Silent Bob

To be fair, Baytor's pessimism about Marvel crossovers usually turns out to be right.

No you're not. Admittedly, Terminal Reality does not exactly have an impressive list of games on their resume. It could very well suck as much as most movie-to-games do. But as you said, there have been some surprising exceptions before - The Chronicles of Riddick, The Godfather. And besides, I feel like Ghostbusters is one of only a few franchises where seeing anything new is a good thing - even if it sucks

Damn! It was good too Ah well, wait another few days and it'll be available in quicktime.

Speaking of...The Dark Knight had something of a national hunt for its next trailer reveal. Fans had to actually show up at certain spots at certain times to see it. Luckily, one intrepid fan (as always) brought a video camera and captured grainy video (but surprisingly good sound). Word is, the full high res trailer will go online Sunday, and it may find its way into some of the Iron Man prints this Friday.

Come on, you can't say something like that and then point to Penny Arcade as one of your positive examples. Half of the PA strips are just angry rants about random video game industry news that many people don't know about/don't give a shit about. That and the occasional "huh?" comic: Or maybe I'm just not getting it, I dunno.

"Dude, take a picture of me in front of this burning building. It totally looks like a bat"

Or perhaps, like the graffiti in the original teaser poster, it's something the Joker would do to get his attention? Oh yes, also in Dark Knight news, reports are putting the film's runtime close to the three hour mark.

Awesome new Dark Knight poster: Meanwhile, word is that the new trailer will be making its online debut in four days.

I'd love to make a bigger version of the Preachers user bar as a banner. In the meantime, I used to use this as my signature:

I'm not sure about that.. He's changed the look. He's changed the tone. He's changed the writing style. He's changed the characters. It's like if David Mamet wrote the script for a Peanuts movie. At some point it's just not the same character anymore, and how could there be a worse way of fucking it up than that? I agree that Miller has done some fine work, but all of it was years ago. It's almost as if he got so enamored with his own Sin City work (which, I'll come out and say it, is not that great for the most part) that that's all he wants to do anymore. Everything he does is just Sin City with a different name. Sorry, Frank, but I'm a little tired of Sin City. I got tired of Sin City halfway through the actual Sin City books. I want the goddamn Spirit now.

Y'know, with most characters, I would completely agree. But as iconic and influential as the Spirit was, only true comic geeks in most cases know the character. And even among comic geeks, it's only the select few willing to look back past the last two decades of tights and tits. He's not a part of popular consciousness like Spider-man or Superman. For most people, this will be the first time they've ever seen the character and it should be an accurate representation. When people see Miller's version of the Spirit all they're going to see is Sin City 1.5. They're not going to come out of it with any appreciation for Eisner's work or any need to go out and read his old Spirit comics (or even the new Darwyn Cooke ones which are quite good). When Burton did his version of Batman, it was fine, because everyone already knew the real version of Batman. When Frank Miller turns the Spirit into a crappy Sin City clone, most people aren't going to know the difference and that's an injustice to a great character.

Yep, I thought it was great. And actually, I think I liked Blood & Iron a little bit more. I only wish they could put just a little more time and money into the animation.

It doesn't suck. Doug Jones does Abe's voice in the animated movies too. Just give it a minute to get used to it and you'll see that he's actually quite good at the role.

For the record, Harley could sue, or at least give us a cease and desist order, if they wanted to be dicks. Changing the words in a logo isn't enough to claim satire.

On the other hand, we've seen plenty of examples of cg characters convincingly fitting into the environment, while still being noticeably cartoony. So, basically, I just don't want to see a fully cg Bone. I want one that's either 2D and loyal to Smith's art style, or live action with cg bone characters (and cg rat creatures, dragons, and leaf bugs)

Agreed, but to get that feel it might actually be better to combine animation and live-action. Without being cgi, I haven't seen that done successfully since Roger Rabbit (and since Roger Rabbit's characters are styled after Tex Avery animation, it wasn't so detrimental that they didn't quite fit in with the world around them).

See, I don't buy that. Jeffrey Katzenberg and other so-called experts said a few years back that no one wanted to watch 2D animation anymore, but they neglected to acknowledge the fact that the bulk of 2D animation at the time was crap! Actual good 2D animated films, like The Emperor's New Groove in 2000 and Lilo & Stitch in 2002 were quite successful (can you think of any good broad release 2D animated films since then?). The problem with animation is that there's no big name director or actor (except in something like Madagascar or Bee Movie) for an audience to get excited about seeing. Studio names can draw people in. That's why in the 90s when Disney could be counted on to put out a good film every year, its 2D animated films were some of the biggest money makers in theaters. When Disney's quality began to take a dive, Pixar stepped in and has continued such an incredible track record since the beginning that many people will go see a Pixar film just because it's a Pixar film. Dreamworks used to have a similarly good reputation as well, though they've tarnished it recently with stuff like Shark Tale and Shrek the Third. Without studio name recognition, an animated film depends on a very strong marketing campaign to get a good opening weekend, and then it has to actually be a good film to keep people coming through word of mouth. That's why even animated films with bad marketing campaigns that have poor openings - like Ratatouille, for example - can still go on to become one of the most successful films of the year. The point is, people don't go to animated films because they're cg, they go to them because, moreso than any other film medium, they have some interest in the story. Many movie goers still has fond feelings about 2D animated films. The family crowd swarmed Enchanted in droves because of those fond feelings. If Warner Bros is willing to actually make a 2D Bone film into a good film, then it will likely be very successful and maybe the studios will finally see that it wasn't the medium that people were responding to.

You really really do not.

Have you seen the costumes yet? For the Octopus, I mean.

Yeah, sorry, I still can't get past it. There are only three comic properties that I care about when it comes to film adaptations. Beyond these three, I don't really care if a comic movie turns out to be good or bad. I'd be disappointed, sure, but aside from these three, it wouldn't upset me. One is Daredevil, and the director's cut was a good enough movie to satisfy me for now. The second is Bone, which I hear they're finally working on, with heavy involvement from Jeff Smith. And the third and probably top of the list is The Spirit. And they are fucking up The Spirit. I'm not gonna boycott it or anything. Frank Miller may genuinely surprise and impress me. But to be honest, I haven't really been impressed by anything he's done since Batman: Year One, so I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Man, if I had a dime for everytime I hear those words...

Yeah, he's working on 1906 - his and Pixar's first live action, non-family-oriented film.

Too late. Filming is underway. If we killed him now, the film would just be finished by Robert Rodriguez or something out of...cough..."respect".