BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

The Spirit

  
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
 
yichihyon
16:31 / 26.04.08
I just wish there was some balanced criticism. Sin City and 300 weren't good for some people too but everyone has different tastes. You know the positive criticism with the negative as well...It just seems too negative here. I agree that it looks like a Sin City style remake of the Spirit but we have to have faith in Frank Miller for telling some good stories and telling some bad. I just hope this opens alot of doors for other comicbook properties to hit it to the screen. And diverse material too. And maybe more trust for some comicbook talent to break into the movies...

I don't think Robocop 2 was shit. I thought it was a worthy sequel and in some respects I liked it better even than the first. I think with Robocop 3 it was an error in tone. The first two were written for an R rating and clearly for adults whereas the 3rd one was written for the kiddies in mind as well and it totally blew it for the fans of the first two. The same can be said for Phantom Menace but with Attack of the Clones it was back to the Original tone of Star Wars and after that they just returned to the wonder and awe of Star Wars again. It would be interesting if they did a Robocop 4 with the adults in mind again. Maybe thats a bad idea....

I think people have to begin somewhere no matter where. People begin to learn and adapt and contribute. Frank Miller learned from Robert Rodriguez and then from Zach Snyder. And he learned from Neal Adams and the crew at Marvel when he was young to become one of comicdoms favorite creators. But everyone has to start somewhere. Sure everyone has hits and misses.

I think there should be more of a balanced critique for everything. Being a critic or being criticized I do enjoy hearing what doesn't work and what works so that I can improve myself and reach the expectations of others and work on strengths and weaknesses to create better works or inspire others to do better but if we just give the negative then everyone is going to go what's the point of seeing or reading or creating if all I create is shit.

Maybe there wouldn't be a kid hacker in Terminator 2 if Hollywood didn't see what the original script for Robocop 2 was like? Someparts of Robocop 3 didn't make it in the Robocop 2 script but was included in the Robocop 3 and I think the kid hacker was one of the things they excluded in Robocop 2 which got transfered to Robocop 3.... Maybe I am stetching it but there are too many coincidences. It has Hollywoods M.O written all on it....
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:38 / 26.04.08
Robocop 3 was shit.

It was - and for that matter a fair few of the other movies identified as faithful to the surce material may well have been faithful to the source material but were _also_ shit, either arguably (300, Sin City, Ghost World) or inarguably (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) - also, Transformers was not a comic book movie, but a movie based on a TV cartoon which itself was made to sell action figures - the genius of Simon Furman's late-80s floruit had little to do with the creative chain.

I just think, and I am absolutely right in this, that it is hard to say that things that were very clearly based on things that happened before a comic was released (City of Angels and Wings of Desire, The Silence of the Lambs and Manhunter (1986)) were clearly stealing their ideas from those comics. If you can find me someone who was avidly reading Mark Millar's Zauriel spin-off in the director's chair of "City of Angels", that's great, but I think it might be a tiny bit more significant that the screenwriters of City of Angels had previously written and directed Der Himmel Uber Berlin.

I mean, none of this is all that surprising - you get dementoids over in Comics crediting Grant Morrison with pretty much everything, and this is just more of the same. Of course Atlas entertainment were on the phone to Mark Millar getting advice - in 1995 or 96 or whenever City of Angels was actually optioned he was the most bankable star in Hollywood. See also their romantic comedy of the same period "I'm Going to put my Willy up your Bum despite your Protestations", starring Hugh Grant. Of course "Meet Joe Black" was inspired by the Sandman, and not e.g. "Death takes a Holiday", which in turn was of course not the inspiration for "Death: The High Cost of Living".


As for "A Game of You" (in which a princess from a dream world goes back into dream world to fight occult child with the aid of her imaginary friends) and "The Crying Game" (in which an IRA soldier starts dating Forest Whittaker's transsexual lover) - well, if you mean that they are similar in that they both feature a woman who has a penis, yes. That is certainly true. But they both feature women without penises, as well. They are totally dissimilar in plot, characterisation, script - everything. If you think that "A Game of You" is the first piece of art ever to feature a transgendered character, that may be a fair conclusion, but it isn't - this is an interesting if incomplete list of films, for example.

Please don't feel bad, yichi. I'm not suggesting you're a bad person. You are just advancing a thesis that is totally insupportable.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
16:55 / 26.04.08
I agree that it looks like a Sin City style remake of the Spirit but we have to have faith in Frank Miller for telling some good stories and telling some bad. I just hope this opens alot of doors for other comicbook properties to hit it to the screen.

I do have faith in Frank Miller tell bad stories. I do.

