The Spirit: The Movie Visual Companion

[mego joe]

No, it's one of my favorite films and I didn't nitpick all the deviations from the Batman source material in Burton's two Batman films, just as I'm not nitpick all the deviations from the Spirit source material in Miller's film.
.

There's a difference between details and substance. Burton changed mostly details and little substance. Miller is changing far too much substance to call this film the Spirit.

They did change Batman's origin by having the Joker be the killer of his parents instead of Joe Chill, but that and all the other changes to Batman didn't bother me because it worked well in the film. And the changes to The Spirit are not bothering me because it looks like it will work well in the film to me.

IMO, despite the changes from source material in the Batman films, they still got Batman right. Napier killing Bruce's parents worked for a one off Joker story. It didn't change the fact that Bruce's parents were victims of a random street crime. In the case of the Spirit- being in suspended animation and coming around as a regular guy to fight crime is substantially different than actually dying and then coming back to life with superpowers. That's two different characters

Jack Nicholson's Joker was way over-the-top, too, but I wouldn't call him campy, however, I know other people disagree.

Compared to Ledger's Joker he was campy, but there is a place for an over the top bombastic Joker- certainly when he pulled out the gun that was as long as his leg was campy- that could have come out of the Batman TV show.

The Octopus is a completely different character under Miller and except for the gloves bears no resemblance whatsoever to his comic book counterpart.

I was being sarcastic.

Couldn't tell.

We shall see.

Yep.

 

[theMan-Bat]

There's a difference between details and substance. Burton changed mostly details and little substance. Miller is changing far too much substance to call this film the Spirit.

IMO, despite the changes from source material in the Batman films, they still got Batman right. Napier killing Bruce's parents worked for a one off Joker story. It didn't change the fact that Bruce's parents were victims of a random street crime. In the case of the Spirit- being in suspended animation and coming around as a regular guy to fight crime is substantially different than actually dying and then coming back to life with superpowers. That's two different characters

Miller didn't change the fact that he's detective Denny Colt who's lifeless body is pronounced dead and rises alive. He's extraordinary quality to take ridiculous amounts of punishment is present in Eisner's Spirit comics, Miller has expanded upon that. I see this as an expansion of the character, not a completely different character.

"Substantially different? Two different characters?" The same has been said of Tim Burton's Batman and the comic book Batman - being a guy who loathes killing and refuses to use a gun is substantially different than a guy who gleefully kills and has no problem using a gun. That's two different characters. Tim Burton's Batman is just not Batman to some Batman comic book fanboys, as Frank Miller's Spirit is just not The Spirit to you and some other Spirit comic book fanboys.

Compared to Ledger's Joker he was campy, but there is a place for an over the top bombastic Joker- certainly when he pulled out the gun that was as long as his leg was campy- that could have come out of the Batman TV show.

Jack Nicholson's Joker is certainly over-the-top, truly bizarre and bombastic, but not really campy. He wasn't making fun of and parodying the character. Camp is a form of parody.

The Octopus is a completely different character under Miller and except for the gloves bears no resemblance whatsoever to his comic book counterpart.

He's still a criminal mastermind in Central City with henchmen and wears gloves with three strips and disguises/costumes (he dressed up as his own mother in the comics, which brings to mind Norman Bates in Psycho) and kidnapped and beat the heck of out of The Spirit. And on top of that Frank Miller and Samuel L. Jackson have also expanded the character making him far more memorable, interesting and entertaining than he ever was in the comics. Keeping him in the shadows all the time throughout the whole movie would get old and tiresome awful fast.

FM:With The Octopus,
yeah, we had a pair of gloves in the sense of
a nemesis that was kept deliberately out of
sight and undefined by Eisner. The only way
to take the work of a short story writer and
to adapt it to the long-form of a screenplay
was to flesh out his nemesis because, you
know, at first I felt that Eisner was of the
school of Raymond Chandler another
favorite novelist of mine. I realized he
really owed a lot more to O. Henry, and his
short story sensibility needed some healthy
expansion.

Couldn't tell.

Sorry.

Yep.

Yes, indeed!

 

[mego joe]

Miller didn't change the fact that he's detective Denny Colt who's lifeless body is pronounced dead and rises alive.

Yes he did. He's not dead in the comics, he only appears dead- in the film he actually comes back from the dead. This is a big difference.

He's extraordinary quality to take ridiculous amounts of punishment is present in Eisner's Spirit comics, Miller has expanded upon that.

No Miller has changed the substance of that. In the comics he takes punishment, but reasonable punishment like a prize fighter might and he pushes his normal human body to its limits. In Miller's film the reason he can survive 'ridiculous amounts of punishment' is that he has a superpower. Giving a character a superpower changes the substance of the character. They may seem the same superficially, but the substance is completely difference- there is no danger for him now. He's superpowered and can take anything. It's not about a man pushing himself to limits it's about a superpower. It's completely different. It's like saying Superman and Batman stepping in front of a bullet is the same to each character. It's clearly not the same. THose two characters are as different as Eisner's Spirit and Miller's Spirit when it comes to physical damage. Eisner's SPirit and Batman are normal humans who push themselves. SUperman and Miller's Spirit are superpowered and don't have to worry about physical damage. How can you not see the obvious difference in substance.

I see this as an expansion of the character, not a completely different character.

It's not an expansion- it's a reinvention. It would be an expansion if Miller gave a detailed backstory of why normal/ non-superpowered Denny Colt is able to push himself and his body to such limits. To give him superpowers is not an expansion- it's a cop out in lieu of storytelling of substance.

"Substantially different? Two different characters?" The same has been said of Tim Burton's Batman and the comic book Batman - being a guy who loathes killing and refuses to use a gun is substantially different than a guy who gleefully kills and has no problem using a gun. That's two different characters.

I suggest you read some of the Batman stories from his first couple of years in which he carries a gun. Flies a Batplane mounted with machine guns and uses those guns to kill people. If I recall correctly in another thread you even stated you prefered the 'original' versions of characters as developed by their creators. So I figure you are fully aware of this aspect of early Batman comics.

FOr the record- I don't recall Batman gleefully killing anyone in Burton's Batman films. I do know that he threw some guys down the stairwell in the church in Batman '89 and he blew up a guy in the street with his own bomb in Batman Returns.

