Or maybe he’s just nervous to be interview on TV.

One of the most prominent complaints against Miller’s SPIRIT was that it looked like SIN CITY, and while I too had doubts that Miller could translate the appeal of the latter into an adaptation of the former, there was at least a possibility he could’ve done so.

Quite true that the uninitiated moviewatchers didn’t care about fidelity, but I think another factor keeping them away is that, unlike the films of 300 and SIN CITY, there was nothing all that singular about a film like THE SPIRIT. A guy in a business suit and domino mask fighting crime doesn’t sound like ass-kicking entertainment in the fashion of the earlier two successes.

I see your point, but there’s a big difference between “re-using ideas/tropes/practices” and becoming a self-parody.

As for fidelity to the original, there were complaints from fans (warranted, IMO) that Miller threw out much of what made the original Spirit so good, but keep in mind that people who have ever read the Spirit strip formed a small percentage of the potential audience for this flick. Reading movie reviews and comments from moviegoers on IMDB, it’s clear that fidelity to the source material (or lack thereof) was the least of this movie’s problems.

I wasn’t advancing a “dichotomy;” just pointing out that every long-lived talent out there is subject to re-using ideas/tropes/practices that worked for him or her over and over. He may do it well (which in my judgment takes in most of your examples, though I’ve reservations about Demme and Gerber) or badly, but the potential accusation hangs heavy over every such talent. For that matter, some critics took issue with the quality of Eisner’s late works, and did not believe he was doing as well as he did earlier in his career, though that’s not precisely my own view.

I wasn’t speaking of Miller’s options, but I have seen a fair amount of fan-criticism that seemed to want fidelity to Eisner, and it’s to that contingent that I’m directing my “clone” remark. In advance of the film I saw no one raise the possibility that Miller might make a work that was not Eisner’s SPIRIT but was still good on its own terms. Sadly, he didn’t, though I can see the themes he meant to evoke, and I find those themes as present in his best work as well as his worst– which is why I don’t buy the theory that he’s only recycling the worst aspects of his work.

I agree with Kyle that the clones were funny, though not too much else was.

Interesting points, but I think you’ve got two false dichotomies:

First, the idea that the only two options are (a) reinvent yourself or (b) fall into self-parody. How about (c) keep doing what you’ve always done, well.

Plenty of creative people fall into this category: In film, how about Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, Ingmar Bergman, Joel & Ethan Coen, Jonathan Demme? In comics: Gene Colan, Steve Gerber, or, for that matter Will Eisner. Those are just names off the top of my head, I’m sure I could come up with a dozen more if I thought about it.

The second false dichotomy is the idea that Miller’s only two options were (a) attract harsh criticism for his work or (b) make a clone of Eisner’s. The vast majority of negative criticism (professional and amateur) I’ve read has nothing to do with The Spirit’s lack of fidelity to Eisner’s work and everything to do with its failures as a movie.

“I think the Stallone comparison is an excellent one. Both Stallone and Miller created classic works that perfectly captured the contemporary zeitgeist, and then proceeded to re-use only the worst aspects of those works as their respective careers progressed and they descended into self-parody.”

OTOH, it’s been said that almost everyone who works in any avenue of the entertainment industry for a respectable length of time (whatever one chooses that to be) becomes a parody of him/herself.

How many writers/artists/actors can you name who REALLY reinvent themselves even after, say, ten years in show biz?

As for the matter of the SPIRIT film, though I’ve a lot of problems with the film itself, I will defend to [someone else’s] death its right not to simply be a clone of Will Eisner.

Note my comparison with another famous film-travesty here:

http://arche-arc.blogspot.com/2009/01/spirit-la-mode.html

The difference between the movie world and the comics world is that you don’t (as far as I can recall) ever see Stallone referred to as someone who “revolutionized” his industry or produced “possibly the greatest motion picture ever”.

Outstanding example. THAT is almost the premise of an Eisner/Spirit story. A loveable schlub gets a shot at the Big Time — for a manufactured publicity event — because the Heavyweight Champion and his crew are confident that he’ll lose.

I suppose that’s another thing missing from Miller’s SPIRIT film — where were the citizens? Except for occassional cameos, it was just the spirit, some bad guys, and a bunch of cops. Dolan should have just sat back and let the bad guys kill each other.

Kyle Baker and Peter David thought the clone foot with head was funny. Now THAT is really damn weird, because no one else in the theater laughed, chuckled or even scoffed.

As Mr. Magnum texted, without a doubt sitting at the wheel of a Ferrari that he repeatedly “borrows” from Mr. Masters… I did not mention it because I was trying to analyse just the technical aspects of what I do consider an artistic failure on a massive scale. The rest would be merely my opinion, and as such it would be just as good or as bad as any other opinion uttered.

Mr. Baker loves the giant foot, e.g. I understand why it would appeal to his sense of humour, giving Mr. Baker’s own works. I understand why somebody would think “You’re as dead as Star Trek” is a funny line…

(and perhaps would even solicit a laugh from noted Star Trek Tie-In writer Mr. David?)

