criterionforum.org

Yeah this just looks ridiculous and why is Frank Miller directing movies now

I'll hold judgment until after I see the film.

Foulard wrote:"My city screams. She is my mother--she is my lover."? Bleah...I can't imagine Will Eisner ever writing anything as corny or humorless as that..

Exactly.

vs.

Something's not right here.

There's still hope -- All-Star Batman and Robin is the funniest thing I've read in ages.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:There's still hope -- All-Star Batman and Robin is the funniest thing I've read in ages.

True, but that's supposed to be over-the-top and crazy. "I'm the goddam Batman" and "It's better with our masks on" anyone? There it works. But Eisner is a different story. Now if they got Neil Gaiman to do the screenplay then we might have something good. Otherwise, it's just Millerized Eisner which is hardly Eisner at all. I still want to see it, but it just feels wrong.

margot wrote:Yeah this just looks ridiculous and why is Frank Miller directing movies now

Because Robert Rodriguez said so.

Here's a first look at Octopus.

Miller defends the look of his film.

Eva Mendes one sheet poster.

They chose her to be Sand Saref?

They chose her to be unbearably hot for two hours. Mission accomplished.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:Miller defends the look of his film.

from Millers "defense"

Comic books have long traditions based on the limitations of pre-digital printing. Among these are traditions from the old newsprint-run-through-letterpress approach (yes, comics have been—and still do--follow tradition that dates all the way back to Gutenberg!). Bad printing on pulp paper is why it was necessary for every superhero to have his emblem printed on his chest, and that everything that's black be printed in blue. Hence Superman's preposterous blue hair. And the Spirit's blue hat, mask, and suit.

Bullshit, he can come up with all the excuses in the world but we all know that the suit/har/mask should be blue.

Take a stroll around here and then tell me that Eisner was bound by any printing limitations

That explains why Superman's outfit was black in the numerous film adaptations of the comic book. Oh wait

Cobalt60 wrote:Bullshit, he can come up with all the excuses in the world but we all know that the suit/har/mask should be blue.

Take a stroll around here and then tell me that Eisner was bound by any printing limitations

When a character is first designed with aesthetic limitations, that design may or may not be modified when those limitations no longer apply. Hence, Superman's blue hair became black. There are a multitude of reasons why Eisner might not have wanted to change it; hair is one thing, but an entire outfit could be rejected by fans as a major design change, for instance. Those covers that you linked don't exactly smack of "vintage original" to me, given that #1 is emblazoned with "The Origin Issue!" and the rest seem to be in the same series. People care about origins when they care about characters, advertising as an origin story wouldn't make any sense unless it's a reprint, which also explains the higher quality of art. Also, Ebony White is barely featured at all on those covers, despite being so prominent a character. Nobody would've cared about his offensive portrayal in the 40's, so his absence would also suggest that these are reprints. My probably overlong argument is that you're basing your rebuttal, that Eisner wasn't really burdened by production limitations, on pieces of art that were years if not decades away from existing when the Spirit was designed. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Eisner didn't even draw some of those covers at all.

What is true is that Frank Miller knew Will Eisner better than you did. Maybe Miller's wrong, and Eisner always wanted it blue. Personally, I'll wait for somebody who knew Eisner better than Miller did to argue that. Miller also cares about Eisner more than you do. While that doesn't invalidate your criticisms, the "I'm going to defend Poor Little Will Eisner against Big Bad Frank" attitude comes off as a little self-righteous. Frank Miller is taking liberties with his direction of the film. He's said that from the beginning, and he's articulated his thought processes. If you don't agree with them, if you feel that he's bastardizing something you love, then the solution's easy. Alan Moore's been doing it for years. Don't see it and don't let it bother you. This movie won't make all copies of the comic spontaneously combust.

I don't know this, so don't treat it as anything more than speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if Eisner has an estate that retains copyright privileges to the Spirit. Even if they didn't, I'm sure that they'd be raising hell if they had a problem with the film.

Serris wrote:I don't know this, so don't treat it as anything more than speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if Eisner has an estate that retains copyright privileges to the Spirit. Even if they didn't, I'm sure that they'd be raising hell if they had a problem with the film.