As far as using a gun, I don't believe he actually shoots anyone in Batman '89 though he does shoot at the Joker in the street. SOmething he cetainly didn't do was carry a handgun and shoot the average street criminal.

Tim Burton's Batman is just not Batman to some Batman fans, as Frank Miller's Spirit is just not The Spirit to you and some other Spirit fans.

The difference is that you can make an argument from the decisions Burton made in his fims from the earliest comics- with Miller there is no such argument. The Spirit never had superpowers in the comics- he was not a killer and he never had such ridiculous dialogue. Based on the trailer s and spoilers the things that make the substance of the Spirit in the comics are just not present in Miller's character- and they've been purposely changed by Miller.

Jack Nicholson's Joker is certainly over-the-top, truly bizarre and bombastic, but not really campy. He wasn't making fun of and parodying the character. Camp is a form of parody.

Well, while I like Nicholson's Joker, I find some of it to be in the vein of camp- some of it is not serious- the gun I mentioned earlier. My point is simply this: This Joker exists in the comics, Miller's Octopus is a completely new invention. Period.

He's still a criminal mastermind in Central City with henchmen and wears gloves with three strips and disguises/costumes (he dressed up as his own mother, which brings to mind Norman Bates in Psycho) and kidnapped and beat the heck of out of The Spirit. And on top of that Frank Miller and Samuel L. Jackson have also expanded the character making him far more memorable, interesting and entertaining than he ever was in the comics.

I don't think so. The bombastic over-the-top Octopus is not more interesting, or entertaining. Maybe for people who don't want to think. But a villian who is nearly always hidden and mysterious is far more intriguing and more dramatic than the ridiculous Miller Octopus. In horror and crime films it's far more entertaining to be led along slowly than to have it all right in front of you. Louder and noisier is not always better- especially when the substance of the Octopus is mystery, living in the shadows and simply being almost untouchable b/c he is an unkown quantity. It's what set him apart from the Spirit's other villian, it's what makes him the Spirit's arch-enemy. Miller's turned him into something that's not special, that doesn't stand out, something that's so much like the other over-the-top villains we've seen in comic book films- Nicholson's Joker, Tommy Lee Jone's as Two-Face, Jim Carrey as the Riddler. You've see this guy before, what we haven't seen is an arch enemy who is nearly completely unknown and untouchable.

Keeping him in the shadows all the time throughout the whole movie would get old and tiresome awful fast.

You keep saying that, but that's how mysteries work. That's how horror movies work. You keep the truth hidden until the last moment when it's reveal has the most impact. Think about the reveal with Boo Radley in "To Kill A MOckingbird." There's a character who played as mysterious and 'in the shadows' and it's not until the reveal near the end that you really understand him. That's creative storytelling. That's good storytelling. That's interesting storytelling.

FM:With The Octopus,
yeah, we had a pair of gloves in the sense of
a nemesis that was kept deliberately out of
sight and undefined by Eisner. The only way
to take the work of a short story writer and
to adapt it to the long-form of a screenplay
was to flesh out his nemesis because, you
know, at first I felt that Eisner was of the
school of Raymond Chandler another
favorite novelist of mine. I realized he
really owed a lot more to O. Henry, and his
short story sensibility needed some healthy
expansion.

It's clear that Miller doesn't get the concept of the Octopus and he's trying to make what sound to be legitimate excuses for bastardizing Eisner's work. It doesn't fool Eisner fans. Miller is simply taking brillaint characters and storytelling and reducing it, dumbing it down for mass consumption. But I think it will backfire on him. The Dark Knight was just the opposite. It raised the bar on comic films and it was hugely popular and critically lauded. There is nothing that's going to separate Miller's Spirit from any handful of action films b/c he's using so many over used cliche's. He's made what was unique and smart, common and stupid.

Sorry.

Yes, indeed!

I can't wait to read the reviews and spoilers. Yawn!

 

[theMan-Bat]

Yes he did. He's not dead in the comics, he only appears dead- in the film he actually comes back from the dead. This is a big difference.

Don't sweat the details.

No Miller has changed the substance of that. In the comics he takes punishment, but reasonable punishment like a prize fighter might and he pushes his normal human body to its limits. In Miller's film the reason he can survive 'ridiculous amounts of punishment' is that he has a superpower. Giving a character a superpower changes the substance of the character. They may seem the same superficially, but the substance is completely difference- there is no danger for him now. He's superpowered and can take anything. It's not about a man pushing himself to limits it's about a superpower. It's completely different. It's like saying Superman and Batman stepping in front of a bullet is the same to each character. It's clearly not the same. THose two characters are as different as Eisner's Spirit and Miller's Spirit when it comes to physical damage. Eisner's SPirit and Batman are normal humans who push themselves. SUperman and Miller's Spirit are superpowered and don't have to worry about physical damage. How can you not see the obvious difference in substance.


It's not an expansion- it's a reinvention. It would be an expansion if Miller gave a detailed backstory of why normal/ non-superpowered Denny Colt is able to push himself and his body to such limits. To give him superpowers is not an expansion- it's a cop out in lieu of storytelling of substance.

It doesn't completely change the Spirit. There is still danger for him. He can still be badly hurt.

I suggest you read some of the Batman stories from his first couple of years in which he carries a gun. Flies a Batplane mounted with machine guns and uses those guns to kill people. If I recall correctly in another thread you even stated you prefered the 'original' versions of characters as developed by their creators. So I figure you are fully aware of this aspect of early Batman comics.

Yes, I am fully aware of that, and I'm not one of the fanboys complaining about Burton's Batman films, and I'm not complaining about Miller's Spirit film either.

FOr the record- I don't recall Batman gleefully killing anyone in Burton's Batman films. I do know that he threw some guys down the stairwell in the church in Batman '89 and he blew up a guy in the street with his own bomb in Batman Returns.

He gleefully smiled as he blew up the circus strong man in the street with the bomb, it wasn't his own bomb, it was a clowns...
[YT]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ruNo86YnRi8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ruNo86YnRi8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YT]

As far as using a gun, I don't believe he actually shoots anyone in Batman '89 though he does shoot at the Joker in the street. SOmething he cetainly didn't do was carry a handgun and shoot the average street criminal.

