I always wanted to write that.

I think the idea of Frank Miller doing a Will Eisner movie is hilarious, and I look forward to seeing the final result. It may be awesome, it may be retarded, it may be awesomely retarded. Who knows?

Even if it’s the worst movie ever made and I end up wanting to stab my eyes out with my soda straw, I think I’ll survive the experience. What’s at risk exactly? It’s OK if Hollywood wants to make movies I don’t like — I’m a really not-attractive demographic. Is it the historical legacy? Anyone who has their opinion of a great work changed by a bad movie of the comic likely never would have read the comic, and probably wouldn’t have understood it if they had.

Me, I’m thinking there are too many “Jen sitting around in jail” scenes. How about you?

I think fans are being so vocal about their alarm because they love Eisner’s creation AND out of the hope that IF this thing IS the trainwreck we fear then perhaps it’s not too late for those in control to do some tweaking.

Personally I’m not pre-judging anything other than the posters.
And the trailer didn’t bother me nearly as much as the posters, so maybe there’s hope…

Miller’s name was made on someone having the vision to faithfully translate his work to the screen, but he can’t do the same for the most respected name in comics? Say what you will but Eisner fans have been given little choice to believe otherwise.

I personally would agree with that assessment, as could be evidenced by the first X-Men movie and the re-design of their costumes. I remember quite some people being ballistic then.

“Second, the vast majority of postings don’t mention Miller at all. Third, a number of the postings that do mention him actively express dislike for his previous work, rather than the “Frank Miller has let me down!” mindset that you’re ascribing.”

I wasn’t, however, just referencing the latest posts here, but the general reaction on many boards, including movie boards over the past couple of months.

“Third, you’re going right back to my original point: Making judgments as to what the final film will be like based upon a handful of images and a teaser trailer. Until there’s an actual movie to judge, everyone is just spinning their wheels.”

’tis a fine argument you present here, but a very limited one, because the gist of the argument comes down to: “the stuff you see here is not going to be the thrust of the movie.” If that is indeed the case, then Lionsgate has a tremendously bad marketing department. Could you be right? Of course you could be. I highly doubt it, though, mainly because Lionsgate has had a rather decent marketing for most of their product.

I disagree with your assessment and you with mine Civilised, we are.

Like I said, personally, I don’t care either way. I judge the potential product on what I have seen, and not on the basis of “this is Will Eisner or not”.

But this is just for me personally. Taking out ANY other factors: I find the posters boring. I found the teaser trailer to be insufferable (AND boring), and I will do what I always do when somebody puts out something that doesn’t give me a reason to buy: I will save my money and spend on a product that I think I might like. ’tis my right as a customer, y’know?

PAD

If it were somebody else, I am pretty sure that this would not get any attention at all

And that, I believe, is the reason people are being vocal about it.”

And I believe you are mistaken.

First of all, I cannot believe you seriously think that if it were somebody else, it would not get any attention. It doesn’t matter if a film is being made by a comic book great or someone who’s never even read an issue of a comic before. Fans will go ballistic at the slightest provocation. What draws the attention are the characters and, more importantly, the fans’ obsession with the characters.

Second, the vast majority of postings don’t mention Miller at all. Third, a number of the postings that do mention him actively express dislike for his previous work, rather than the “Frank Miller has let me down!” mindset that you’re ascribing.

Third, you’re going right back to my original point: Making judgments as to what the final film will be like based upon a handful of images and a teaser trailer. Until there’s an actual movie to judge, everyone is just spinning their wheels.

PAD

It’s one thing to have “integrity” where your own original projects are concerned, because You The Author know what you would have done with an adaptation and why it does or doesn’t toe the line.

But when you work on someone else’s project, it’s inevitable that there are going to be differences in interpretation. Miller’s SPIRIT looks like an ill-advised melding of two very different talents, but you know what? Cooke’s SPIRIT is not Eisner’s SPIRIT either. More respectful to Eisner’s tone, sure. But I’m sure there are still differences from What Eisner Would Have Done, and those differences don’t undermine Cooke’s integrity.

While it’s right to express concern, no less than being concerned over Michael Keaton’s ability to play a superdude, Peter’s right to say we shouldn’t rush to judgment.

