NEW full TRAILER!!!

[IDrawDeadPeople]

The trailer got me hooked onto Spirit and now all I wanna do is learn about the Spirit.

That's awesome.

If you can afford to, get the 'Archives' books collecting the Spirit from the mid to late forties... that was the height of Eisner's creativity on the character... out of his own mouth, not mine... but I agree with him.

However, don't be shocked when you see him wearing blue. Or not having sex with everyone. Or when Octopus doesn't look like a crack head.

Glad you're on board and interested in this stuff.

 

[rogue trooper]

I would guess he does, since the trailer upset him as much as it confused and/or unsettled all of the other Eisner fans (who are not unobjectively loyal to Frank Miller) who have seen it.

Besides, even if he wasn't familiar with Eisner's work, what does that have to do with this trailer... in spite of some commendable moments (which I praised in an earlier post) it reeks of Miller cliches.

Here's a thought... since you claim to be an Eisner fan... if he WASN'T familiar with Eisner's Spirit... do you honestly believe he'd get a good idea of what Eisner's work on the character is actually about?

I saw the trailer with a friend who isn't into comics last night and his response was "wow, it's a movie about sex".


Here's what an uninitiated viewer would learn about 'Eisner's' work from that trailer... There's a man who dresses up in a mask (but we don't know why) and looks for women to have sex with. He is running around in dark alleys with a gun (but we don't know why) looking for more women to have sex with. Even this Ellen woman, who seems to be some sort of positive influence on the Spirit is just looking for kinky sex ('Keep the mask on") so she can "break all sorts of rules" with him.

Then, the womens' pimp shows up ( I guess he's their pimp... he's dressed like one in some scenes and is mad at the sex guy in the mask) and is asking why the sex fiend in the mask is so into women.

And then, the sex addict in the mask floats around in some smoke with a sex woman who wants to be with him forever...

Oh, and the sex guy in the mask shoots a gun (but we don't know why)... but, I think I already mentioned that...


Seriously, I liked a LOT about the trailer (see my previous post), but I actually know these characters. If I didn't know what this trailer was for, I would think it was a mainstream release soft core porn film with some sort of gun toting nut in a mask. Honestly, the trailer doesn't even tell you WHY he's pointing a gun at a naked Sand Saref... who is she? Is he a rapist? What is his character about...? Other than sex?

Put yourself in the shoes of the general audience, who don't know Eisner from Adam... and you get reactions like "Wow! It's a movie about sex!".

1. First, I See Spidey is a "she".

2. In Eisner's books there are alot beautiful, sclantly-clad, sexy women. Like in the trailer.

3. He's not pointing a gun. He's holding hand-cuffs.

4. The books do have a certain sexual innuendo.

 

[C. Lee]

I would guess he does, since the trailer upset him as much as it confused and/or unsettled all of the other Eisner fans (who are not unobjectively loyal to Frank Miller) who have seen it.

Besides, even if he wasn't familiar with Eisner's work, what does that have to do with this trailer... in spite of some commendable moments (which I praised in an earlier post) it reeks of Miller cliches.

Here's a thought... since you claim to be an Eisner fan... if he WASN'T familiar with Eisner's Spirit... do you honestly believe he'd get a good idea of what Eisner's work on the character is actually about?

I saw the trailer with a friend who isn't into comics last night and his response was "wow, it's a movie about sex".


Here's what an uninitiated viewer would learn about 'Eisner's' work from that trailer... There's a man who dresses up in a mask (but we don't know why) and looks for women to have sex with. He is running around in dark alleys with a gun (but we don't know why) looking for more women to have sex with. Even this Ellen woman, who seems to be some sort of positive influence on the Spirit is just looking for kinky sex ('Keep the mask on") so she can "break all sorts of rules" with him.

Then, the womens' pimp shows up ( I guess he's their pimp... he's dressed like one in some scenes and is mad at the sex guy in the mask) and is asking why the sex fiend in the mask is so into women.

And then, the sex addict in the mask floats around in some smoke with a sex woman who wants to be with him forever...

Oh, and the sex guy in the mask shoots a gun (but we don't know why)... but, I think I already mentioned that...


Seriously, I liked a LOT about the trailer (see my previous post), but I actually know these characters. If I didn't know what this trailer was for, I would think it was a mainstream release soft core porn film with some sort of gun toting nut in a mask. Honestly, the trailer doesn't even tell you WHY he's pointing a gun at a naked Sand Saref... who is she? Is he a rapist? What is his character about...? Other than sex?