He shot the Joker's gang with rocket launcers.
[YT]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DyA3BMltIUI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DyA3BMltIUI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YT]
He also killed many of Joker's gang when he blew up Axis Chemicals with the explosive from the Batmobile.
[YT]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jdwPE_1qVTU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jdwPE_1qVTU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YT]

The difference is that you can make an argument from the decisions Burton made in his fims from the earliest comics

The Joker didn't "make him" by killing his parents in the earliest comics, the Joker was never a gangster and mob boss named Jack Napier and he didn't have a perminant smile in the earliest comics, Vicki Vale didn't know Batman's secret idenity in the earliest comics, Catwoman was never a secretery who acts like a cat (puting a bird in her mouth and bathing herself like a cat) and semingly having cat-like superpowers (9 lives and cat-like reflexes), the Penguin was never a deformed slob with black circles around his eyes and black lips like Edward Scissorhands and flipers for hands and raised in the sewer with actual penguins and a circus gang in the comics. Jack Napier, Bob the Goon, Carl Grissom, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_HallAlicia Hunt, lieutenant Eckhardt, Alexander Knox, both Mayors, Max Shreck, his son Chip, the Red Triangle Circus Gang, the Ice Princess: none of these characters are in the comics. Tim Burton and his scriptwriters Sam Hamm and Dan Waters just made them all up.

- with Miller there is no such argument. The Spirit never had superpowers in the comics- he was not a killer and he never had such ridiculous dialogue. Based on the trailer s and spoilers the things that make the substance of the Spirit in the comics are just not present in Miller's character- and they've been purposely changed by Miller.

He's still middle-class detective Denny Colt who's lifeless body is pronounced dead and rises alive. As an officially "dead" man, Colt decides to fight crime as the Spirit, and he apparently still lives in Wildwood Cemetery (we see a sign that says "Wildwood" in the trailer), and is a freelance detective in Central City for Police Commissioner Dolan. He doesn't use a gun. He has a tongue-in-check sense of humor and he's kind of clumsy. His arch enemy is the Octopus and his true love is Dolan's daughter Ellen.

Well, while I like Nicholson's Joker, I find some of it to be in the vein of camp- some of it is not serious- the gun I mentioned earlier. My point is simply this: This Joker exists in the comics, Miller's Octopus is a completely new invention. Period.

He's still a criminal mastermind in Central City with henchmen and wears gloves with three strips and disguises/costumes (he dressed up as his own mother in the comics, which brings to mind Norman Bates in Psycho) and kidnapped and beat the heck of out of The Spirit.

I don't think so. The bombastic over-the-top Octopus is not more interesting, or entertaining. Maybe for people who don't want to think. But a villian who is nearly always hidden and mysterious is far more intriguing and more dramatic than the ridiculous Miller Octopus. In horror and crime films it's far more entertaining to be led along slowly than to have it all right in front of you. Louder and noisier is not always better- especially when the substance of the Octopus is mystery, living in the shadows and simply being almost untouchable b/c he is an unkown quantity. It's what set him apart from the Spirit's other villian, it's what makes him the Spirit's arch-enemy. Miller's turned him into something that's not special, that doesn't stand out, something that's so much like the other over-the-top villains we've seen in comic book films- Nicholson's Joker, Tommy Lee Jone's as Two-Face, Jim Carrey as the Riddler. You've see this guy before, what we haven't seen is an arch enemy who is nearly completely unknown and untouchable.

Samuel L. Jackson's Octopus doesn't remind me of Tommy Lee Jones' light-hearted giggling Two-Face and Jim Carrey's hyper-active giggling Riddler. The theaterical performances Samuel L. Jackson's Octopus reminds me of are Samuel L. Jackson as over-the-top killer Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction, the insane comic book villain obsessed Elijah Price in Unbreakable and Jack Nicholson's over-the-top insane vane Joker in Batman.

You've see this guy before, what we haven't seen is an arch enemy who is nearly completely unknown and untouchable.

I've seen arch enemies nearly completely unknown and in the shadows throughout movies before, too. Dr. Claw in Inspector Gadget, the Blank in Dick Tracy (revealed to be Breathless Mahoney at the end), Blofeld in the James Bond films From Russia with Love and Thunderball. It's all been done before. Do I find that more entertaining? No. I find that to be an over used cliche.

You keep saying that, but that's how mysteries work. That's how horror movies work. You keep the truth hidden until the last moment when it's reveal has the most impact. Think about the reveal with Boo Radley in "To Kill A MOckingbird." There's a character who played as mysterious and 'in the shadows' and it's not until the reveal near the end that you really understand him. That's creative storytelling. That's good storytelling. That's interesting storytelling.

Eisner's Octopus was never revealed. He was always in the shadows. So there would be no reveal near the end, no keeping the truth hidden until the last moment if a movie is slavishly faithful to Eisner's comics as you seem to want it to be.

It's clear that Miller doesn't get the concept of the Octopus and he's trying to make what sound to be legitimate excuses for bastardizing Eisner's work. It doesn't fool Eisner fans. Miller is simply taking brillaint characters and storytelling and reducing it, dumbing it down for mass consumption. But I think it will backfire on him. The Dark Knight was just the opposite. It raised the bar on comic films and it was hugely popular and critically lauded. There is nothing that's going to separate Miller's Spirit from any handful of action films b/c he's using so many over used cliche's. He's made what was unique and smart, common and stupid.

Okay, mego joe, I get it, you've decided to hate this movie, which we haven't see yet, and you are entiled to your opinion but maybe you should wait to watch the movie in December before you decide it's dumb and stupid. How could anyone possibly say, since none of us has seen Miller's film yet? You might end up liking it after all, if you can enjoy it without nitpicking everything that differs from the comics, or groaning over Miller's old-fashion dialogue considered corny by many folks today.

I can't wait to read the reviews and spoilers. Yawn!

You seem so jaded and bitter. Cheez-Louise, buddy. Lighten up.

 

[mego joe]

Don't sweat the details.

In this particular case it's the details that change the substance- so I will worry about it.

