Talk:The Spirit (2008 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citations for use[edit]

  • Michael Fleming (2007-08-02). "Gabriel Macht to star in 'Spirit': Sony picks up rights to comicbook adaptation". Variety.com. Retrieved 2007-08-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Myron 10:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I created a Cast section now that we have more than one person. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--J.D. (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildroot (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited passage[edit]

"At the New York Comic-con on February 24, 2007, Michael Uslan stated that production is going lightning fast and said that Frank Miller is nearing completion of what looks to be the final draft. When asked if the film will be a hard R, he said that while the film will have elements of Frank Miller's film noir, that the expectation is a hard PG-13 in order to stay true to Will Eisner's vision. Mr. Uslan also stated that at this point pre-production for The Spirit is expected to begin very soon, most likely before that of Sin City 2."

  • The article already says that principal photography will begin in late spring 2007.
  • The article already says that Miller has begun a second draft. Saying "what looks to be" is speculative.
  • The actual quote regarding the rating is, "It's hard to say until we have a script to analyze and figure out… If I had to guess, I would say more of a hard PG-13." Guesses aren't confirmation of actual film ratings.
  • Cited mention of The Spirit likely to begin before Sin City 2 has already been added.
I'm removing the uncited passage on these grounds of redundancy and inaccuracy. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Executive producers[edit]

The consensus of WikiProject Films was to exclude executive producers and associate producers unless they have some direct bearing on the film. There is no reason to add executive producers indiscriminately to the article; this has never been the standard, and the method is akin to adding names from film credits to the article without indicating their relevance. Dawgknot has chosen to ignore this consensus to add the indiscriminate information, and we have exhausted our 3RR limits. I request for any other editor to evaluate the situation and act accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to Eric to determine the relevance of the contribution of producers whose names appear in virtually every article published in the media. It is an arbitrary 'consensus' that is observed more in the breach. Check out the credits, for example, of Schindler's List. Many of the listed 'Producers' were actually Executive Producers.
In the case of The Spirit, the article makes clear that Oddlot entered into a collaboration with Batfilm which had controlled the property for over a decade and developed it. If the Executive Producers mentioned were so inconsequential to the final result, the burden is upon Eric to demonstrate it. It's a pretty weak assumption from the start that credited producers somehow don't make an impact. -User:Dawgknot
I don't think you understand what consensus means; I suggest that you read the policy if you haven't already. I did not alone dictate that it is not reasonable to mention executive producers in the article. There are two clear consensuses for this matter -- "executive producer" and "associate producer" attributes were specifically removed from the Infobox Film template because the names were too indiscriminate. Secondly, the large majority of film articles on Wikipedia that have achieved GA or FA status do not bother to name the executive producers or associate producers. Please understand these roles are different from actual producers like Joel Silver. Lastly, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are trade papers for the Hollywood industry, so the names are relevant to the industry, but not in the encyclopedic sense. You'll notice that no reference outside these references bother to reiterate the executive producers' names. If users want to view the full credits of a film, not just executive producers, but everyone else as well, IMDb is available in two places as a link to visit. I hope you understand that the community, not me, has spoken both explicitly and implicitly on this matter by not including this information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Just because the info template has removed the category of Executive Producers (which I think is silly), there is no "consensus" that Executive Producers or Associate Producers are banned from the Wiki articles discussing their films. What sort of arbitrary and capricious decision is that?

It is a false distinction that somehow the trade papers Hollywood Reporter and Variety are merely written for the industry and therefore irrelevant. That they publish in front page articles the names of relevant producers is proof positive that the industry deems their contribution as significant. You don't see the Best Boy named or the Key Grip.

However, here are some consumer references:

http://www.comics2film.com/b/index.php?blog=17&title=lionsgate_conjures_the_spirit_with_odd_l&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_12733.html

http://wizarduniverse.invisionzone.com/index.php?s=33bdb1b384c7b97c0f974d6dc4c6ff05&showtopic=15167&pid=436254&st=0&#entry436254

http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=005354

In fact there are many search pages of blogs and consumer press references to these two men.

