The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[Victorian Squid]

Comparing this thread to last week's... are we better off choosing books that most people hate? It causes more spirited discussion.

You hate it when people don't like anything. This is like your Barbie Dream Thread.

[Punchy]

You are such a weird cat. Cooke's Spirit was brilliant in every single facet. It was perfect Homage. It was also a complex story told through multiple single issues.

It just wasn't the Spirit, it was more like Batman, he overused the supervillains and turned the character into something he isn't.

You hate it when people don't like anything. This is like your Barbie Dream Thread.

I hate it when people dislike books for petty reasons not related to the actual comic. But I do like it when we can have a heated debate.

[thefourthman]

t just wasn't the Spirit, it was more like Batman, he overused the supervillains and turned the character into something he isn't.

I've heard this argument a million times. 1. It sounds like you are talking about Sergio's run with the supervillains talk. 2. The Spirit was one of the longest running comics. There are 28 volumes of the archives, the book is substantially different in the 50s than the sixties than the 40s than the 30s,. exactly what iteration is this one different from? The Kitchen Sink one or the one Eisner wrote that was concerned more with format expansion and telling solid stories than continuity or consistency in characterization. In the second year of the book, Spirit takes the blame for a murder to save an innocent man from going to jail. The police chase him for about a month and a half before the storyline is dropped cold, never to be mentioned again and he is chummy with the Chief of Police again. Or how about the fact that the Chief's daughter never minds his relationships with the fifty other femme fatales.... I don't know where this notion that the Spirit was a set in stone character with one particular characterization or even power set comes from, but is dead wrong and shows a horrible ignorance of the character. It is the single biggest flaw of Miller's movie that he tries to incorporate too much of what Eisner actually did with the book.

I hate it when people dislike books for petty reasons not related to the actual comic. But I do like it when we can have a heated debate.

No, you are convinced that only what is on the page matters, and then only when it doesn't matter to you.
I hated Image United and I don't have a leg to stand on about 90's Image because I didn't read it and can not prejudge it that way. I do like consistently conveyed art work and solid storytelling. Neither were present in Image United. The ONLY good thing about the book was the concept which is a petty thing that has nothing to do with the actual panels on the page. The CONCEPT of a Jam book is awesome. The execution was severely lacking.

And if every review thread were just a bitch fest about the book, my participation would end quickly. I like comics, I like them a lot. I hate it when I don't like comics. FOR ANY REASON!

[Punchy]

Aragones and Evanier's run was better than Cooke's writing-wise.

I know The Spirit is not set in stone, but still, Cooke's run wasn't especially interesting enough to merit such a different, superheroey tone. Especially when so many readers were claiming it was faithful to Eisner.

[thefourthman]

Aragones and Evanier's run was better than Cooke's writing-wise.

Sergio's run is exactly what you bitched about Darwyn's run being. It was 60's Batman. Octopus was the Joker and it was all tongue in cheek.

Cooke's explored the vast mythos in under a year, it was brilliant and beautiful.

[Punchy]

Sergio's run is exactly what you bitched about Darwyn's run being. It was 60's Batman. Octopus was the Joker and it was all tongue in cheek.

Cooke's explored the vast mythos in under a year, it was brilliant and beautiful.

No it wasn't, it was a unique, comedic book, Cooke's run was Batman-lite.

[thefourthman]

No it wasn't, it was a unique, comedic book, Cooke's run was Batman-lite.

WE will have to agree to disagree, i guess.












































































































Even though you are fundamentally and undeniably wrong.
Hell, it sounds like The Spirit might as well be IMage United. One of those books where you obviously got a completely different book from what EVERYONE else read.

[Punchy]

No, you're wrong, and It seems to me you didn't read the run that closely.

[thefourthman]

No, you're wrong, and It seems to me you didn't read the run that closely.

It is one of the runs that I know backwards and forwards (Cooke's anyhow). I read it at least once a year.

[Punchy]

It is one of the runs that I know backwards and forwards (Cooke's anyhow). I read it at least once a year.

If so, then I think you're too close to it to see it's flaws.

[thefourthman]

If so, then I think you're too close to it to see it's flaws.

I think you are too British to see your own flaws, but whatever.

Seriously, the argument against Cooke's run really fits Sergio's to a t. I like that run as well, but it is exactly what you are claiming Cooke's run is. It pigeon holes that character and treats it like 60's Batman. It really truly is Batman lite, in fact the entire time I read the run The Spirit was always voiced by Adam West in My head and there wher symphonic flourishes of "ta la da la da lada dummmmm!" and hits and stuff went POW in my brain.

Cooke took the greatest Spirit stories, distilled them to their pure essence, combined the various iterations of stories like Sans Sariff taking the best elements from the various ways Eisner told the story and made something fresh and vital out of it. If you thought it was Batman lite, I have to wonder how much of it you actually read as it was not dark and methodical in tone. Was it because there was a fairly powerless guy wearing a mask fighting crime while working in conjunction with the Police? That shows a horribly misguided understanding of what Batman is.

[Punchy]

I think you are too British to see your own flaws, but whatever.

No need to play the race card!

[Victorian Squid]

No need to play the race card!

I hear some goofy teeth clacking together, but I can't make out the words.

[thefourthman]

No need to play the race card!

See edit.

[Punchy]

I think you are too British to see your own flaws, but whatever.

Seriously, the argument against Cooke's run really fits Sergio's to a t. I like that run as well, but it is exactly what you are claiming Cooke's run is. It pigeon holes that character and treats it like 60's Batman. It really truly is Batman lite, in fact the entire time I read the run The Spirit was always voiced by Adam West in My head and there wher symphonic flourishes of "ta la da la da lada dummmmm!" and hits and stuff went POW in my brain.

Cooke took the greatest Spirit stories, distilled them to their pure essence, combined the various iterations of stories like Sans Sariff taking the best elements from the various ways Eisner told the story and made something fresh and vital out of it. If you thought it was Batman lite, I have to wonder how much of it you actually read as it was not dark and methodical in tone. Was it because there was a fairly powerless guy wearing a mask fighting crime while working in conjunction with the Police? That shows a horribly misguided understanding of what Batman is.

It was because it reduced the Spirit to a superhero, It seemed that Cooke used the supervillains more in 12 issues than Eisner did in 30 years. He didn't distill anything to it's essence, just presented something in a form more palatable to superhero nerds.