It doesn't completely change the Spirit. There is still danger for him. He can still be badly hurt.

If he heals overnight he's got nothing to worry about does he?

Yes, I am fully aware of that, and I'm not one of the fanboys complaining about Burton's Batman films, and I'm not complaining about Miller's Spirit film either.



He gleefully smiled as he blew up the circus strong man in the street with the bomb, it wasn't his own bomb, it was a clowns...



He shot the Joker's gang with rocket launcers.
He also killed many of Joker's gang when he blew up Axis Chemicals with the explosive from the Batmobile.



The Joker didn't "make him" by killing his parents in the earliest comics, the Joker was never a gangster and mob boss named Jack Napier and he didn't have a perminant smile in the earliest comics, Vicki Vale didn't know Batman's secret idenity in the earliest comics, Catwoman was never a secretery who acts like a cat (puting a bird in her mouth and bathing herself like a cat) and semingly having cat-like superpowers (9 lives and cat-like reflexes), the Penguin was never a deformed slob with black circles around his eyes and black lips like Edward Scissorhands and flipers for hands and raised in the sewer with actual penguins and a circus gang in the comics. Jack Napier, Bob the Goon, Carl Grissom, Alicia Hunt, lieutenant Eckhardt, Alexander Knox, Mayor , Max Shreck, his son Chip, the Red Triangle Circus Gang, the Ice Princess: none of these characters are in the comics. Tim Burton and his scriptwriters Sam Hamm and Dan Waters just made them all up.

I know that the Burton films feature a lot of differences, but they are differences that don't really change the substance of things. Vicki Vale is really the Silver St. Cloud character. There's always been some collateral damage in Batman stories when it comes to the thugs of the criminals. But the essence of the character, the substance of Batman is maintained- but that's not what we're getting in The Spirit. To me we're getting a Frank Miller character-not a Will Eisner character, and that's just wrong since the Spirit IS Eisner.

He's still middle-class detective Denny Colt who's lifeless body is pronounced dead and rises alive. As an officially "dead" man, Colt decides to fight crime as the Spirit, and he apparently still lives in Wildwood Cemetery (we see a sign that says "Wildwood" in the trailer), and is a freelance detective in Central City for Police Commissioner Dolan. He doesn't use a gun. He has a tongue-in-check sense of humor and he's kind of clumsy. His arch enemy is the Octopus and his true love is Dolan's daughter Ellen.

There are so many superficialities there that don't make the Spirit who he is as a character. Miller's approach just does not feel like the Spirit in substance.

He's still a criminal mastermind in Central City with henchmen and wears gloves with three strips and disguises/costumes (he dressed up as his own mother in the comics, which brings to mind Norman Bates in Psycho) and kidnapped and beat the heck of out of The Spirit.

Again, superficial description- not a description of substance.

Samuel L. Jackson's Octopus doesn't remind me of Tommy Lee Jones' light-hearted giggling Two-Face and Jim Carrey's hyper-active giggling Riddler. The theaterical performances Samuel L. Jackson's Octopus reminds me of are Samuel L. Jackson as over-the-top killer Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction, the insane comic book villain obsessed Elijah Price in Unbreakable and Jack Nicholson's over-the-top insane vane Joker in Batman.

The Octopus looks and sounds like an idiot. He's completely different as portrayed in the comics.

I've seen arch enemies nearly completely unknown and in the shadows throughout movies before, too. Dr. Claw in Inspector Gadget, the Blank in Dick Tracy (revealed to be Breathless Mahoney at the end), Blofeld in the James Bond films From Russia with Love and Thunderball. It's all been done before. Do I find that more entertaining? No. I find that to be an over used cliche.



Eisner's Octopus was never revealed. He was always in the shadows. So there would be no reveal near the end, no keeping the truth hidden until the last moment if a movie is slavishly faithful to Eisner's comics as you seem to want it to be.

Perhaps the reveal isn't necessarily a reveal of what he really looks like. Creativity- not cliche.

Okay, mego joe, I get it, you've decided to hate this movie, which we haven't see yet, and you are entiled to your opinion but maybe you should wait to watch the movie in December before you decide it's dumb and stupid. How could anyone possibly say, since none of us has seen Miller's film yet? You might end up liking it after all, if you can enjoy it without nitpicking everything that differs from the comics, or groaning over Miller's old-fashion dialogue considered corny by many folks today.

Miller's dialogue isn't old-fashioned, it's just lame. It sounds stupid b/c it's bad, b/c it doesn't fit the characters.

THere is almost no chance I will see this movie. If what I've seen from the trailers are in the film there is no reason to see it. I can already tell that it's going to be a bad film and a horrible adaptation of the Spirit. (Heck, I knew that as soon as MIller was announced as the writer and director.) Any comic fan who knows Eisner and Miller knows that Miller is not the person to translate Eisner's work. It's a no-brainer.

So why put myself through the hell of suffering through the film. I did it once with SUperman Returns, I'll not do it again.

You seem so jaded and bitter. Cheez-Louise, buddy. Lighten up.

Eisner's work deserves better than to be hacked up by anyone especially Frank Miller.

 

[theMan-Bat]

In this particular case it's the details that change the substance- so I will worry about it.

No fuss from me. They are differences that don't really change the substance, the essence of the character. He's still detective Denny Colt who's lifeless body is pronounced dead and rises alive. As an officially "dead" man, Colt decides to fight crime as the Spirit. That's the essential part; the most significant element.

It doesn't really matter, to me, if Denny Colt was literally killed and came back by the Octopus' experiment or if Colt was put in suspanded animation by Dr. Cobra's experiment and came back, the essential part is that Colt's lifeless body was pronounced dead and rised alive, and as an officially "dead" man, Colt decides to fight crime as the Spirit. Just as it doesn't really matter, to me, if Wayne's parents were killed by the Joker for a thrill, meaning Joker made Batman, or if they were killed by Joe Chill who only wanted money, the essential part is that they were killed, so Bruce Wayne decides to fight crime and thus becomes Batman.

If he heals overnight he's got nothing to worry about does he?

He has excruciating pain to worry about.

