I know I just shut down another thread, but here’s the link to the whispering women of the Spirit. It’s esp. fun when you run your cursor over it real fast.


  1. “I know I just shut down another thread,”

    Yes, you did, and I wish you hadn’t. I thought it was a really interesting discussion.


  2. Back on the subject of that interesting conversation Peter notes above, I just wanted to add that I think it’s unfair to impugn Frank Miller’s integrity in any way simply because one disagrees with his interpretation of the comic. There’s no evidence that he’s selling out to make a buck or appealing to the lowest common denominator with his movie. It’s entirely possible that his movie captures whatever he sees as the true essence of the characters.

    I also feel that the pulp fiction-esque sultriness of the movie posters really isn’t that far off from the sultriness Eisner himself put in the original strips. At least they’re not so far off that you would be justified in saying Frank Miller is disrespecting the source material.

  3. Y’know… even if the Spirit movie is hilariously awful, I can’t believe it will give Modesty Blaise a run for its money. But if it does… it’ll be the Best Bad Comics Movie of All Time.

    And that’s something to shoot for, too.

    (Though given the talent involved, I’m still hoping for “good.”)

  4. So let me get this straight:

    Denny Colt as Rorschach jumping from roof to roof in a Frank Miller-stylized Central City (that’s the impression I got from the trailer, at least) and occasionally fighting/having sex with a bevy of hot actresses. Also: Samuel L. Jackson.

    I think I would question my own sanity if I didn’t want to see this.

    (Aside from that, agreed with everything Peter David says, probably ever. I mean, I’m not entirely sure I agree with him on everything but I’m like, 99% sure.)

  5. “There’s no reason to believe that Frank Miller would do a poor job.”

    There’s two very good reasons…SIN CITY and 300.

  6. Gene, that’s cool. I just take issue with the argument that someone can’t make a judgement about a new work by Miller based on his past work. I thought both those movies were bad, bad, bad. One of my thoughts when watching SIN CITY was “is every women in Frank Millers world a whore?’ seems to me based on these posters that would be a big YES.

  7. As a matter of political correctness, Frank Miller’s women should not be referred to as whores. They’re the celibacy-challenged.

  8. FWIW, when the first trailer for Miller’s Spirit came out, my husband pointed out how the narration strongly resembles Tick #1.

    I did read the last thread’s comments about waiting for the film before passing judgment, but the fact that everything the studio has shown soo far more closely matches Miller’s style than Eisner’s gives a strong sense for what we can expect.

  9. If the studio’s marketing people say, “SIN CITY sells, so give us more SIN CITY,” I suppose that’s their reasoning for WHAT MIGHT BE a terrible film.

    Will Eisner depicted sultry women in his comic strip … not porn stars. Veronica Lake gets supplanted by Jenna Jameson. Yeah, I know that Lake is dead … so get a modern star to portray a Lake-type character.

    Although, it would be easy to capture the spirit of THE SPIRIT … make it one-part SIN CITY, one-part NAKED CITY (the classic crime tv series). You can have something that’s edgy, but with the style of the RKO-1940s era.

    And, if the argument is that “old stuff” doesn’t sell, what’s the point of making a movie?

Comments are closed.