Put yourself in the shoes of the general audience, who don't know Eisner from Adam... and you get reactions like "Wow! It's a movie about sex!".

I agree. I've read the Spirit for 40 years, I know the characters....but the trailer looked more like a soft core porn ad than anything else. From what I saw....the movie isn't about the comic character "the Spirit"....it's about making a Frank Miller wetdream.

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

1. First, I See Spidey is a "she".

2. In Eisner's books there are alot beautiful, sclantly-clad, sexy women. Like in the trailer.

3. He's not pointing a gun. He's holding hand-cuffs.

4. The books do have a certain sexual innuendo.

1. My apologies to the lady. Unless she is actually a man. In which case, my apologies to the man for apologizing to him as a her.

2. Eisner's books are not 98% scantily clad, sex obsessed women, and only 2% Spirit. Like in the trailer.

3. Even worse. But, good eye... I didn't notice what he had. But, handcuffs make the scene that much more of a smokescreen from what the Spirit is really doing... which is attempting to fight crime. He doesn't get represented as a crime fighter AT ALL in this trailer.

4. Sexual INNUENDO and obsessively-monofocused-on-sex are two different things. One is Eisner's subtlety... the other is Miller's lack of ability to convey subtlety at all.

 

[The Shadow]

Well, I hate to break it to you, but the trailer displayed hardly any of the actual character "the Spirit". So if you read any old comics, they probably won't have much resemblance at all to the trailer you just saw (Thank Goodness). If you want more of what you saw in the trailer, may I suggest Sin City. If you want to learn about the REAL Spirit, I suggest you you read The Best of the Spirit. Its a cheap, DC graphic novel that collects 22 well-known Spirit comics. It will show you essentially who The Spirit is and what his style is and then you'll see that Frank Miller has a very wrong interpretation of it.

 

[rogue trooper]

If you want more of what you saw in the trailer, may I suggest Sin City. If you want to learn about the REAL Spirit, I suggest you you read The Best of the Spirit. Its a cheap, DC graphic novel that collects 22 well-known Spirit comics. It will show you essentially who The Spirit is and what his style is and then you'll see that Frank Miller has a very wrong interpretation of it.

....and I suggest you wait until you see the film before rushing to such dismissable conclusions.

 

[rogue trooper]

One is Eisner's subtlety... the other is Miller's lack of ability to convey subtlety at all.

...ok, if this is your idea of subtlety, I'd hate to think what your conception of "extreme" is. Dude, come on, this is like worthy of Robert Crumb. This picture is more porn than anything that the trailer had. Not that I don't like the picture, mind you.t:

 

[rogue trooper]

Batman's suit has changed some over the years in the comics....the Spirit's clothes didn't. Blue suit with white shirt.

Ahem...

 

[CrimsonMist]

Ahem...

yea, and wasn't that in ONE story? And not to mention, He's wearing a white suit, with a blue shirt. Unlike Miller's, who is wearing all black. Contemporary or not, it looks stupid. The blue suit is what makes him identifiable with fans. He has no logo or symbol.

And there's a difference between Eisner's innuendo and Miller's. It's blatently obvious. Eisner's women may be scantily clad, if you consider low cut dresses with the straps falling to their shoulders scant, but not only is it still tasteful, it's not explicit. I would harldy say Ellen Dolan is a ****e in the comics. In fact, she's far from it. She's a loving, caring woman who looks after The Spirit. How Eisner's books imply that she's anything more is beyond me. An example to use as comparison. In "Dracula"(the novel), Lucy Westerna is a shy, timid, lovely, INNOCENT young woman. In Francis Ford Coppola's crap adaptation, Lucy is a ****e, plain and simple. She's promiscuous, and sleazy, and unlikeable. When Lucy in the novel is bitten by Dracula and dies, it's devastating. And when she becomes a vampire, it's a complete transformation. She's sexual, animalistic. In the film, she's the same person she was in life, only more extreme. It's just another example of people who claim to love the source material, yet change it to the point that fans don't recognize it anymore. Why does Ellen Dolan have to be sleazy and sexual? Why does Plaster of Paris have to be half-naked? Hell, why does Sand Saref have to sleazy as well? I think she's hardly the person to just get naked in front of Denny Colt, regardless of their past. In the comic she's still innocent, who hates how her life turned out.

as i said in another post, the first teaser excited me. This new one does not.