I know that the Burton films feature a lot of differences, but they are differences that don't really change the substance of things. Vicki Vale is really the Silver St. Cloud character. There's always been some collateral damage in Batman stories when it comes to the thugs of the criminals. But the essence of the character, the substance of Batman is maintained- but that's not what we're getting in The Spirit. To me we're getting a Frank Miller character-not a Will Eisner character, and that's just wrong since the Spirit IS Eisner.

Eisner allowed Miller to do his own interpretation, he's own take. The only condition that he made was that he would not try to be Will Eisner. So Miller is doing his own interpretation, he's own take.

There are so many superficialities there that don't make the Spirit who he is as a character.

The character is middle-class detective Denny Colt who's lifeless body is pronounced dead and rises alive. As an officially "dead" man, Colt decides to fight crime as the Spirit, and he apparently still lives in Wildwood Cemetery (we see a sign that says "Wildwood" in the trailer), and is a freelance detective in Central City for Police Commissioner Dolan. He doesn't use a gun. He has a tongue-in-check sense of humor and he's kind of clumsy. His arch enemy is the Octopus and his true love is Dolan's daughter Ellen. All of that is essential; the essence of the character. Who he is. The essentials; substantially.

Miller's approach just does not feel like the Spirit in substance.

It does to me.

Again, superficial description- not a description of substance.

The Octopus looks and sounds like an idiot. He's completely different as portrayed in the comics.

The character is a criminal mastermind in Central City with henchmen and wears gloves with three strips and disguises/costumes (he dressed up as his own mother in the comics, which brings to mind Norman Bates in Psycho) and kidnapped and beat the heck of out of The Spirit. All of that is essential; the essence of the character. The essentials; substantially.

Perhaps the reveal isn't necessarily a reveal of what he really looks like. Creativity- not cliche.

Then it would be a reveal of what?

Miller's dialogue isn't old-fashioned, it's just lame. It sounds stupid b/c it's bad, b/c it doesn't fit the characters.

I disagree, Miller's dialogue for The Spirit and Commissioner Dolan is old-fashioned crime drama style dialogue and fits. Part of The Spirit&#8217;s appeal to me is his lower middle-class private detective style similar to Humphrey Bogart's private detective roles, Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer and Columbo. And The Spirit wasn't always light-hearted and funny, he had his serious dramatic side, too. And Commissioner Dolan was often cranky.

THere is almost no chance I will see this movie. If what I've seen from the trailers are in the film there is no reason to see it. I can already tell that it's going to be a bad film and a horrible adaptation of the Spirit. (Heck, I knew that as soon as MIller was announced as the writer and director.) Any comic fan who knows Eisner and Miller knows that Miller is not the person to translate Eisner's work. It's a no-brainer.

So why put myself through the hell of suffering through the film. I did it once with SUperman Returns, I'll not do it again.

Superman Returns? So you agree that Bryan Singer's Superman Returns is dull, lacks the humor, action and the over all sense of fun of the George Reeves Adventures of Superman TV series and Christopher Reeve movies? Routh's Superman is a deadbeat dad, and a stranger, not a friend. It's the bad movie that just wont end. It drags on and on and on. Then at least we agree on that and Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns. We will just have to agree to disagree on Frank Miller's The Spirit.

Eisner's work deserves better than to be hacked up by anyone especially Frank Miller.

Miller is doing his own take. Everything points to me having a good time seeing this. Cant wait! I say give it a chance, check it out with an open mind, and you might like it.

 

[BULLITT]

Miller is doing his own take. Everything points to me having a good time seeing this. Cant wait! I say give it a chance, check it out with an open mind, and you might like it.

That's what I'm going to do.

 

[mego joe]

No fuss from me. They are differences that don't really change the substance, the essence of the character. He's still detective Denny Colt who's lifeless body is pronounced dead and rises alive. As an officially "dead" man, Colt decides to fight crime as the Spirit. That's the essential part; the most significant element.

It doesn't really matter, to me, if Denny Colt was literally killed and came back by the Octopus' experiment or if Colt was put in suspanded animation by Dr. Cobra's experiment and came back, the essential part is that Colt's lifeless body was pronounced dead and rised alive, and as an officially "dead" man, Colt decides to fight crime as the Spirit. Just as it doesn't really matter, to me, if Wayne's parents were killed by the Joker for a thrill, meaning Joker made Batman, or if they were killed by Joe Chill who only wanted money, the essential part is that they were killed, so Bruce Wayne decides to fight crime and thus becomes Batman.



He has excruciating pain to worry about.

Eisner allowed Miller to do his own interpretation, he's own take. The only condition that he made was that he would not try to be Will Eisner. So Miller is doing his own interpretation, he's own take.



The character is middle-class detective Denny Colt who's lifeless body is pronounced dead and rises alive. As an officially "dead" man, Colt decides to fight crime as the Spirit, and he apparently still lives in Wildwood Cemetery (we see a sign that says "Wildwood" in the trailer), and is a freelance detective in Central City for Police Commissioner Dolan. He doesn't use a gun. He has a tongue-in-check sense of humor and he's kind of clumsy. His arch enemy is the Octopus and his true love is Dolan's daughter Ellen. All of that is essential; the essence of the character. Who he is. The essentials; substantially.



It does to me.




The character is a criminal mastermind in Central City with henchmen and wears gloves with three strips and disguises/costumes (he dressed up as his own mother in the comics, which brings to mind Norman Bates in Psycho) and kidnapped and beat the heck of out of The Spirit. All of that is essential; the essence of the character. The essentials; substantially.



Then it would be a reveal of what?



I disagree, Miller's dialogue from The Spirit and Commissioner Dolan is old-fashioned crime drama style dialogue and fits. Part of The Spirit’s appeal to me is his lower middle-class private detective style similar to Humphrey Bogart's private detective roles, Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer and Columbo. And The Spirit wasn't always light-hearted and funny, he had his serious dramatic side, too. And Commissioner Dolan was often cranky.



Superman Returns? So you agree that Bryan Singer's Superman Returns is dull, lacks the humor, action and the over all sense of fun of the George Reeves Adventures of Superman TV series and Christopher Reeve movies? Routh's Superman is a deadbeat dad, and a stranger, not a friend. It's the bad movie that just wont end. It drags on and on and on. Then at least we agree on that and Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns. We will just have to agree to disagree on Frank Miller's The Spirit.