Reading the movie site’s blog, I like Frank Miller’s justification for changing the suit to black (both historical and visual). And just because his media image has gotten a little out of his control doesn’t mean all he is is a cropped haircut and wacky vest. He’s a guy who knows that this movie will stand or fail on his story and direction. Hopefully the fact that his movie succeeded and was praised for its faithfulness to the source is something he keeps close to his heart (probably in one of those ba-jillion vest pockets).

Besides, this movie has the same problem a Sandman movie would have, only exacerbated. To be REALLY faithful to Eisner, a Spirit move should feature 70-80 minutes of criminals, cops, and victims and maybe 20 minutes of Spirit in the shadows.

It’s the fact that it’s Frank Miller.

Yes, THAT Frank Miller who claims that this IS Will Eisner’s SPIRIT.

THAT Frank Miller who famously didn’t deal with ANY movie studio, didn’t even want to deal with Rodriguez, because he didn’t want to have ANY of his stuff changed for the big screen. No. No. No. Not with Frank. He wanted to preserve his work’s INTEGRITY.

THAT Frank Miller, who claims he is for the protection and the rights for every artist, for the INTEGRITY of the work.

If it were somebody else, I am pretty sure that this would not get any attention at all.

If he’d had the balls to do an ORIGINAL work, this wouldn’t even be part of any discussion. But Miller has been very vocal on a LOT of those issues over the past 30+ years, and with every piece that is released, every photo, every poster, every snippet of a clip, the impression that Frank Miller only cares about artistic integrity and being faithful to somebody’s work when it’s… Frank Miller.

And it is going to bite him in the ass, because the fact is that we are now living in an age, where these things matter.

Like it or not, they matter to a lot of people (not to me personally, because I believe the Spirit is primarily of interest due to Eisner’s groundbreaking work on layout, story sequencing etc, not necessarily due to the awesomeness of the character itself)

And that, I believe, is the reason people are being vocal about it. Of course, not the general movie-going public, because they don’t know and thusly do not care about any of this. But those folks who have been following Miller around for a while during his comics career, eh, they are a different thing… to them, Miller’s become … uh… what was that word again? Ah, yes… a hypocrit.

And just for the record, I have no idea what that means.

A noted author once had a film made of a novel of his, and the film was widely acknowledged to be ghastly. Yet he seemed sanguine about it. Friends said to him, “Aren’t you upset about what they did to your book?” His response was, “What are you talking about? There’s my book, right there, on the shelf. It’s whole and intact. The movie didn’t do anything to it.”

Here’s a wild idea: if the movie isn’t a pure version of Eisner’s Spirit, so what? It remains just that. A version. Nothing is going to overwrite what already exists. The day the movie comes out, Denny Colt’s ensemble isn’t going to magically transform from blue to black in all the previous color strips that have already been collected. And if the purchase of the movie rights generated a big check for the estate of Will Eisner, I have no problem with that. And if the film works in its own right, does extremely well, and generates more money for the Eisner family, I’m fine with that, too. And if it prompts even one movie goer to pick up some “Spirit” collections which in turn generates royalties for the Eisner family, then I think that’s okey doke.

Anyone here have a problem with Will Eisner’s surviving family members seeing some serious money as a result of Eisner’s work? Anyone here have a problem with new fans being brought into the fold because they saw the movie and seek out the originals as a result?

Maybe it will be a lousy movie. Maybe it will be a good movie. And if it’s the latter and it’s not a perfect recreation of Eisner’s Spirit, so what? Who needs recreations when you’ve got the original, safe and sound and on the shelves?

PAD

Might I point out that the very first comment is “This movie is going to suck ass!”, a sentiment which is echoed by others. Hardly a group of folks sitting around confining comments to the images.

The point of advertising posters is to provoke interest in the movie, period. To make people passing them in a theater stop, make a mental note of the name of the film they’re promoting, and then go on about their business. If they accomplish that, they’ve done their job. It just seems pointless to me to hold them up to any sort of extended scrutiny, and downright ridiculous to make pronouncements about the film based upon them.

PAD

Peter David, I think it is okay for us to be underwhelmed by these images and express that to each other. By now, we’ve seen many Spirit poster concepts. Some work, some don’t.

