Movie Trailer Madness: The Spirit

Frank Miller's Will Eisner's The Spirit. Damn it movie, what do you want from me? Yes I enjoyed Sin City, but that's because that's a faithful adaptation. No I don't want The Spirit to be Sin City 2, I can wait for that. Yes I like the casting you've got. No, I don't want them to all either be "badasses" or "whores" (Frank, you really need to work on this one). Yes I like the fact that The Spirit is having a resurgence, but a big part of that is Darwyn Cooke's version, which is true to Eisner's original vision. Oh, and it has colors. No, really. You can do that in a crime-based movie.
Now, I understand that Sin City was a gold mine, and 2 is in development hell due to actor disputes and schedule problems, but that's no excuse to take something that is an artistic work in its own right and make it into a "holdover" for something else by betraying the heart of the work. Now, I'll admit that this is a fairly abstract trailer, and the finished product might be something completely different. But I wouldn't put money on it. Not when I saw that all black "movie version" Spirit figure at NYCC.
Regardless, here's the trailer. Make your own decision.

A Few Words on Secret Invasion

I feel that now would be a good time to explain the name of this blog, seeing as I've altered it again just now. Specifically, I jokingly say that my writings are not connected to the various hot comics "events" because I have come to the conclusion that I find them abhorrent. While the potential to make positive changes and draw in readers is there, these events have recently become a crutch used to excuse a lack of original thought. What's worse is that these things may be used to undo details or plot elements that a writer dislikes, regardless of the readers' opinions, and often end up only complicating continuity.

*This Section Contains Spoilers From an Internal Leak*

To use Secret Invasion as an example, there are indications that several super-powered individuals (hero and villain) have been replaced with Skrulls. What's more, those people have in fact been Skrulls since some point in the 70's. For these characters, this means undoing every single bit of growth they've had, since before that point, characters didn't evolve over time.
Luke Cage has become, over the last few years, a father, husband, and leader. He's gone from being quite literally a Blaxploitation character with low-key powers to a potential leading man for Marvel; powerful enough to warrant a place on the main stage and developed properly as a man who could lead the Avengers (which he has been). Nope! Not anymore, because Brian Michael Bendis really likes the old version! Ergo, we get stuck with a guy with no depth, and we're expected to swallow the fact that Iron Fist, Luke's best friend nearly since their debuts, had not noticed, and that the impostor had decided not acting like the guy he'd replaced would be the perfect cover (especially with the getting married part). It's just dumb, and it injures all the stories that feature Luke.
Short version: events like this all end up being one kid in the playpen messing with everyone's toys, and I for one wish that we could just have some time without all this nonsense. At least, I'd like it if Bendis would stop taking all the toys and making a huge messy pile.

Understanding Comics, part 2

Okay, so I've been thinking, reading, and listening to what some of my compatriots have to say about Understanding. And while I'm not going to place McCloud up on a pedestal, I'm also not looking to write off everything he says either. I honestly doubt that it's possible to write a comprehensive theory relating to any media without being pretentious in one way or another. The very act of thinking about art in general terms like this assumes that the thinker can ultimately understand that art completely.
However, it's not the philosophy present in Understanding that ever captured my attention at all. It was the frank, solid examination of things like shape, color, and time in comics that kept me reading, and here, I was hard pressed to find any pretension. The conclusions might be different from what others might have come to, but all in all he's just talking about comics in a scholarly light.
Honestly, from what I've heard about the man and his encounters, it seems like McCloud is simply taking his own theory too seriously. While much of the point of Understanding was for the purpose of taking comics seriously, McCloud apparently has trouble with the idea that not everyone will agree with his theories and concepts wholeheartedly. It's kind of like a large-scale internet forum; there's some good ideas here, but it's too close to everyone's hearts for them to discuss it dispassionately.

Understanding Comics, Part One

I've read Understanding before, years ago, and I was astounded. Not because of what McCloud says in it, but rather because I'd found it in my high school library. My shock was profound; Gilford High, bastion of suburban "normality" and regimented schooling, had this epic dissertation on comics. Of course, they didn't have any actual comics along with it so I could examine them in this new light, which raises some serious questions. Why is it that a text on comics is respectable enough for the library, but not the comics it discusses, when the text itself is told as a comic? I can only guess that the answer is something that would probably depress and infuriate me.
Regardless, I've enjoyed this chance to revisit the text that helped me into my current phase as a comics reader. McCloud's work examines comics by means of storytelling, art, and psychology, with their connection to the work of "sequential art" is the overhead concept which only needs refreshing every so often.
However, while I was entranced by the book when I first picked it up, this time I found I knew enough about the craft to occasionally yearn for more specificity than McCloud gives. As I begin to give serious thought to writing actual scripts and submitting them to companies, I find that Understanding is less about what it takes to create comics, and more about what comics are once they've been created. Then again, perhaps this generality is akin to McCloud's point about icons being more applicable; maybe he's sacrificed specificity to reach the widest possible audience.

My Perspective

Here's the thing. I'm a life-long reader of comics, and that includes the scholcky cape-and-tights stuff. Hell, I still like all that stuff, though my standards for writing are much higher than they used to be. Ergo, I think of comics as the media that allowed my beloved superheroes to exist, and everything that goes above and beyond is icing on the cake.
The combination of visual and textual media is an experience that I don't think can be found anywhere else, and though conventions exist, they're subverted as often as anything, so nearly any story can be told. Because of that, I often find that I prefer the absurd and fantastic when venturing away from superheroic tales, but ultimately I'll listen to whatever story the writer has to tell.