Yes apparently.

Miller is doing his own take. Everything points to me having a good time seeing this. Cant wait! I say give it a chance, check it out with an open mind, and you might like it.

To sum it for me it's like this. I don't want Frank Miller's Spirit anymore than I want Bryan Singer's Superman. From the beginning of this project the words "Frank Miller" were synonymous with "This will suck." Mainly b/c I knew that Miller would do his version of the Spirit and not Eisner's. I've not liked any of Miller's work since Year One, so there's not any real chance I'm going to like his Spirit film. To me the trailers and spoilers have confirmed many of my reservations and raised new ones.

The easiest way to put it is this- just like I don't want Singer's Superman, I don't want Miller's Spirit b/c the the director's simply don't get the essence of the characters. The substance/ essence of the character is not a superficial description but who they are as people, the content of their characters. What Miller is admitadley doing is CHANGING the character, he's purposely changing the character. Singer IMO did the same thing. In the current age of comic films where we can get something so close as Iron Man, Spider-Man and the Nolan Batfilms and even Miller's own Sin City- there's no reason to settle for anything less. If you can't make a faithful adaptation that adheres to the essence of the characters and the substance of the content of the character then you shouldn't be doing a comic book adaptation in the first place.

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

Eisner allowed Miller to do his own interpretation, he's own take.

By "allowed", you mean that Eisner DIED, leaving the door open for Miller to do anything he wanted, with no one to answer to...?

 

[theMan-Bat]

By "allowed", you mean that Eisner DIED, leaving the door open for Miller to do anything he wanted, with no one to answer to...?

No, I mean Will Eisner wanted Miller to do his own interpretation, he's own take, not try to be Will Eisner...

CHRISTOPHER IRVING: What made you decide to let others do The Spirit, after about fifty years of doing the series yourself?

WILL EISNER: The answer has to be a little complicated. For years, Denis Kitchen has been after me, pushing and prodding for me to do another Spirit story. I was never interested in doing it, because my plate is too full with new material that I feel necessary to do. Finally, I agreed to allow him to do a Spirit story, provided he would get some top people in the field to do it. The only condition that I made was that they would not try to be Will Eisner, because every attempt I have ever seen of continuing a strip, like Caniff's Terry and The Pirates, were a failure. It would be a failure I reasoned if they were to attempt to be Will Eisner. I said if they were willing to do a series of stories based on their own interpretation and their own take, I would be willing to allow it. Frank Miller has agreed to do one.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Yes apparently.




To sum it for me it's like this. I don't want Frank Miller's Spirit anymore than I want Bryan Singer's Superman. From the beginning of this project the words "Frank Miller" were synonymous with "This will suck." Mainly b/c I knew that Miller would do his version of the Spirit and not Eisner's. I've not liked any of Miller's work since Year One, so there's not any real chance I'm going to like his Spirit film. To me the trailers and spoilers have confirmed many of my reservations and raised new ones.

The easiest way to put it is this- just like I don't want Singer's Superman, I don't want Miller's Spirit b/c the the director's simply don't get the essence of the characters. The substance/ essence of the character is not a superficial description but who they are as people, the content of their characters. What Miller is admitadley doing is CHANGING the character, he's purposely changing the character. Singer IMO did the same thing. In the current age of comic films where we can get something so close as Iron Man, Spider-Man and the Nolan Batfilms and even Miller's own Sin City- there's no reason to settle for anything less. If you can't make a faithful adaptation that adheres to the essence of the characters and the substance of the content of the character then you shouldn't be doing a comic book adaptation in the first place.

If Miller had made The Spirit a deadbeat dad (or a dad at all), a non-violent sensitive emasculated metrosexual, a jealous peeping tom, and had cast a soft spoken baby-faced pretty boy actor that looks to young with brown hair and hadn't colored his hair black and had given him a spandex costume with low-riding short-shorts which makes people think The Spirit is gay then I would agree with you. But Frank Miller didn't do any of that to The Spirit. Bryan Singer did do all of that to Superman, unfortunately.

And I'm not of the opinion that all changes are bad. Nolan made many changes to Batman's origin in Batman Begins, many, many changes to Joker in The Dark Knight, changes to Two-Face, but I don't have a problem with the changes Nolan made, and I don't have a problem with the changes Miller made to The Spirit. I do have a problem with the emasculating changes Singer made to Superman and Singer making Superman a dad, and a deadbeat dad at that.

 

[theMan-Bat]

That's what I'm going to do.

That's awesome!

 

[mego joe]

If Miller had made The Spirit a deadbeat dad (or a dad at all), a non-violent sensitive emasculated metrosexual, a jealous peeping tom, and had cast a soft spoken baby-faced pretty boy actor that looks to young with brown hair and hadn't colored his hair black and had given him a spandex costume with low-riding short-shorts which makes people think The Spirit is gay then I would agree with you. But Frank Miller didn't do any of that to The Spirit. Bryan Singer did do all of that to Superman, unfortunately.

It's clear we agree on SUperman Returns, and for that I am glad. (And Nolan's Batman films.)

And I'm not of the opinion that all changes are bad. Nolan made many changes to Batman's origin in Batman Begins, many, many changes to Joker in The Dark Knight, changes to Two-Face, but I don't have a problem with the changes Nolan made, and I don't have a problem with the changes Miller made to The Spirit. I do have a problem with the emasculating changes Singer made to Superman and Singer making Superman a dad, and a deadbeat dad at that.

I think a lot of it boils down to one's opinion of Frank Miller. I would bet that Miller fans have a better view of this film from non-Miller fans. Simply put, Miller's approach just doesn't interest me. Wether or not Eisner endorsed other takes on his character doesn't make them good. IMO, you have to maintain some 'spirit' that is recognizable as the Spirit and from what I've seen Miller is not doing that- he's just being 'too Miller' in too many cases and loosing too much Eisner.

 

[CrimsonMist]

It's clear we agree on SUperman Returns, and for that I am glad. (And Nolan's Batman films.)



