Curse you, Miller.

[viktor_haag]

That's it. You will never, ever get another kind word from me again, you bastard Frank Miller. There was a time, only a short while ago, when I would have defended some of your earlier work. At this point, I'm thinking very, very seriously about taking every single one of your trades, and bunging them in the recycle bin, so they can be shredded and turned into warm coats for under-privileged children.

I'm a bit relieved that the great Eisner did not survive long enough to see your apparent travesty.

On the other hand, I also have to believe (for my own sanity) that, were he still alive, you would not have been let within a single country mile of his beloved creation.

Shame on the managers of Eisner's estate for letting you shamble near! Shame on you for sullying one of the pillars of North America's comic history!

Comments

[waiwode.livejournal.com]

I am not a friend of canon, if ignoring it makes some kind of sense. A good example would be the upcoming Star Trek movie. A web of net-heads have already raised a hue and cry about the fact that the Enterprise is shown being constructed on Earth (or on a planet, which I presume is Earth) yet canon says it was made in space. Yet clearly the director had a vision which did not include Kirk's first view of the Enterprise being in space. Sacrilege? Me? I couldn't care less. The movie isn't a sequel, it's a re-imagining, a re-branding if you will.

For me the best completed example I could put forth is David Lynch's Dune. I like the movie, and I salute the ambition it took to tackle such a big project and boil it down to about two hours. But it sure as hell isn't the book.

Miller was at the helm of two of the most successful re-brandings in comics history. Although I loved it at the time, in hindsight I wish The Dark Knight had never existed. But Batman: Year One is, and will remain, pure comics gold in my mind.

Likewise, Miller's revision of Daredevil, pruning away the camp and the excess of almost two decades, was a welcome rebirth to the franchise.

Now. All that being said.

The Spirit is about as serious a comic as Mad Magazine. Campier than Dick Tracy, complete with a characters that would get a modern author barred from touching pens.

But to me, if Miller was going to "boil down the character" as he had done before in the past, he would keep that comedic, light-hearted tone. this isn't about canon so much as it is about the "essential salts" of what the Spirit was.

When I first saw the "teaser" trailer last year I was sort of excited, and grinned a wicked grin, because the short "roof-running" previews made things look all gritty and Sin City-like, but I felt that red lip-stick stains on his cheeks, the comedic timing, the henchmen getting into trouble, was just around the corner.

As you can no doubt imagine, that wicked grin was frozen on my face as the actual trailer aired. What ... have ... they ... done?

I have little respect for the legions of internetters who raise a hue and cry when it is revealed that "The Watchmen" movie will not be a frame by frame reproduction of the book. As long as I can feel that the "essential elements" are maintained I'm free to enjoy the movie, realizing the movie is a separate thing, reflecting not the Author's but the Director's vision.

Yet this time I'm sure the line has been crossed, and I am forced to raise my fist in anger and rail against the cinematic injustice being done.

Which is all a long-winded and rambling way of saying "me too."

Doug.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

"If Miller was going to 'boil down the character' as he had done before in the past, he would keep that comedic, light-hearted tone. This isn't about canon so much as it is about the 'essential salts' of what the Spirit was.

I agree. Sadly, it appears that Miller did not.

[robheinsoo.livejournal.com]

Doug, I like your phrasing of respect for art that captures the spirit rather than the letter of the original.

Knowing nothing about the way this movie was made, I wonder if the studios got this ball rolling the wrong direction or if it's all on Miller.

[waiwode.livejournal.com]

Thanks! It came off as a bit of a ramble, honestly. If it was later in the day when I posted it I would have suspected a surplus of holiday cheer befuddling my fingers.

As to whether it was the Studio or the Director? I think ("Alan Smithee" situations aside) that this is the Director's burden to bear.

On the other hand, to the Director go all the accolades, too. "Paramount" doesn't get the Oscar.

Doug.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

I suspect there was a lot of encouragement from producers to "Sin City-fy" the movie, since it received such good buzz and was a relative success at the box office and in after-market numbers (I believe), but I have no proof one way or another.

[madmanofprague.livejournal.com]

I am not a friend of canon, if ignoring it makes some kind of sense. A good example would be the upcoming Star Trek movie. A web of net-heads have already raised a hue and cry about the fact that the Enterprise is shown being constructed on Earth (or on a planet, which I presume is Earth) yet canon says it was made in space.
Actually, Kurtzman/Orci (mostly Orci) have been pretty up-front about the new Trek movie taking place in an alternate timeline created by the Romulan antagonist, so it's technically preserving canon while also managing Marvel-comics levels of continuity wank. It's kind of a douche move in an era of retro-sf stylings all over the place (Doctor Who! Star Wars animated series!) but, whatever. It'll suck anyway.

Er, spoiler alert.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

Oh, dammit! I might have wanted to see that! 8/