But seriously, I have enjoyed some of his work - Batman: Year One, I'm thinking of. That trailer, however, does not inspire me to see this movie. I am highly skeptical of this movie.

A lot of other comic book properties have already made it to the screen. Hell, the fact that they're getting to the Spirit probably indicates a midpoint to the trend. I hope, however, they will in future select properties which would benefit from the transition rather than have it to be to their detriment, but we have to take what we can get. Or at the very least give them to directors who have a unique vision rather than simply recycling old projects with a new brand name.

Frank Miller can handle it that I don't want to see this movie, though. The lack of positive criticism ("constructive" would be a better word, and it does include the negative) may simply indicate a level of ennui with regard to the man's work at this point. He has ... crusted over, it seems, and glares madly into the hardboiled streets. They are his mother, after all.
 
 
yichihyon
17:13 / 26.04.08
If you don't remember the 1984 Transformers cartoon was released in conjuction with Marvel Comics Transformers limited series and in the Cartoons they credit Marvel Comics as being the studio with Japan in making those cartoons. So no it wasn't entirely based on the cartoon it was a three prong attack on our senses after the release and sucess of GI JOE they decided to make Toys, Comics and Cartoons simotaneously and why in the Early Cartoons is Marvel Productions title at the end of each cartoon? They contributed and it was a comic book property at the same time. People forget.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:14 / 26.04.08
Frank Miller can handle it that I don't want to see this movie, though. The lack of positive criticism ("constructive" would be a better word, and it does include the negative) may simply indicate a level of ennui with regard to the man's work at this point. He has ... crusted over, it seems, and glares madly into the hardboiled streets. They are his mother, after all.

Well, with Frank Miller there's also the Internet-tough-guy-Arab-hating thing; I'm not really sure this is the voice we want representing comic books in Hollywood, although it can't have a less fortunate outcome than Superman Returns, really...
 
 
yichihyon
17:18 / 26.04.08
Maybe it will get good word of mouth and do well, that's all I'm hoping for the sakes of Frank Miller and Will Eisner. I can't force anyone to see a movie nor do I want to but wouldn't it be great to see a Comicbook artist turned director finally get respect from Hollywood? It would have to stand on the merits of the work itself.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
17:26 / 26.04.08
The toughguy-Arab-hating thing along with the creepy misogynistic undercurrents to a lot of his work -- yeah, I'm not sure I'd want him to represent all comicbookery on the big screen.

And hasn't he already got "mainstream" cinematic acceptance, yich? Sin City and 300, whatever I feel about them, did very well and seem to generate fans. Does he really need the Spirit to help him along?
 
 
yichihyon
17:41 / 26.04.08
Who else would you like to see represented for comicbookdom for the rest of the world to see? Stan Lee made it. Frank Miller. Alan Moore sort of made it. For right now who else has the chops to succeed? Grant Morrison? Neil Gaiman? John Byrne? George Perez? Todd McFarlane? Jim Lee? Peter Bagge? Jeff Smith? Roberta Gregory?
 
 
Triplets
17:56 / 26.04.08
wouldn't it be great to see a Comicbook artist turned director finally get respect from Hollywood?

Yes, if it wasn't Frank the Tank. But, as Papers says, he already has got a fair bit of good press despite himself. But no-one's arguing he shouldn't get respect or (as I think is being gunned for here by yichiyon) validation (and possibly too earnestly), we're just arguing that The Spirit shouldn't be The Goddamn Spirit, or shit, or go about raping crims in the arse.
 
 
yichihyon
18:16 / 26.04.08
Frank Miller's Give Me Liberty?
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
18:20 / 26.04.08
The problem is that I'm not entirely sure any of those names listed are people interested in directing films -- Gaiman, maybe, but he's already had some success with Mirrormask or Stardust (okay, probably next to none) -- at least from a writing position, but directing? The majority of comic book creator / film director overlap is people like Kevin Smith, making the transition in the other direction, taking over comic book writing.
 
 
yichihyon
18:23 / 26.04.08
Correction with the Transformers, it was a Japanese toy before anything else. Later they did the three prong attack onto the world with Toys, Comics and Cartoons. My bad.
 
 
yichihyon
18:24 / 26.04.08
James Robinson studied film and he seems genuinely interested in both media.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
18:36 / 26.04.08
He did some screenwriting, I know that, but has he ever expressed interest in directing?
 
 
yichihyon
18:49 / 26.04.08
I think pretty every screenwriter wishes to be a director someday. He hasn't expressed a desire to become a director but he did like John Woo movies before John Woo became a Hollywood commodity. This was when James Robinson was writing Firearm. Hey yeah thats when James Robinson had an idea where the bad guy spoke with Firearm through the cellphone and then they made Die Hard 3. I tell you it's in Hollywood's M.O.