I think a lot of it boils down to one's opinion of Frank Miller. I would bet that Miller fans have a better view of this film from non-Miller fans. Simply put, Miller's approach just doesn't interest me. Wether or not Eisner endorsed other takes on his character doesn't make them good. IMO, you have to maintain some 'spirit' that is recognizable as the Spirit and from what I've seen Miller is not doing that- he's just being 'too Miller' in too many cases and loosing too much Eisner.

Actually, i'm a fan of Miller, and i've NO interest at all anymore in seeing this film, for most of your reasons argued.

and for the record, i actually liked Superman Returns I probably would have been bored to death if it was another origin film, but i liked the way Singer handled it. Something different for Superman, and i'm rather anxious to see how that continues, if ever. It's been a while since i've watched it so my take on the film might change, but i enjoyed it. Mind you, i'm not that big of a Superman fan, so i'm not as die-hard passionate as most.

 

[mego joe]

Actually, i'm a fan of Miller, and i've NO interest at all anymore in seeing this film, for most of your reasons argued.

and for the record, i actually liked Superman Returns

Certainly theres a lot that goes into the conflicting views of this film. WHile a lot of people will make a decision on this film after Christmas comes, I don't feel I need to wait based on what we've seen.

 

[mego joe]

Actually, i'm a fan of Miller, and i've NO interest at all anymore in seeing this film, for most of your reasons argued.

and for the record, i actually liked Superman Returns I probably would have been bored to death if it was another origin film, but i liked the way Singer handled it. Something different for Superman, and i'm rather anxious to see how that continues, if ever. It's been a while since i've watched it so my take on the film might change, but i enjoyed it. Mind you, i'm not that big of a Superman fan, so i'm not as die-hard passionate as most.

Well, I'm quite passionate about my comic characters- I like them to be treated well and faithfully. I don't think Singer's overall concept was bad he just approached it poorly with story details that just didn't fit. The vauge history thing was a bad idea and the whole kid thing was just wrong. I just have no interest in what happens next in Singer's Superman story. I'm all for a reboot done the right way. But that's a different forum.

 

[CrimsonMist]

Well, I'm quite passionate about my comic characters- I like them to be treated well and faithfully. I don't think Singer's overall concept was bad he just approached it poorly with story details that just didn't fit. The vauge history thing was a bad idea and the whole kid thing was just wrong. I just have no interest in what happens next in Singer's Superman story. I'm all for a reboot done the right way. But that's a different forum.

I didn't like the kid all that much originally when i saw it in theaters. But after i saw the Donner cut of Superman II, i had a change of mind and thought it made much more sense and opened up to the idea.

But as you said, that's a different forum.

but i can say this: There is good adaptation and there is bad adaptation. It's subjective really, but i find The Spirit to fall under "Bad Adaptation" and i'll go so far as to call it "The Coppola's Dracula of comic book films". And that's sad.

 

[mego joe]

I didn't like the kid all that much originally when i saw it in theaters. But after i saw the Donner cut of Superman II, i had a change of mind and thought it made much more sense and opened up to the idea.

But as you said, that's a different forum.

but i can say this: There is good adaptation and there is bad adaptation. It's subjective really, but i find The Spirit to fall under "Bad Adaptation" and i'll go so far as to call it "The Coppola's Dracula of comic book films". And that's sad.

If you try to follow the SR story form the Donner version of SII, then it opens up a whole new can of worms like how could Lois be pregnant if he turned back time? Or wouldn't she wonder when she had sex with Superman if she's not supposed to remember any of that stuff? Wouldn't she also remember he's Clark. To Superman just would leave Earth w/o saying goodbye to Lois- especially with the excuse of "It was too difficult."

At least we are in agreement on Miller's The Spirit In Name Only. Was it just the changes with Mina being the reincarnated Maria (that is Dracula's wife's name isn't it?- it is in Marvel's Tomb of Dracula) in the Coppola Dracula film that you didn't like? Oh yeah, and Keanu Reeves is annoying in anything he does- I actually think that Dracula film is pretty good. Despite the changes it gets closer to the novel than any other Dracula film, at least that I can remember.

 

[Bubastis]

No fuss from me. They are differences that don't really change the substance, the essence of the character. He's still detective Denny Colt who's lifeless body is pronounced dead and rises alive. As an officially "dead" man, Colt decides to fight crime as the Spirit. That's the essential part; the most significant element.

It doesn't really matter, to me, if Denny Colt was literally killed and came back by the Octopus' experiment or if Colt was put in suspanded animation by Dr. Cobra's experiment and came back, the essential part is that Colt's lifeless body was pronounced dead and rised alive, and as an officially "dead" man, Colt decides to fight crime as the Spirit. Just as it doesn't really matter, to me, if Wayne's parents were killed by the Joker for a thrill, meaning Joker made Batman, or if they were killed by Joe Chill who only wanted money, the essential part is that they were killed, so Bruce Wayne decides to fight crime and thus becomes Batman.



He has excruciating pain to worry about.

Eisner allowed Miller to do his own interpretation, he's own take. The only condition that he made was that he would not try to be Will Eisner. So Miller is doing his own interpretation, he's own take.



The character is middle-class detective Denny Colt who's lifeless body is pronounced dead and rises alive. As an officially "dead" man, Colt decides to fight crime as the Spirit, and he apparently still lives in Wildwood Cemetery (we see a sign that says "Wildwood" in the trailer), and is a freelance detective in Central City for Police Commissioner Dolan. He doesn't use a gun. He has a tongue-in-check sense of humor and he's kind of clumsy. His arch enemy is the Octopus and his true love is Dolan's daughter Ellen. All of that is essential; the essence of the character. Who he is. The essentials; substantially.



It does to me.




The character is a criminal mastermind in Central City with henchmen and wears gloves with three strips and disguises/costumes (he dressed up as his own mother in the comics, which brings to mind Norman Bates in Psycho) and kidnapped and beat the heck of out of The Spirit. All of that is essential; the essence of the character. The essentials; substantially.



Then it would be a reveal of what?



I disagree, Miller's dialogue for The Spirit and Commissioner Dolan is old-fashioned crime drama style dialogue and fits. Part of The Spirit’s appeal to me is his lower middle-class private detective style similar to Humphrey Bogart's private detective roles, Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer and Columbo. And The Spirit wasn't always light-hearted and funny, he had his serious dramatic side, too. And Commissioner Dolan was often cranky.