Many of us will see this movie. I consider the dismay to be coming from our hopes that the Spirit, a character near and dear to our hearts, will survive the journey to the big screen. And maybe like a John D MacDonald character, survive the ordeal beaten and bruised, but able to fight another day.

When will you learn? When the hell will you learn? How many films do you all need to bitch about, slag, whine over, diss and criticize, only to discover that the final product is damned entertaining?

Early photos don’t matter. Posters don’t matter. Previews don’t matter (if you don’t believe me, how many films have you seen where the preview kicked ass and the film then sucked?). A rumor that your second cousin’s college roommate heard from a guy who was an extra on the set for a day doesn’t matter. Hell, take it from someone who’s read film scripts: Even reading the script doesn’t matter.

It is absolutely ridiculous to draw conclusions about a movie until you have seen the movie. Until such time as you have, it is a waste to expend energy and aggravation over it, and frankly, you just make yourselves come across like the cliched notion of the impossible-to-please, perpetually cranky, uberdemanding. Simpsons-esque comic book fan. It is, frankly, embarrassing.

I see the posters and think the actresses look good. I see the tag lines, shrug, and figure it’s some PR person’s idea of what audiences will find provocative. Maybe he or she is right, maybe he or she is wrong. Don’t know, don’t particularly care. Nothing matters until it’s on the screen, period.

And just in case you’re wondering, I have not read the script, have seen no previews, have no contact with the film whatsoever. I am, however, the guy who–years ago at a convention–said during a panel that I was reserving judgment on the Burton/Keaton “Batman” until I actually saw it in the theaters and was nearly booed off the stage as a result. The fans were that convinced it was going to be a campy film a la Adam West. And then a few years later I overheard some fans discussing “Batman Returns,” declaring that if it wasn’t Tim Burton directing and Michael Keaton starring, it was going to suck.

Stop being cliches and wait for the film. Embrace the concept of informed opinions.

PAD

That said, man, I haven’t seen such unanimously venomous loathing and pre-judging hurled at something in a long time. Quite a change from the 80s and 90s when Miller could do no wrong.

And the posters certainly do look like porno shots as I’m sure was the intention. That Ellen one looks straight out of porno with a finger having replaced the penis in photoshop. Poor Will Eisner…

Then MAYBE the director is consulted on how it looks and is presented.

Seen Sin City. Hated the posters, hated the movie. Even in black and white, white does not look like blood.

I especially agree with Rich. I feel sort of relieved the great Will Eisner is no longer here to see this ugliness that Miller and co. have somehow distilled from the wonder that was The Spirit. Shame on all of them.

But other than screwing up The Spirit, I think they’re all very eye-catching.
(Even if they do look just like Sin City 2 if it were set in the 40’s.)

Also, that logo isn’t nearly as legible as they think.

“But… but The Spirit isn’t about whores!”
“Correction: It *wasn’t* about whores.”

Someday they’ll do a Darwyn Cooke animated movie and the world will be at peace.

I do think Miller is def. trying to make us think of something -else -with the text on their faces. It’s a little more XXX than racy, I agree, but it is text, so that’s a little Spirit.

that being said, I liked them only because they gave one to Sarah Paulson who IS Ellen. big fan.

One more: I teach a comics class and we had this one kid who really got into Iron Man, wrote his huge last research paper on the big storyline with Stane, really went crazy with it and loved it. A. So I was dying to hear what he, this new fan of the world, all sparkling and bright, thought of the new movie, so I emailed him.

He didn’t like it. That it totally changed the ending from the comics and needed to have more drinking and more Rhodey and he hated the secret identity reveal.

I felt really bad to have had a hand in the genesis of another fanboy, but like Torsten eloquently said, I think the primacy of the source material — whether post- or pre- — seems to always win out.

Brad

BTW, without the text, these are very sexy.

I really, really hate these posters. It reduces the women to Denny Colt’s f*cktoys. They’re depressing.
Having only met Eisner once, I don’t have any business saying he’d hate them. I know aged material presents a challenge in presentation to an audience that has never known the original, but I expected better.

There’s no reason sexy, even racy, has to be puerile and ugly.

This is bad design.

~

Coat