I remember because I was in a class where Steve Seagle and James Robinson taught a comicbook writing class at Learning Tree University and I was also taking a screenwriting course simotaneously and I used to wear a Crow T Shirt to class and all Jack Adams the president of the Screen writers Guild said to me was another black shirt? It must of been around 1992 1993 when the Crow wasn't made yet and they cast Brandon Lee later. Tragedy.
 
 
This Sunday
19:24 / 26.04.08
I think pretty every screenwriter wishes to be a director someday.

I think that's absurd. And not demonstrated in the field at all.

I know screenwriters who might consider paying money to avoid directing.

Now, a producer or executive producer credit, that has it's uses.
 
 
yichihyon
19:34 / 26.04.08
Oliver Stone screenwriter Conan, Scarface, Year of the Dragon before he became a famous director to get in the door.

Quentin Tarantino struggling screenwriter to later write and direct Resevior Dogs

Francis Ford Coppola unknown screenwriter wrote Patton 1970 before he directed Godfather 1972
 
 
Blue Eyes Not Innocent
19:53 / 26.04.08
Yes, but those examples don't prove your point, yich, when you say that "pretty every screenwriter wishes to be a director someday". Those are three people out of how many screenwriters in the world?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:43 / 26.04.08
Thing is, despite loving both comics and films, and loving the times the two coincide with good results, I don't actually have a burning desire to see a good comics writer direct a movie.

What I want is for people who are good at writing comics to write comics. That way I get to read well-written comics.

And for people who are good at directing movies to direct movies. That way I get to watch well-directed movies.

Now, if they can do both, that'd be awesome, and all power to them- I'll still get to read great comics and watch great movies, but with the same name on the credits. But it's not something I particularly dream of, any more than I dream of my dentist fixing my boiler, even though that'd be handy too. They're two different skills. Fuck, even WRITING is several different skills- a novelist doesn't necessarily make a great comic writer, even if they're good, and vice versa. And I'm not sure I'd expect wonders if Miller (who, don't get me wrong, I like a lot when I can forget his dodgy politics) wrote a novel. So why being able to draw cool pictures and write snappy dialogue (okay, I'm going back a few years here, but bear with me) should qualify someone to do the entirely different job of directing a film is beyond me. Not to say he can't... just that I don't think we should automatically assume he can.

(Although it took me AGES to get round to watching The Proposition, because I didn't want to find out that someone who I highly respect in the field of music, like Nick Cave, could write a movie, even though I'd enjoyed his novel. That time I was, gladly, wrong, and it was ace).

tl;dr- I'm a moviegoer and comics geek. I want to see a good movie of The Spirit. I really couldn't give a fuck whether the director wrote The Dark Knight Returns or not, as long as the film is good.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
20:52 / 26.04.08
There's a slightly sketchy undercurrent to the idea that Miller deserves validation from Hollywood, and not because he's Frank Miller. It feels sketchy to me because the undercurrent seems to be that one medium (comics) needs validation from another medium (film) by some kind of crossover break-out talent to justify that medium's (comics) status as an artform. Why?

Comics and film are at best tangentially related, and while there is some cross-over (visual storytelling having links to cinematography, for example) in a lot of ways their relationship is wholly superficial.

Comics don't really need that kind of a boost, and it isn't really Miller's job (or any artist turned filmmmaker's job) to bring that boost.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:56 / 26.04.08
^this is also true^.

Especially this part- Comics and film are at best tangentially related, and while there is some cross-over (visual storytelling having links to cinematography, for example) in a lot of ways their relationship is wholly superficial.

Look at someone like Douglas Rushkoff. While he's very good at making bullshit sound interesting and relevant in a snappy little essay or the occasional short story, he CAN'T WRITE COMICS FOR SHIT. Because you have time to realise that actually he has no idea what he's saying. Even though both are essentially just "writing", the skills for one don't carry though to the other.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
21:00 / 26.04.08
I vaguely recall that there's a section of Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics that goes into comics and film and how they relate, or appear to relate. Might be worth a looky-loo.

Query: how do people feel about the casting of Samuel L. Jackson as the Octopus, in light of the Eisner standard of the Octopus never really being seen? Having not seen the movie, of course, but do you think that having him "known" makes him a more or less effective villain? I'm thinking in relation to Hugo Weaving being cast as V and how that might change your viewing experience of an "unknowable" character.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:48 / 26.04.08
Again, I'll call it when I see it.

I fell into the trap with V for Vendetta of seeing what they were doing with the movie before I saw the movie. "Army of Vs? FUCKING BLASPHEMY!!!"