You seem to be taking an Wikipedia:Ownership of articles posture. I'm reasonably certain that the burden is upon a dissenting editor to make the case that the inclusion of credited Executive Producers is an indiscriminate collection of information. And I certainly don't agree that in the context of thet text I offered that it violates the consensus on formatting.

Finally, the rule is observed mostly in the breach. In this article alone, there is a reference to a writer whose efforts appear to have nothing to do with Frank Miller's script. How irrelevant is that? Moreover, if you check Schindler's List http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_list, you will see that there are many executive and associate producers listed under the Producers section of the template you referenced. Frankly, the same courtesy should be accorded to any credited Executive Producer unless it can proved that they got their credit by chicanery or by being irrelevant to the outcome.

There is no consensus on this point in spite of any claim to the contrary.-User:Dawgknot —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:24, August 21, 2007 (UTC).


And I can find no discussion about the Executive Producer issue about which consensus is claimed. If someone can help me find it, I'd greatly appreciate the assistance. However, a perfect example of my point is contained on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. Two of the three Producers listed for The Terminator were Executive Producers. On the basis of that style guide, I will add the Executive Producers of The Spirit to the box on the right of the article screen. - User:Dawgknot —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:39, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

I can find no evidence of the stated consensus. I've read the discussion pages closely of the film project and the template. Perhaps, someone might take a moment and help me find it. But, in contrary to the statement of consensus, it appears that this issue is very much alive at Template:Infobox Film. Discussion items 29 and 48 are current and clearly indicate that there is interest in including all producers. It hardly seems right that Schindler's List includes Executive Producers as well as Associate Producers and we seem to be at loggerheads about the only 2 Executive Producers any published account on The Spirit mentions. I'm hoping we can find a suitable resolution of this.

It seems to me that if substantial press includes the mention of certain people on the film, including trade press, then there is a broad view and even a strong presumption that those parties are and have been very important to the film. Wouldn't it be incumbant upon someone who takes the opposite view to supply evidence that those credited weren't significant to the process?

Let's talk about this.

Dawgknot 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

First of all, can I ask you to streamline your comments? They are indented and spaced at different places, making a direct response difficult (hence this arbitrary break). I've investigated the matter myself, and it does not seem that there is clear consensus on the inclusion of these producers, either. In addition to the lack of full discussion at the talk page for WP:MOSFILMS (which is kind of commonplace), I've looked at film articles of FA status. The most recent one, 300, lists four "classic" producers out of sixteen producer positions. However, for other films of FA status, there seems to be inconsistency, which I've reported in a new discussion initiated here. The links that you've provided, though, is basically the text duplicated from The Hollywood Reporter, so this doesn't present evidence of executive producers being reported beyond trade papers. Also, accusing another editor of ownership is poor conduct, especially considering that two other editors have reverted you where they have not edited this article before. This is a situation that needs to be discussed more clearly, and I've presented the link to that discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have been too quick to judge your thoughts. However, if you take the time to see it from my point of view, I have added factual material that is relevant and in context and you have repeatedly reverted them out for stated reasons that turn out to be incorrect. Moreover, I was arbitrarily blocked...but you weren't. Pardon my concern that I have been swarmed. If not apologies all around.
I would appreciate it very much if you would permit me to edit this article along the line I have done unless you wish to continue to block my work. Then we must find a path of agreement.
How do you wish to proceed with this?

Dawgknot 16:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here. We'll see what others have to say. Also in regard to being blocked, I've already left a comment on your talk page about that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAST[edit]

Why wouldn't we want to include Scarlett Johansson and Eva Mendes in the cast list? They are bona fide stars and not bit players. I propose that we add those names to the data box (along with the names of the Executive Producers and the CoProducers). Dawgknot 15:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Arthur the Cat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.19.217 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book[edit]

The Spirit is not a comic strip!

