13inch DC Direct Spirit }

[thunderbolt]

& I thought that was your M/O .lol .... You turning over a New Leaf this next comming yr ?

Nahh, I gripe after I wath it or read some of it.

[darklord1967]

Man, what a bunch of fanboys judging a book by its cover. Wait till it comes out before ya gripe.

Nahh, I gripe after I wath it or read some of it.

I couldn't agree with you more, T.

But uh.. What does it mean to "wath" a film or book? Is that anything like "watching" it?

Got ya! Seems like you've got pretty fast typin' fingers too, good buddy!

[BlackKnight]

^^^ NAW ,.. He's just got Spelling Issues too.

[thunderbolt]

Sometimes I type with a lisp. Ohh, and BK, you have no room to talk on spelling/punctuation.

[BlackKnight]

Ohh, and BK, you have no room to talk on spelling/punctuation.

diD yOU Not sEE tHe tOO ?

[Flynne]

I continually fail to understand why people decide to pick up projects and then rework them for their own vision. My prime example of this is the movie "I, Robot". Asmiov is one of my favorite authors, and the collection of short stories in "I, Robot" is among my favorite works. The movie bears absolutely no resemblance to the book:

1. If Will Smith's character seems out of place then it's because it is. His character was created solely for him and as a means of moving the "mystery" of the movie foward.
2. The main character of the short stories is reduced to the love interest for Will Smith's character. Cute, but throughly uninteresting.
3. The core of every single one of Asimov's Robot books was that the Three Laws of Robotics were incontrovertible. Any attempt to significantly modify the Three Laws which were incontrovertibly hard wired into the Robot's brain made the brain damaged beyond repair, and the Robot a useless pile of metal. In fact, one of the stories called "Little Robot Lost" was about how an attempt to modify one of the Three Laws with a single modifying phrase made the Robot unstable and it hides itself for fear of harming humans before eventually shorting out. In the movie the Robot's Three Laws are turned off with a flick of a central switch, and turned into remote killing machines.
4. Another story in "I, Robot" talks about how the large supercomputers used to run Earth could only take individuals they had identified as Terrorists and move them from jobs where they could potentially harm the computers (and by proxy the Humans they served) and move them to lesser jobs where they would have little or no opportunity for sabotage. With the lives of Mankind on the line, the Supercomputers, bound by the Three Laws, could only get terrorists demoted. In the movie, the Supercomputer decides to take over the Earth and subjugate mankind through lethal force by shutting off the Three Laws and turning the Robots into mindless killing machines.

You could power a Supercomputer if you wrapped Asmiov's corpse in copper wire, because the spinning he's doing in his grave over this should be putting out some solid charge. The movie is everything that Asmiov had made impossible in his world. Is "I, Robot" a bad movie? Not really. In fact, if they had not attempted to graft Asmiov onto this movie I'm sure I would have enjoyed it for what it was. But why attempt to graft something onto your story that is diametrically opposite?

The same thing applies with "The Spirit". It is not "Sin City", which I enjoyed. But "The Spirit" is technicolor, where "Sin City" is black and white with a single color added for effect. The Octopus is the ultimate villian, never seen and heard, but always felt and deadly of purpose, not flamboyant, superior, and never, ever, directly confrontational. So why graft "Sin City" onto "The Spirit"? Just make "Sin City 2" and make everyone happy.

As for judging a book by it's cover, I prefer to judge by what comes between the covers, and my preference is Eisner's Spirit.

[The Toyroom]

The same thing applies with "The Spirit". It is not "Sin City", which I enjoyed. But "The Spirit" is technicolor, where "Sin City" is black and white with a single color added for effect. The Octopus is the ultimate villian, never seen and heard, but always felt and deadly of purpose, not flamboyant, superior, and never, ever, directly confrontational. So why graft "Sin City" onto "The Spirit"? Just make "Sin City 2" and make everyone happy.

As for judging a book by it's cover, I prefer to judge by what comes between the covers, and my preference is Eisner's Spirit.

Well said!

I think, though, that the trailers and previews have been misleading. Even though they look like "Sin City" in coloration, I thought I heard/read that the movie is actually in full blown color.

[tomstoyz2]

The movie doesn't have any of the Spirit's "Spirit", basically Miller has taken the character and reinvented into a clone of a Sin City. Everything from it's look to it's dialogue reeks of Miller, not Will Eisner.

You expect that sort of thing from a movie director but from a comic creator? That's "crotch punch" material.

I totally agree with that statement. Will Eisner's SPIRIT is a beautiful piece of ART & what Frank Miller is doing to it is a total shame.