Then I saw the film, and realised that what works in comics doesn't always work in movies, and vice versa. The movie ending would have been shit in the comic. The comic ending just wouldn't have worked in a movie.

So, it may not be true to the comic. But what's true to a comic may not be what works in a movie.

Case in point. Spawn. Now, it was a fairly rubbish comic for the most part. It COULD have made a good movie, if they'd played to the strengths of cinema. But they tried their damnedest to stay true to the comic. And they did. Oh boy, they did. Right down to having dialogue that only works on paper.

Now, if they'd gone "right, this is a movie, FUCK the comics, FUCK the fanboys, let's see what we can do with this"- there was potential there. Mind you, they'd have needed a different cast, director, screenwriter and possibly even guy who made the tea, but they COULD have done it.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
21:59 / 26.04.08
Oh, certainly, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm just wondering what the impact of attaching starpower to a "faceless" character is.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:36 / 26.04.08
Ah, right. But even knowing Weaving was playing V, and fuck knows THAT led to some stupid internet fights, did it actually matter?

After reading ALL those fights (admittedly I wasn't really involved in them), watching the movie I still didn't actually consciously click that it was him until afterwards. He was V while I was watching the film.
 
 
Triplets
23:06 / 26.04.08
I'm just wondering what the impact of attaching starpower to a "faceless" character is.

Perhaps they're going for S. Leroy Jackson's good acting ability, his recent adverts for Virgin tv notwithstanding?

It's a long-shot I know.

Surely name-power comes, at least a little bit, from the fact that a particular actor delivers the goods when it comes to the screen (or, in the case of typecast action stars, for instance, a certain type of film).

Anyway, one of the Octopus' most defining features (well, only) is his voice, which I'd argue SML has.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
23:15 / 26.04.08
Maybe it doesn't really affect anything, but it gets me thinking about the old Hollywood star system and how actors have been marketed over the years, and whether the same kind of system is really in play these days.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
01:17 / 27.04.08
Thing is, I'm a sucker for the magic of movies. This is why i love Johnny Depp so much, because he is one of the few big actors these days who, when I'm watching him, IS NOT HIM. He's doing his job. He's Sweeney Todd. He's Hunter S Thompson. He's that fucker with the weird metal shit that should be hands. (He's clearly NOT the guy investigating the Jack The Ripper murders, but let's just pretend that one never happened...)

The star system, for me, is always something that has got in the way of movies being good.

For me, movies are all about convincing me that REALLY COOL PEOPLE HAVE DONE SOME REALLY COOL SHIT. Well, spectacular movies, anyway.

This is why I'm not a big fan of the "2xDVD whoah loads of bonus shit" DVDs.

I paid good money for these fuckers to convince me that all this amazing stuff, all this beautiful and magical stuff, was happening BEFORE MY VERY EYES. That's what I paid for. That's the beautiful illusion I was chasing. Why the fuck would I pay MOAR to see them tear down all those illusions?

If I pay money for a movie, I want to forget that that's ACTOR X, and that's ACTOR Y, and they're doing TRICK Z.

I want to not know who ANY of these motherfuckers are when the lights go down, but to have witnessed a fucking good story by the time the lights come up.

Is that too much to ask?
 
 
yichihyon
07:13 / 27.04.08
Eva Mendes looking extra hot as Sand Saref

Wow!!!!


Yes!!!!

Some top level acting talent in this one.....

As a side note an MTV spot featured Frank the Man Miller at the NY Comic Convention an he stated that this movie is written as a Love Letter to New York. I think that explains the narration in the trailer.

entertainment weekly interview with Frank the Man Miller
 
 
Triplets
14:50 / 27.04.08
"EVA MENDES. SHE'S HOT AND SEXY. AND GORGEOUS. DID I MENTION SHE'S HOT? DON'T BLACK OUT "OLD CHAP"!"
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
15:03 / 27.04.08
DON'T BLACK OUT "OLD CHAP"!"

i c wut u did thar.
 
 
Triplets
15:37 / 27.04.08
i herd u liek punkips
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
05:01 / 28.04.08
ai had sum acidz and saw sum spid racers musik lol!!!11
 
 
Jack Fear
11:28 / 28.04.08
Just as an aside: James Robinson has made the jump to directing, albeit a "quirky" "indie" "comedy." (I've seen it—it really was pretty terrible.)
 
 
FinderWolf
13:49 / 28.04.08
>> Huh, was expecting at least a bit more of Dick Tracy traces.

Well, there is the "I'm on my way" phone call bit. Very Warren Beatty's Dick Tracy. (I figure that can't be unintentional, since that was the key catchphrase used to market the film)
 
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
  
Add Your Reply