most TRAGIC characters in comics. His humor is "gallows humor" or a "whistling in the dark" style of humor. It is strategy to anger his enemies into making mistakes. It is the result of the confidence he feels when putting on his costume. A confidence that is lacking in his Peter Parker persona as that aspect of his life is riddled with pain, loss, guilt, and tragedy. Do you even read comics?!?

Truely great comic book adaptions are successful because, if they do it right, they get to the heart of the character, and can reach both comic book purists AND the non comic book reading general audiences (on whom comic book adaptions depend on for their success) while being faithful to the character itself. The Shadow did neither and thus failed. This universal truth apparently angers you and thus you lash out at the writer of the above article like a child that has had his favorite toy taken away. You've obviously never read a Shadow story in your life and would do well to study the history of the characters that you claim to know about before you embarrass yourself again with another post like the one you've written here.

thecaster:
And yet here you are...blogging.

You're right, The Shadow wasn't a bad movie because it was a box office disaster. It was a bad movie because it did nothing to explore or reveal anything about the shadow. It did not explore any of its Pulp or Radio roots. The only thing that the Shadow of the Mulcahy movie has in common with the character of the Shadow is name only. And I'm suprised they got that right. As far as your bizzare statement:

"On the whole "lets stay true to the comics" argument. F*** that. For true comic book fans if you have read the comic you know exactly what to expect so why not throw the viewer for a loop?"

Wow...just...Wow. First off, we haven't even gotten ONE good Shadow movie yet that told a decent story about THE SHADOW.

First off, most people are probably not even familiar with the shadow in comics. The last Shadow comic and graphic novel was early 90s. Before that, it was the Chaykin re-boot of the late 80s that started the Helfer/Sienkiewicz/Jones series which was canceled in 92. Thats almost 20 years out of the comic book limelight.

Here is another case of someone not knowing what they are talking about, so no caster, I won't "shut the [frick] up as you so cleverly put it.

This is part of the reason that the first Shadow was a failure. Unfamiliarity with the character and an almost non existant marketing campaign. There was no attempt to foster any relationship between a character that, in the comic shops had been out of the public eye for 2 or 3 years. Then you have the General Audiences. Those that know nothing about the shadow period. So why would you want a writer NOT to base a shadow story on existing material that hasn't even been looked at or researched yet?

If you want to "throw me for a loop" as you put it, lets get the movie studios to actually research who the hell the shadow actually is FIRST, make a movie that's GOOD and SUCCESSFUL. Heck...maybe even TWO.

Here you are, totally unfamiliar with the great pulp stories and probably just as unfamiliar with the Radio show continuity and you want to start with THE ALL NEW ADVENTURES OF THE SHADOW when we haven't even gotten the original stories yet!

Yeah...Brilliant.

It's thinking like that that gave us the last horrible Shadow movie. That also failed misserably to adhere to any of the source material. It was a totally original story by Koepp. You've already got what you want, caster. Apparently those "long trips" you took "listening to the radio show" weren't long enough. Were the trips two block car rides to the local 7/11? Because from I can tell from your post, you know about as much about the shadow as batmanpp....that would be nothing (just in case that was too subtle)

ThereCanBOnly1:

If you want to know the Shadow, then read the stories I referenced in my first post. Buy the pulp reprints that Nostalgia Ventures have put out. If you read just one Gibson pulp novel then you would know about 100% more than Mulcahy and Koepp combined. As far as Goldsmith....I like a lot of Goldsmiths work. His score for Planet Of The Apes is just one example of how he can be brilliant. His score for the Shadow was not brilliant. It was lazy and derivitive. This isn't the first time either. Try listening to the scores for "Aliens" and "Star Trek 3" back to back and you'll see what I'm talking about. He re-uses his own scores and he's done it more than once. Now for a low budget movie that might be fine...but for The Shadow...not fine. And as I pointed out in my first comment...why not incorporate the Saint-Saen music that was used in the original radio show? Because no one cared, including Goldsmith. I can understand Mulcahy and Koepp not knowing who Saint-Saen is, they are clearly talentless incompetants...but Goldsmith? He should have known better. I wouldn't object to Raimi producing, or even writing a Shadow Movie. But not directing. His style is too frenetic. Which is good for more comic bookish things like Spider-Man and Army of Darkness and his horror films. But The Shadow needs to be in the hands of someone more subtle and restrained.