I always wanted to write that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAD

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

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

And I believe you are mistaken.

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

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

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

PAD

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

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

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

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

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

It’s the fact that it’s Frank Miller.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAD

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

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

PAD