Eisner's estate isn't stupid. Regardless of whether Miller's film rocks the box office or tanks, its presence will still result in a renewed interest and sales of Eisner's comic so they stand to make a nice chunk of change as a result.

Serris wrote:What is true is that Frank Miller knew Will Eisner better than you did.

Get the hell out of here with this reasoning. Beatrice Welles knew her father better than any of us did, but anyone on this forum would do a better job running his estate.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:Eisner's estate isn't stupid. Regardless of whether Miller's film rocks the box office or tanks, its presence will still result in a renewed interest and sales of Eisner's comic so they stand to make a nice chunk of change as a result.

Well, that would come down to whether they value their pocketbooks more than their sense of artistic integrity. I don't claim to know. I'm not sure if you know more about that estate than I do, but if you're speaking from a perspective on estates in general, well, there are plenty of cases to the contrary.

Serris wrote:If you don't agree with them, if you feel that he's bastardizing something you love, then the solution's easy. Alan Moore's been doing it for years. Don't see it and don't let it bother you. This movie won't make all copies of the comic spontaneously combust.

I'm pretty sure this is a discussion thread for the movie. So "If you don't like it, don't watch it" isn't really a useful or sensible line of thought here.

starmanof51 wrote:I'm pretty sure this is a discussion thread for the movie. So "If you don't like it, don't watch it" isn't really a useful or sensible line of thought here.

The complaint that I'm addressing pertains to the modification of the film from the comics. I'm not saying that about the film perhaps looking like Sin City, or the "My City Screams," and so on. I'm saying that about the costume being black instead of blue. That complaint is about fidelity to a non-cinematic source, my comment was intended for a non-cinematic complaint.

domino harvey wrote:

Serris wrote:What is true is that Frank Miller knew Will Eisner better than you did.

Get the hell out of here with this reasoning. Beatrice Welles knew her father better than any of us did, but anyone on this forum would do a better job running his estate.

I wouldn't be introducing that reasoning if nobody else here felt that they understood Eisner's artistic intentions better than Miller did.

You're so right, obviously what Eisner intended all along was to make his creation look like film adaptation of Sin City, thank God Miller was able to correct Eisner's decades of mistakes in one brave move. And Miller is above criticism, because after all, he knew Eisner. Might as well lock the thread now and delete any dissenting voices, none of us knew Eisner after all, who are we to talk about the film or his creation?

Serris wrote: While that doesn't invalidate your criticisms

I'm sorry, are you speaking to me? I seem to remember saying that in my post. I also don't remember mentioning Sin City, or Miller being justified in what he's doing. Devil's advocacy is suddenly Devil's championing?

Serris wrote:The complaint that I'm addressing pertains to the modification of the film from the comics. I'm not saying that about the film perhaps looking like Sin City, or the "My City Screams," and so on. I'm saying that about the costume being black instead of blue. That complaint is about fidelity to a non-cinematic source, my comment was intended for a non-cinematic complaint.

So when discussing films adapted from other materials, that film's relationship to the materials it was adapted from is verboten? Are we to pretend when watching the umpteenth Pride and Prejudice that we don't know there was a novel version , or take note of which characters were squeezed or removed or whatnot? Miller's talking about it, but we can't?

starmanof51 wrote:So when discussing films adapted from other materials, that film's relationship to the materials it was adapted from is verboten? Are we to pretend when watching the umpteenth Pride and Prejudice that we don't know there was a novel version , or take note of which characters were squeezed or removed or whatnot? Miller's talking about it, but we can't?

I never said to pretend that things were different. I am saying that somebody opposed to a film on elementary bases probably would be happier not seeing it. I never said not to discuss it; if I were trying to be dismissive, I would've saved myself the time of actually addressing points before making that remark.

Serris wrote:I never said to pretend that things were different. I am saying that somebody opposed to a film on elementary bases probably would be happier not seeing it. I never said not to discuss it; if I were trying to be dismissive, I would've saved myself the time of actually addressing points before making that remark.

When did Cobalt say he was "opposed" to the film? He might be, but so far all he's indicated is that he thinks Miller's rationale regarding costumes is BSsy. To which you told him he should stay home (and by inference, that further discussion of costumery and such is pointless).