… but that again is subjective. My personal opinion of Miller’s works is – having read the entire thing from his 1970s stuff to the latest All Star Batman & Robin issue in a very short time – that Miller’s stories became more and more of a parody beginning with his LEGEND era, especially starting with his Darrow collaborations that I felt were as cold as a machine but which were covered up by Darrow’s art. His Martha Washington series reads unfortunately like a never-finished 1980s Paul Verhoeven movie. It could have been quite a great movie back in the 1980s as well, because the over-the-top parodies in it would have worked, but time has not only passed that by… it passed Miller by.

His later works remind me very often of Stallone’s career. If all one has seen of Stallone in the past 25 years were his action movies, it would easy to dismiss Stallone as a parody of himself, but it is the same man who won an Academy Award for the first Rocky script (rightfully or not, that is an entirely different debate) on the strength of its humanity.

Both Stallone and Miller were perfectly in sync with the Zeitgeist of the 1980s, and both never developed from those basic roots that kept them there while the world turned around them.

But like I said, that is just my personal opinion.

That’s the thing. With someone like Will Eisner who fully explored the medium in his career, it would be easy to single out comparisons with the work of a creator like Frank Miller who has shown to be increasingly formulaic and one-note. This isn’t backlash from a single act by Miller - fanboy kneejerk to a color change of a beloved character’s suit as some would like to easily summarize it, but a building disappointment in his work since The Dark Knight Strikes Again. And the culmination just so happened to land on one of the most respected creators in funny book history and the mishandling of what could have been his greatest tribute. The next time The Spirit gets a shot at the big-time (if there is a next time) I just pray that someone has the good sense to call Darwyn Cooke. He’s the only pro that seems to really get the source material in my opinion.

If one were to take out the self-loathing , such a sentence would pretty much cover everything from sports fans to political party animals, I believe.

Self-loathing makes comic book fans special

But to re-iterate, I find some of the criticisms too much of a one-track argumentation and fueled more by emotion than analysis. (I cannot completely detach myself from such a reaction… when I saw Matt Smith being cast as the new Dr. Who, I had a rather visceral and very physical reaction to it, which is best left undescribed)

However, Mr. David, to counter a broadsword attack with yet another broadsword in defense only exacerbates things, for especially if it comes from another writer, it can quickly become just as vicious as the original attack, and then people feel offended, they stop arguing and go for each others’ throats.

Which, admittedly, has its time and place, primarily right before a WWF (or whatever wrestling federation is still alive in the colonies) match.

As for humor… as opposed to drama, which translates through times and often through cultural boundaries, humor often gets stopped by changing times or is taken out behind the shed at a border crossing to be shot or at the very least be thoroughly interrogated Jack Bauer style. Humour is not just bound by subjective taste, but also by cultural values that influenced the writer at the time of writing.

It is for that reason, I believe, that there are relatively few comedies left that are primarily based on wordplay and more based on … well, shall we call it Apatow-isms? Frat Boy Slapstick (FBS), because in a world where one needs those 2/3rds of Box Office revenues to feed the LA beast, one will be rather afraid of doing something other than what plays even without words.

Yes, although not nearly as entertaining as the guy Scratchie loves. The journalist who referred to comic book fans as junk-food eating, immature, self-loathing, nerds. I can’t imagine why anyone would say that.

PAD

I suppose, in the final analysis, “The Spirit” shows the difficulties of humor and the incredible subjectivity. The comic series had an incredible amount of humor. It was Eisner’s humor. It’s what he thought was funny. Miller wrote the script, so he put in what HE thought was funny.

Tragedy is easy; comedy is hard. And when comedy doesn’t work, it’s a tragedy.

PAD

530,723,626 The Dark Knight
318,298,180 Iron Man
317,011,114 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
227,946,274 Hancock
223,749,872 WALL-E
215,395,021 Kung Fu Panda
169,937,394 Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa
157,583,232 Quantum of Solace
154,529,187 Horton Hears a Who!
152,637,269 Sex and the City

You ain’t being mean Spirited at all, brother. Youze bein’ honest, nothin’ wrong with that!

FOR GREED.
It’s just downhill for them from here, IMHO.

I made a comment on Kyle’s blog that, no thanks to my freakin’ computer, did not make it. The follow-up did. I’ll try the first comment again, and try it here. Essentially I asked this:

Why are we just pissing on the feet of Frank Miller? OTHER PEOPLE WERE INVOLVED IN THE MAKING OF THIS MOVIE.

Deborah Del Prete, who hired an inexperienced director because his properties after the success of Sin City are “hot” so he’s ready to tackle a film solo? Shame on you, Deborah.

Shame on Lionsgate for jumping on a Spirit 2 and 3 before the film was finished. You think that’s gonna happen? No! Now with two duds in a row their stock has fallen. They’d better hope to God “My Bloody Valentine” breaks even.

Heidi, here’s a question for you: where the hell was the Eisner Estate in all of this, protecting their character? The Estate is made up of people who were close to the man; hell, Denis Kitchen was practically his surrogate son. Not to mention Judith Hanson, who I’ve seen referred to on this site as the “uber-agent.” Why weren’t they making sure that the jewel of Eisner’s crown wasn’t being mucked up? Did they just take the money and run?

If so shame on you Denis and Judith. SHAME ON YOU BOTH.

I hope the $$ was worth throwing Denny Colt under the wheels. Because he lost the most.

Whoosh!