Superman Returns? So you agree that Bryan Singer's Superman Returns is dull, lacks the humor, action and the over all sense of fun of the George Reeves Adventures of Superman TV series and Christopher Reeve movies? Routh's Superman is a deadbeat dad, and a stranger, not a friend. It's the bad movie that just wont end. It drags on and on and on. Then at least we agree on that and Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns. We will just have to agree to disagree on Frank Miller's The Spirit.



Miller is doing his own take. Everything points to me having a good time seeing this. Cant wait! I say give it a chance, check it out with an open mind, and you might like it.

 

[CrimsonMist]

If you try to follow the SR story form the Donner version of SII, then it opens up a whole new can of worms like how could Lois be pregnant if he turned back time? Or wouldn't she wonder when she had sex with Superman if she's not supposed to remember any of that stuff? Wouldn't she also remember he's Clark. To Superman just would leave Earth w/o saying goodbye to Lois- especially with the excuse of "It was too difficult."

At least we are in agreement on Miller's The Spirit In Name Only. Was it just the changes with Mina being the reincarnated Maria (that is Dracula's wife's name isn't it?- it is in Marvel's Tomb of Dracula) in the Coppola Dracula film that you didn't like? Oh yeah, and Keanu Reeves is annoying in anything he does- I actually think that Dracula film is pretty good. Despite the changes it gets closer to the novel than any other Dracula film, at least that I can remember.

I saw Superman Returns borrowing certain things from Donner, but then again, if Superman turned back time, i guess Lois would forget everything, but would still be pregnant(honestly, if they tried to explain that in the film, it would have been awkward. Think about that for a minute, lol). But i was never fond of turning back time, as it messes up everything.

As for Dracula? I could write a book, so i'll(try) be brief. James V. Hart wrote a romance story based on a book he convinced himself was a romance. Coppola has gone on record saying he could have changed it to be faithful, but didn't. Now, from the bonus features, they both sound convinced that the novel is a romance. It isn't. The book IS NOT, and has never been, a romance. They made Dracula a sympathetic character, which he isn't. He's an evil man who feeds babies to vampire women. They turned the character of Lucy into a stupid promiscuous ****e, rather than keep her as a shy, timid, beautiful, quiet young lady. When she becomes a vampire in Coppola's film, she's just a stupid ****e x 10,000 with fangs. The tragedy of her death is lost. The costume suck. When Harker meets Dracula for the first time in the novel, Dracula is dressed all in black. In the film, Dracula's got a weird hairdo and is dressed like he's ready to appear in an opera. If you watch the bonus features on the new DVD edition with the costume designer, you can tell she doesn't understand the novel at all(and Coppola made some of the suggestions to her himself. So that shows where his mind was). The re-incarnation thing was lifted almost verbatim from the Dan Curtis made for TV adaptation with Jack Palance in the title role. Coppola made Dracula grow young and handsome. In the novel, he becomes young, but he NEVER becomes attractive. Also, Dracula takes, steals what is not his. He doesn't lament over Mina, debating whether or not he should bite her. Dracula simply bites her and makes her his. EVERY actor playing the character has nailed this, even Frank Langella, who thinks Dracula is a tragic character. I don't agree with his take on the character, but even in his film, Dracula is still evil, and he still takes what is not his, simply because he can.

Basically, Coppola and Hart went "It must suck to be a 500 year old vampire. It must be so sad, and Dracula must be longing for companionship, so lets make him do that in the film."

Wrong! Dracula is simply put, an EVIL MAN! He's had 500 years to spend destroying the lives of many people. There is no mercy and sympathy in Dracula at all. To quote Michael Caine in The Dark Knight, "Some men just want to watch the world burn". And that sums of who Dracula is. Coppola turned the film into an extravagant piece of crap and pissed on the novel as we know it. I suppose you have to be a die-hard fan of the novel to share my opinions, but i hate hate hate that movie.

You want a faithful film to the novel? check out the BBC adaptation from the 1974 starring Louis Jordan as Dracula. It has it's own changes, but doesn't take the character and piss him on. It doesn't take the story, change it, and convince everyone that that's how the story actually is.

 

[Dr.Omega]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdr6FdYQa2U

 

[Bubastis]

Hey ManBat? Since you have the book and whatnot, does it have any pictures of the costume tests Miller said he did?
If you could scan them (if they exist), I'm sure everybody here would love to see what Macht would have looked like in the original Spirit geddup

 

[theMan-Bat]

Hey ManBat? Since you have the book and whatnot, does it have any pictures of the costume tests Miller said he did?
If you could scan them (if they exist), I'm sure everybody here would love to see what Macht would have looked like in the original Spirit geddup

No, it doesn't have any pictures of the blue suit costume tests. I'm sure it looked like this:

You should get the book. While I was excited about the movie before, I'm really excited about the movie now after reading the book. It takes you behind the scenes and explains everything you'd want to know about the movie, things you don't know. Along with samples of Miller's storyboards and tons of pictures of the making of the movie and stills of the film, it includes a lot of Eisner's Spirit art, too. It's also partially a bio of Mr. Eisner and tells the history of The Spirit, too. It has a lot of comparisons of Eisner's Spirit art with Miller's storyboards and film stills, like this:

Here's a video review of both The Spirit: Femme Fatales TPB by DC and The Spirit: The Movie Visual Companion book in a special edition of Fresh Ink:
http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/freshink/65906/Blair-Butler-on-The-Spirit.html

 

[Bubastis]

I'm sure it looked better than that. The shades are everything. Working on my own spirit costume, I ended up using a light blue shirt instead of a white one. What I do understand is that Miller wanted to play up the darkness of everything that's blue on the suit, and the vibrancy of the red tie. Which is a good move, but I don't think it necessarily all had to be black. Maybe navy blue and a gull white or grey or grey-ish blue shirt might have gotten the job done, with the "The Spirit's black silhoutette with a vibrant red tie" look used when where's hard light coming against his back.

'sides, what is that picture from?

 

[theMan-Bat]

what is that picture from?

A comic book convention.