 

[rogue trooper]

Double post.

 

[rogue trooper]

yea, and wasn't that in ONE story? And not to mention, He's wearing a white suit, with a blue shirt. Unlike Miller's, who is wearing all black. Contemporary or not, it looks stupid. The blue suit is what makes him identifiable with fans. He has no logo or symbol.

And there's a difference between Eisner's innuendo and Miller's. It's blatently obvious. Eisner's women may be scantily clad, if you consider low cut dresses with the straps falling to their shoulders scant, but not only is it still tasteful, it's not explicit. I would harldy say Ellen Dolan is a ****e in the comics. In fact, she's far from it. She's a loving, caring woman who looks after The Spirit. How Eisner's books imply that she's anything more is beyond me. An example to use as comparison. In "Dracula"(the novel), Lucy Westerna is a shy, timid, lovely, INNOCENT young woman. In Francis Ford Coppola's crap adaptation, Lucy is a ****e, plain and simple. She's promiscuous, and sleazy, and unlikeable. When Lucy in the novel is bitten by Dracula and dies, it's devastating. And when she becomes a vampire, it's a complete transformation. She's sexual, animalistic. In the film, she's the same person she was in life, only more extreme. It's just another example of people who claim to love the source material, yet change it to the point that fans don't recognize it anymore. Why does Ellen Dolan have to be sleazy and sexual? Why does Plaster of Paris have to be half-naked? Hell, why does Sand Saref have to sleazy as well? I think she's hardly the person to just get naked in front of Denny Colt, regardless of their past. In the comic she's still innocent, who hates how her life turned out.

as i said in another post, the first teaser excited me. This new one does not.

...well, hey, maybe he'll wear black only in this one movie. And if not, maybe it's for the best. Miller already stated that the blue was tried and did not work. You think the black looks stupid? Well, The Phantom wore the exact same costume as in the comics and alot of people who are non-fans, who happen to be most moviegoers, thought he looked ridiculous or stupid. Get me?

How are Miller's women in The Spirit film(not Sin City) more explecit, exactly? Where do you get off saying Ellen is a ****e?!! One thing there is between Denny and Ellen is romance and that is what I saw in the trailer. There is nothing in the trailer that implies that she is not a caring woman either.

Sand Saref did get naked. What happens afterwards, we don't know. Maybe she's doing it to distract Spirit and escape from him or trick him. Who knows.

I don't care what Coppola did. I do know that from what I've see so far from Miller's Spirit, nothing has struck me significantly distant from Eisner.

Why is Plaster half naked? Well, why not, dude? If it's too much for you, you can always cover your eyes until you're ready for that sort of stuff.


PS. Look at the picture from Eisner in my last response to IDDP. That's more hard core than anything in the trailer. And again, I don't have a problem with the cover.

 

[Spider-Fan]

My non-comic fan friend said that this movie looks like a porno (to which I said yet another reason to see it t

But I do agree, the trailer focused way too much on the women, and gave us nothing concrete as far as story. I don't see how non-comic people can even gather what The Spirit is about from this.

 

[Sandman138]

...ok, if this is your idea of subtlety, I'd hate to think what your conception of "extreme" is. Dude, come on, this is like worthy of Robert Crumb.

Really? That really looks like a Mr. Natural strip to you? Or a Snood comic? Or that strip where he shows a father ****ing his daughter and a mother ****ing her son and then the whole family having an orgy in graphic detail? Hell that doesn't even come close to Fritz the Cat or Hup Ho. Even as hyperbole your statement is an abject failure.

This picture is more porn than anything that the trailer had. Not that I don't like the picture, mind you.t:

But examine the ratio. If the trailer is any indication, every single issue of The Spirit has a cover comparable, in terms of sexual content, to the one you just posted. A quick glance through just the Archive covers reveals more variety. I'm not saying that The Spirit should deny innuendo or even overt sexuality, but it should strive for a little balance.

 

[C. Lee]

Ahem...

Let's see.....in 99% of his stories, The Spirit wore a blue suit with a white shirt......so you produce a couple of pics of him wearing a white suit and light blue shirt to justify Miller having him in all black. By your example....it still shows that Miller didn't get his clothes right.

 

[rogue trooper]

Let's see.....in 99% of his stories, The Spirit wore a blue suit with a white shirt......so you produce a couple of pics of him wearing a white suit and light blue shirt to justify Miller having him in all black. By your example....it still shows that Miller didn't get his clothes right.