From Spirit:

"The Spirit is a fictional American masked crime-fighter, created by writer-artist Will Eisner in 1940, who starred in a Sunday-newspaper comic-book insert." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.30.109 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, there WAS a Spirit newspaper strip. BUT, it came later after the comic book insert was successful. Plus he appeared in comic books, both reprints of the newspaper insert and original stories. ---emb021 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.182.158.153 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and originally didn't have a superpower until now. (and will someone mind telling me how one dam thing like that makes it suddenly get horrible ratings?) =-_-= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His superpower made him look like a cartoon character. A piano falls on him, so what? It can't hurt him. It's funny in cartoons but not in live action films.(178.236.117.122 (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Frank Miller[edit]

is a long time fan of The Spirit. His first Batman-Story (a short christmas story) shows influence of Will Eisner, in a reprint comic book of the The Spirit by Kitchen Sink Press is his letter and he had long talks with Will Eisner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.30.109 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New posters[edit]

Superherohype has released three new posters of the film (http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=7020). I consider we could replace the current picture for the third one of these posters, as it is more movie-related (that is, it features the actor who´s playing the character and isn´t just a drawing).Franshu (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the third one will be out of context by itself, having only the caption, "And I am her Spirit." Not to mention that the posters have the SHH! watermark. I think we should wait a little longer for a one-sheet. Would that be OK? I do realize that the existing poster is a bit old. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rating[edit]

Will it be PG-13 or R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.151.115 (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budget[edit]

Do we have any budget figures for this film? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

satire/comedy[edit]

Why is the fact that the film is a comedy not mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.113.175 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shush, you'll give the game away! 86.132.68.238 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film Noir[edit]

This is a noir film. Did people overlook this??? LOL(LonerXL (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Film noir? It's a comic book adaptation, and not a very good one. Just because it's dark doesn't make it a film noir. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71.200.140.35 is correct. Film noir has specific genre mechanics that this movie does not have. Plenty written about it, easy to look up.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a noir enthusiast, I believe I have the right to say, "No. Not by a long shot is this noir." 65.79.111.22 (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Saref as an anti-heroine ?[edit]

From the description of the character's behaviour and motivation, Saref does not seem to fit the definition of anti-heroine. Certainly, she is a femme fatale, but she does not appear to be self-directed the way that classic anti-heroes are, e.g., Conan of Cimmeria, Clint Eastwood's un-named characters in many of his Western films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CLSwiki (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call her a secondary villain. Remember that she did manipulate that poor man into committing suicide and was unusually nonchalant when Mahmoud died. --24.46.117.40 (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

The explanation of the plot is too long, seeming to take in every little action that happens in the movie. It should be shortened. 12.31.21.15 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Reidgreg (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory reception[edit]

The lead section says the film was a commercial failure and then in the "Reception" section it says it was a box office bomb. I'm not into the movie so I can't really comment, but this should be fixed. --uKER (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Box office bomb means failure. 75.72.33.44 (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is also colloquial and conversational WP:TONE, and may not mean the same in other than American English. I'm going to insert a more neutral and less slangy phrase. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it looks like someone beat me to it! I did find an apparent piece of vandalism or marketing/promotion, though. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do a majority of the quotes about this film maintain some level of positive criticism? This movie was largely panned and received a terribly low aggregate score? Surely the tone should be maintained in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.144.172 (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that's a box office record?![edit]

So the info box on the right states that the film took $39 billion?! The actual figure is $39,031,337 and is from the same source.

Also, above the main feature picture, it just Scarlett johnson. That is not meant to be there plus that isn't even her name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.131.211 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The opera references in this film[edit]

When I first saw this movie a couple of years ago, I was really surprised that a movie that was said to be so dumb had opera references in it. And if personally I happened to pick up on some opera references, then maybe there were other interesting literary references that were too subtle for me. So I documented the opera references I noticed.

But of course this is Wikipedia where no one is ever allowed to point out anything interesting or intelligent or insightful. Everything here must be kept as retarded as possible.

So if the first line of this movie happened to be "Call me Ishmael", I would not be allowed to point out that that's the first line of Moby Dick and provide a reference to prove it. Because Wikipedia must be kept stupid at all times. I would have to wait for some idiot at the New York Post to notice that the first line is the same as Moby Dick and then I could quote him stating the bloody obvious.

