Support NeoGAF

[Eel O'Brian]

Anyone who's seen his asstrocious drawing of The Spirit he sent around while shopping the movie around to studios knows it is a horrific and misguided falsehood. KEEP HIM THE **** AWAY.

AUUUGGGGHH ****ING NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

I understand he has a great reverence and respect for Eisner's work, but he is just not the right guy to make a ****ing Spirit movie. I don't know who the hell is. Terry Gilliam maybe?

Miller is good at making movies of Miller comics. Eisner was on a whole other level.

You and I are in complete agreement here.

On another note, it's funny to see that some of the same people who would gaze at Dark Knight Returns like it was a Hustler Honey stroke mag because of the simplistic political views expressed on their end of the spectrum ("Reagan's old and doddering and evil! Batman fights the fascist neo-cons with an underground rebel army! OoOoOOoOhhhh this is so deep tissue please") are now calling Miller a nut for expressing simplistic political views on the opposite end.

 

[J2 Cool]

Considering how close Eisner and Miller were, I'd still trust Miller over most to do a Spirit movie.

However, Miller has clearly lost his passion for the game. When it comes to his canon, I pretend that anything after 1998 doesn't exist.

Having read a good chunk of their conversations book, it's one reason why I still have hope for this movie.

 

[nelsonroyale]

Not a fan of his work, so Ill avoid this....

Sin city was corny, cliched noir and 300 was brainless entertainment, visually nice, nut the dialogue is flat out terrible, and wildly inaccurate ('we dine in hell?' - wow)...there are infinitely better authors/artists out there....but its hollywood, dont expect them to recognise quality....

peace

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

They are both horrible ideas though.

Miller has been on the shit wagon since Sin City. Hopefully that won't be his last great work.

All-Star has been absolute drivel IMO.

Even Sin City wasn't all that great. Seeing it in film form just highlighted how godawful the dialogue was.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

You and I are in complete agreement here.

On another note, it's funny to see that some of the same people who would gaze at Dark Knight Returns like it was a Hustler Honey stroke mag because of the simplistic political views expressed on their end of the spectrum ("Reagan's old and doddering and evil! Batman fights the fascist neo-cons with an underground rebel army! OoOoOOoOhhhh this is so deep tissue please") are now calling Miller a nut for expressing simplistic political views on the opposite end.

It was nutty either way, but DKR was at least an attempt st satire-- just look at all the David Letterman stuff in it. I also didn't think it was particularly left-wing, as Batman himself was quite the fascist in it.

 

[Father_Brain]

It was nutty either way, but DKR was at least an attempt st satire-- just look at all the David Letterman stuff in it. I also didn't think it was particularly left-wing, as Batman himself was quite the fascist in it.

In any case, I'm not aware of anyone who likes DKR because they think it expresses left-wing political views. Yay for strawmen.

 

[Stoney Mason]

In any case, I'm not aware of anyone who likes DKR because they think it expresses left-wing political views. Yay for strawmen.

Exactly. a borderline psychotic avenging vigilante isn't exactly a left wing fantasy. I always interpreted DKR more as a right wing fantasy material myself and quite enjoyed it despite being a hardcore liberal.

 

[Azih]

Jews weren't flying airplanes into buildings and beheading people simply for being non-muslims.

Neither do Muslims.

Oh you're talking about extremists... oh yeah neither do they. Their rationale has nothing to do with whether someone is muslim or non-muslim. If you believe that was their rationale then you're getting sucked into believing a caricature (much like the Slap a Jap poster). Hell the extremists have no problem killing and/or targetting muslims.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

speaking of fatwas :

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21649783-2,00.html

 

[tedtropy]

Needs more pecs and less penis.

This is the greatest thing I've seen all morning.

 

[mckmas8808]

As far as 300 goes I don't think Miller intended for it to be offensive when he wrote it, or when the film as made. He simply made the Persians in the comic seem like villains which is what many books, movies, whatever do. They want the audience to hate the enemies and feel for the "good guys". But since it's people from the mid-east in 300 people are making a big deal out of it.

Weren't the Persians the villians? I seriously don't know. Someone educate me on this.

 

[RamzaIsCool]

Weren't the Persians the villians? I seriously don't know. Someone educate me on this.

What is a villain? I mean if you see the conquering nation as the villain in history then maybe the Persians where the villains in that sense, but the same can be said about the other side. The Greeks did their fair share of conquering, so would that make them the villains? I don't think it's easy to define good or bad if you talk about ancient history, the times where different and you can't use nowadays ethics to judge that period.

Which brings me to that when people use material from those periods to make movies, books or even games. It's in the makers hand in what way the different aspects are presented. I mean with this that people are able to depict the conquering Persians as villains in one movie and make Alexander the Great who pretty much did the same thing a hero in the other.

 

[mckmas8808]

Which brings me to that when people use material from those periods to make movies, books or even games. It's in the makers hand in what way the different aspects are presented. I mean with this that people are able to depict the conquering Persians as villains in one movie and make Alexander the Great who pretty much did the same thing a hero in the other.

Hmmm......interesting. You're right. Why does this happen? I can take a guess, but I might start an OT riot. :lol

 

[Fatghost]

The Persians are the bad guys because they lost. Alexander would be the hero because he won.

 

[Stoney Mason]

The Persians are the bad guys because they lost. Alexander would be the hero because he won.

?

They got slaughtered (Spartans in that one battle I mean).



EDIT: After thinking about it you must be referencing the war. My bad)

 

[RamzaIsCool]

Hmmm......interesting. You're right. Why does this happen? I can take a guess, but I might start an OT riot. :lol

Money, imo it's as simple as that. If a studio puts 60, 70, 100 or even 250 million dollars in a movie then I reckon that they want to earn that back. And 80% of the movie going public is in the “white” west, so you make movies that suits the taste of your target audience. It’s like the old cowboy movies, if people want to see “heroic” cowboys fighting the “evil” Indians and pay money for that then you can bet your ass that other people want to capitalize on that. They did it back then and they will do that now. Things like generalisation, simplification or historic accuracy are of lesser importance in most cases then how much money this is going to make. Hollywood is doing this for aslong as it is around.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s this way on the other sides of the fences also. Doesn’t really matter where you go, if people for example in Turkey are earlier willing to pay money for movies where Turks are the good guys and people from country X are the bad guys then you will see movies made in that fashion. This is just how we people are, we want to see what we want to see.