Ok, so you say he didn't get his clothes right and I say he made them more adequate for cinema, as he already explained why, and it shows, imo.

 

[rogue trooper]

Really? That really looks like a Mr. Natural strip to you? Or a Snood comic? Or that strip where he shows a father ****ing his daughter and a mother ****ing her son and then the whole family having an orgy in graphic detail? Hell that doesn't even come close to Fritz the Cat or Hup Ho. Even as hyperbole your statement is an abject failure.



But examine the ratio. If the trailer is any indication, every single issue of The Spirit has a cover comparable, in terms of sexual content, to the one you just posted. A quick glance through just the Archive covers reveals more variety. I'm not saying that The Spirit should deny innuendo or even overt sexuality, but it should strive for a little balance.

I never suggested what the inside of the comic contained. The cover does, however, have a certain "underground" comic vibe. Kinda' like the Fritz The Cat cover where Fritz is sitting close to the chick and putting his hand in you-know-where.

Whatever you may think of the trailer, I feel certain that there will be more to the actual film than what you saw there. And I don't mean just the babes.

 

[CrimsonMist]

...well, hey, maybe he'll wear black only in this one movie. And if not, maybe it's for the best. Miller already stated that the blue was tried and did not work. You think the black looks stupid? Well, The Phantom wore the exact same costume as in the comics and alot of people who are non-fans, who happen to be most moviegoers, thought he looked ridiculous or stupid. Get me?

1. A lot of general movie goers are stupid.

2. The Phantom was a period piece, and the suit fit the atmosphere of the movie, and as far as i'm concerned, look great. Would you prefer he wear a deep purple, sculpted rubber suit?

3. The blue suit doesn't work, because it looks like The Spirit is at a Halloween party. But Samuel L. Jackson dressing like a nazi, a pimp, and a samurai, for what seems just for the hell of it, looks normal? Tell me you're kidding. and like C. Lee said. A White shirt would have been nice, ATLEAST! Miller's logic with this one seems really...out there.

How are Miller's women in The Spirit film(not Sin City) more explecit, exactly? Where do you get off saying Ellen is a ****e?!! One thing there is between Denny and Ellen is romance and that is what I saw in the trailer. There is nothing in the trailer that implies that she is not a caring woman either.

What i saw in Ellen Dolan in that trailer is the SAME thing i saw in Miller's Black Canary in All Star Batman & Robin. The SAME EXACT THING. Why can't Miller do something else with the character? Darwyn Cooke did, to great effect. Miller claimed she was pretty useless, but some would beg to differ. She isn't, and i think Miller's using her all wrong. And how are they more explicit than Eisner's women? Simple. It's Frank Miller. Everything's more extreme than everything before it with him. Be it Sin City or All-Star Batman. And the argument has already been put forth that Miller writes women as nothing more than sex objects. And were this an original Miller creation, it probably wouldn't be that big a deal for me, but this isn't his work. This is something far beyond his work. This isn't Batman. He can turn Selina Kyle into a prostitute for all i care, but not Ellen Dolan or Sand Saref.

I don't care what Coppola did. I do know that from what I've see so far from Miller's Spirit, nothing has struck me significantly distant from Eisner.

Why is Plaster half naked? Well, why not, dude? If it's too much for you, you can always cover your eyes until you're ready for that sort of stuff.

You should care what Coppola did, because it's a prime example of a man who claims to know and love the source material, and when you see everything he does, you realize he just pissed all over the source material, still thinking he did nothing wrong.

Plaster is half-naked. It's just another point in saying Miller goes to the extremes more than Eisner's. Eisner's women seduce you. Miller's women practically go "HEY LOOK! I'M NAKED!!!" Is it necessary? No. So why do it?

PS. Look at the picture from Eisner in my last response to IDDP. That's more hard core than anything in the trailer. And again, I don't have a problem with the cover.

You honestly believe that picture is more hardcore than anything you saw in that trailer? You're crazy.

 

[rogue trooper]

1. A lot of general movie goers are stupid.


2. The Phantom was a period piece, and the suit fit the atmosphere of the movie, and as far as i'm concerned, look great. Would you prefer he wear a deep purple, sculpted rubber suit?

3. The blue suit doesn't work, because it looks like The Spirit is at a Halloween party. But Samuel L. Jackson dressing like a nazi, a pimp, and a samurai, for what seems just for the hell of it, looks normal? Tell me you're kidding. and like C. Lee said. A White shirt would have been nice, ATLEAST! Miller's logic with this one seems really...out there.


