Completely agree with your next post though.

Anyway, as a long time fan of Miller's work from his Daredevil run(s) onward and pretty familiar with Eisner's work as well, I am surely developing a real dislike for Miller, or at least his recent work, from DK2 to the present.

Now anyone familiar with both artists will know that Eisner was a huge influence on Miller and it is to Miller's credit he developed his own distinctive visual style. Miller published a pretty long paperback of several interviews he did with Eisner shortly before will passed away. However, it can be argued that Miller was always basically 2nd rate Eisner throughout most of his Sin City work which might kinda mean this movie is Miller plumbing his chief influence. The thing is, Miller's style is now so far removed and so distinctive on it's own from Eisner's work, his current visual style really doesn't evoke any of the feel or at least warmth of Eisner's classic work at all. It takes more than making titles out of buildings to truly evoke Eisner's original style.

Honestly, I wouldn't care less about this aside from the fact that Miller *is* trying to recreate *something.* The problem is basically, Miller is turning Eisner's "Spirit" into a Sin City knock-off complete with that same high contrast monochrome visual look which is really miles away from Eisner's much more organic and (at times) colorful illustrative style coupled with Miller's current almost self-parodying writing style (which is the real negative if the trailer is truly indicative of the movie).

Add to that, I think the core audience is already burned out on the monochrome Sin City look for another movie, especially one that isn't a Sin City property to begin with, plus the fact that typical movie goers just aren't into the "period" pulp style this movie will likely go for and I think this film has bomb written all over it.

The only property that Miller's done at this point I'd have any serious interest in seeing made into a film would probably be Ronin. IMO, Miller was at his best when he moved away from what his typical shtick was becoming.

Miller wanted to draw like Gil Kane and write like Eisner but then began absorbing Moebius, Pratt and Kojima. It's fun watching beginning artists grow and develop; John Byrne was a clone of another British artist plus some anime influences at first and then slowly absorbed Ditko, Kirby and Neal Adams and still benefited from working with Austin.

and as much as Steranko is one of my Gods, he basically took a bunch of pulp fiction concepts and combined them with an art style that was Jack Kirby penciling Eisner layouts with Wallace Wood inking. Certainly not saying that's an easy trick to pull off, in fact it was brilliant. But that's how he did it.

And don't forget, without Paul Gulacy there's be no Steve Rude.

I think you completely miss the point regarding many people's complaints about this movie.

Your chief problem is your lack of understanding of what constitutes a suspension of disbelief in a "fantastic film." For example, in the original black and white 1930's production of "King Kong," you had the ridiculously unbelievable story of a giant ape wrestling dinosaurs on a lost island, being captured, displayed in New York and falling to it's death off the Empire State building. The story, the direction, the acting, the groundbreaking effects work and craftsmanship and *care* that went into this movie sold the story. The fact that it' still captivating viewers more than 75 years later despite it's now primitive effects is testament in itself to their efforts.

Jump forward to 1976(?). King Kong is remade in color with then state of the art effects. Well, except it's decided to have Rick Baker in a ape suit or use a giant ape robot for 10 seconds worth of screen time. No one buys it. Most viewers never get a sense of being "immersed" in the experience the movie is trying to put forward. It's campy, it's disposable junk, it's dated in a few years time.

Dino Delaurantis and Co tried to co-opt King Kong in the 70's but simply didn't understand the underlying power and appeal of the original. The didn't get the *sense of wonder.* This is basically the complaint some people seem to be making here with Miller's take on The Spirit. Miller's enormously influenced by Eisner but by all appreanaces, he's regurgitating that influence through his own 2nd hand Eisner-style to vomit on the screen a Spirit that owes almost everything to Miller's previous creations and nothing to Eisners.

Granted, a very small number of the audience will even know Eisner is responsible for the character and this is already being promoted as a Frank Miller creation. But it's going to come off awkward, confusing and ultimately uninvolving for most moviegoers. The schizophrenic framework to build that suspension of disbelief is shaky at best and many people will think this is supposed to be some sort of Sin City sequel. Which is the ultimate slap in Will Eisner's face.

Live action, what would be the point. sure i read it years ago, but other than the character's name (Nixon) I could tell you nothing about the story. Hard Boiled is an ART BOOK and doing it as full animation would be the only thing that would make sense. Unless Miller's mind has totally been sucked up inside of his ego, he has to see that.

Beautiful, sure. Which blinds most people to the fact that you can never truly domesticate one of the most efficient killers in the animal kingdom.

Clean? Not if you own a male. Oh I get it. Just because they groom themselves you think they're clean. Although their mouths carry 10 times the diseases that for want of a better example, a dog does. Actually a dog is a good example as they eat their own and other dogs' faeces. I sure hope you're not one of those idiots that kisses their animals (not like that) or lets them lick your face.

Loving? Man, the only loving cats are the poor deluded ones who think they're dogs. Have you ever seen the genius cartoon by Larson with "What Dogs hear" and "What cats hear"? Never a truer word spoken.

As for "fuck cat haters", I'm sure it was an attempt at irony (in that you make the same sort of mistake), but what IS the similar term for those mental defectives that think they have to hate and abuse humans because they love cats? The mental giants here that think because they love one thing they have to hate something else are so Neanderthal I feel a headache coming on just through my proximity. Like fishus said you don't have to be that stupid.

I like cats fine and have owned quite a few. I'm just not in denial about their actual nature because I'm blinded by their deceiving looks. They're like little polar bears that way. And "owned" is a relative term when it comes to cats.