If there is something that is crystal clear to me because I'm 50 years of age and have read a hell of a lot of different types of shit, I am not allowed to point it out for the benefit of those who are 18 or 20 and haven't gotten around to reading Melville yet.

So here is what I wrote about the film's opera references:

Elsewhere, Floss discovers the Octopus’s severed finger crawling toward her. She picks it up and departs, possibly planning to clone The Octopus, and saying, "Who knows what I'll do."

<ref>Floss's sendoff line, "Who knows what I'll do," is the same as the final line of the character of [[Das Rheingold#Roles|Loge]] from [[Richard Wagner]]'s 1869 opera ''[[Das Rheingold]]''. (See [http://www.trell.org/wagner/whologe.html Loge – person and element, commentator and agent by Kristian Evensen].) The Spirit had earlier referred to himself as a [[Flying Dutchman]], the title character of Wagner's [[The Flying Dutchman (opera)|1843 opera]].<br />When the Octopus complains, "Enough of this frog talk!", his comment follows the "C'est toi? C'est moi!" exchange between Plaster of Paris and the Spirit. This dialogue appears in the [[Carmen#Act 4|duet between Carmen and Don José]] in [[Georges Bizet|Bizet]]'s opera ''[[Carmen]]''.</ref>

At dawn, the Spirit stands triumphant on a rooftop with his cat.

So there is a quotation from Wagner, a reference to Wagner, and a quotation from Bizet.

Notice that I did not write "The Spirit is based on or The Spirit quotes from..." I didn't say that at all, because I would need to prove that the connection was deliberate if I said it was. So I didn't use phrasing of that kind. I merely pointed out that the last line of this movie happens to be the same as the last line of a really really famous opera. Draw whatever conclusions you want from that; it's up to you.

If I draw a conclusion and write it down, that is OR. I do not draw any conclusion; I simply point out a correlation, and that is not OR.

It is up to each reader to draw any inference.

Varlaam (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TV Movie?[edit]

Any reason it's not mentioned here? 24.63.255.226 (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticized by the levity"?[edit]

The lead summary of the film's reception mentions it "being criticized by the levity". What does that even mean? Perhaps it needs rewriting. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first Spirit film[edit]

It came out in 1986 and featured Sam Jones as Denny Colt / The Spirit, with Nana Visitor as Ellen Dolan and Garry Walberg as her father, the Commissioner. It was well paced and quite faithful to the comics but like this version, never did well. Eisner when he first thought up the character was told he should give him a costume. After some thought, Eisner added a mask to his new creation, which was accepted. It worked in comics but a tough guy whose only gimmick is a mask does not seem to do well in films.(178.236.117.122 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

"Cult Following"[edit]

This article mentions twice that the film has developed a cult following. Granted, there's no metric to qualify what a 'cult following' is, there's also nothing to indicate it was anything but a cool reception. The two sources provided: "CD Computing News. "Lionsgate Debuts Frank Miller's Action Film 'The Spirit'", Entrepreneur, June 1, 2009" in the header is a dead link and a search of the Entrepreneur suggests the article has been completely removed. I will remove the mention of cult status until a new source can be found. The second mention sources only this: "Sterling, Mike (26 August 2012). "Why I love The Spirit (2008) (and you should too)". The Tearoom of Despair. Blogspot. Retrieved 16 November 2013." As a blogspot article, it can't be held alone to qualify this movie as a cult film. I'm not saying it doesn't have a cult following, I'm saying we need better sources otherwise Wikipedia can force cult status on movies by way of self-fulfilling prophecy.68.96.52.9 (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Spirit (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and style clean up[edit]

I've completed some pucntion and style cleanup. In particular the tense in the plot may need further editing for consistency. Plots and story lines are best written from the time reference of the characters rather than if you saw the film and are reciting what happened relative to you the movie goer. Hope that helps. Dr.khatmando (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put the flashbacks in past tense, and brought the plot closer to the 400–700 word recommendation of WP:FILMPLOT. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Spirit (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Spirit_(2008_film)&oldid=1210105619"