What i saw in Ellen Dolan in that trailer is the SAME thing i saw in Miller's Black Canary in All Star Batman & Robin. The SAME EXACT THING. Why can't Miller do something else with the character? Darwyn Cooke did, to great effect. Miller claimed she was pretty useless, but some would beg to differ. She isn't, and i think Miller's using her all wrong. And how are they more explicit than Eisner's women? Simple. It's Frank Miller. Everything's more extreme than everything before it with him. Be it Sin City or All-Star Batman. And the argument has already been put forth that Miller writes women as nothing more than sex objects. And were this an original Miller creation, it probably wouldn't be that big a deal for me, but this isn't his work. This is something far beyond his work. This isn't Batman. He can turn Selina Kyle into a prostitute for all i care, but not Ellen Dolan or Sand Saref.


You should care what Coppola did, because it's a prime example of a man who claims to know and love the source material, and when you see everything he does, you realize he just pissed all over the source material, still thinking he did nothing wrong.

Plaster is half-naked. It's just another point in saying Miller goes to the extremes more than Eisner's. Eisner's women seduce you. Miller's women practically go "HEY LOOK! I'M NAKED!!!" Is it necessary? No. So why do it?

You honestly believe that picture is more hardcore than anything you saw in that trailer? You're crazy.

1 Agreed, but The Spirit's black suit still looks cool.

2 I loved The Phantom's look in the film, personally. I will say that in terms of color, this could also have been a way to go:

3. The nazi outfit on Sam Jackson is odd, I'll admit. The samurai and "pimp" suits look pretty good. I have absolutely no problem with The Spirit's black shirt.

I don't think Ellen Dolan is behaving like a ****e. And you don't really know that's how she will be portrayed, for you have not seen the film.
Sam Raimi's Evil Dead films and Darkman were all moody, scary, and macabre. Spider-Man wasn't like that now was it? I think it's a big mistake for you to simply assume because of Miller's previous work that he'll do the same here.

I know what The Spirit is about. When I see the movie, I'll know how faithful Miller is.

There are alot things in this world that are not necessary, but they do no harm either.


I'm crazy? Maybe you need glasses or you need to clean them.

 

[The Shadow]

I wish Miller never made this movie. He is ruining the Spirit. I don't care what you say. This is not the Spirit and its not supposed to look like a pornographic film. First and foremost the Spirit is detective not a "player". Miller is blowing the fact that the Spirit has attractive femme fatals as villians way out of proportion. And in the comics, he doesn't engage in intercourse with them. From this trailer, the movie looks like a cross between Sin City and a pornagraphic film with a hint of crappy ninja movie with bad special fx. I'm not picking up any trace of the Spirit in this. Miller just needs to stop and let someone else take over this project.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I am far from republican. Everytime I see Sean Hannity I want to slap him. But this is just very hyper- sensitive of you.

Do you even know anything about The Spirit and Will Eisner?

I don't know a thing about the comic but I do know that the movie looks like crap to me and almost ruined my enjoyment of the Watchmen teaser.

 

[The Shadow]

Yay, more people that agree with me.

 

[Sandman138]

I don't think Ellen Dolan is behaving like a ****e. And you don't really know that's how she will be portrayed, for you have not seen the film.
Sam Raimi's Evil Dead films and Darkman were all moody, scary, and macabre. Spider-Man wasn't like that now was it? I think it's a big mistake for you to simply assume because of Miller's previous work that he'll do the same here.

I know what The Spirit is about. When I see the movie, I'll know how faithful Miller is.

I'm glad that you have the 8-12 dollars to risk on the movie being different from the trailer. I don't and regardless of whether the movie is good or not, the trailer is still terrible. That's what we are talking about, that's what the thread title is referencing: the trailer. Don't apologize for it by using a movie that doesn't exist yet.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^Exactly.

 

[javi1024]

^I See Spidey, i gotta say i LOVE your avatar. t:

 

[rogue trooper]

I'm glad that you have the 8-12 dollars to risk on the movie being different from the trailer. I don't and regardless of whether the movie is good or not, the trailer is still terrible. That's what we are talking about, that's what the thread title is referencing: the trailer. Don't apologize for it by using a movie that doesn't exist yet.

I actually liked the trailer and I'm not apologizing for anything. You didn't like the trailer, that's fine too. I just "think" that there will be more to the film than what was presented there. My opinion.