Talk:The Spirit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Miller 2 Lee Falk trivia 3 Anonymous? 4 Image consensus

[edit] Miller

This entry needs updated as Frank Miller has just signed on to adapt and direct a film based on this comic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.65.16 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Lee Falk trivia

I'm not sure why the following trivia, which is only partly cited, was inserted way up in the article's lead. Aside from everything else, the vagueness of the claim seems very out of context. The Spirit and the Phantom are so incredibly dissimilar, it might be that Eisner was kidding, or perhaps just referring to his character's name, or something else. The following needs to have a full citation and more context to make full sense and be encyclopedically useful:

According to an interview with Lee Falk done by Comic Book Marketplace, Will Eisner once told Falk, creator of famous comic strip The Phantom, that the Spirit was a send-up of the Phantom, although the characters have very little in commong except the fact that they both wear masks.

--Tenebrae 02:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous?

The second paragraph says it chronicles an “anonymous” vigilante. The first paragraph says his real name is Denny Colt. He’s clearly not anonymous. Is it simply that no other characters in the comic know his real name? Or do they even know him as the Spirit? --Rob Kennedy 19:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. How's that? Carlo 21:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That explains it. Thanks. --Rob Kennedy 23:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image consensus

The original Sprit image was just switched for another, very recent pic. My opinion is that it ought to be reverted (the previous one had class and an anchor in history, this new one is to me.. quite ugly) How do other watchers of this article feel? MURGH ^disc. 17:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Some people may not like the original image because of Ebony - which is fair. But the picture there now is unquestionably inferior. The illustration for this article should absolutely be by Will Eisner, if nothing else. Carlo 19:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is completely unencyclopedic for the main image not to be by Eisner, who created the character, wrote/drew it for many years and is as identified with it in a signature way as Orson Welles with Citizen Kane. The Reed Crandall image there previously was iffy enough (with all respect to the great Crandall) but at least it was historic and contemporaneous with Eisner's original. --Tenebrae 15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Using an image to illustrate The Spirit by anyone other than Eisner is akin to using a Metlife ad to illustrate Peanuts. I understand that there are editors on Wikipedia who would prefer to use the most recent, updated images of a comics character possible -- but I feel that this is a perfect example of where the historical illustration is vastly superior to any recent renditions. As a critical source, it is important that our article reflect that Eisner as the creator is so closely linked to the character. Unlike other superheroes, it's Eisner's body of work that defines the subject, not the character's longevity due to continued publication. ~CS 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Recentism is a bit too common in comics articles. While I can understand why we go with the most recent when it's not easy to tell if there's a certain definitive depiction of a subject, Eisner's work is the definitive depiction of the Spirit, and excluding Ebony White because he's uncomfortable to deal with today smacks of revisionism. Tht said, is there actually any disagreement here? I've stuck the Reed Crandall image back for the time being since it's contemporaneous with Eisner's work, but we really need an Eisner image there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. How do people feel about #1 from 74 displayed here? [1] MURGH ^disc. 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything at the link. Carlo 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. I think its fixed. MURGH ^disc. 10:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine with me; it's a cover, so it's fair use. Personally, my favorite is #4 (that picture on #1 always look fat to me). But it IS #1. Isn't that actually Will Eisner and Wally Wood? That's what my memory is telling me, anyway. Carlo 13:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm easy too, there are so many great Spirit covers, as long as experts confirm it's in fact Eisner. The only condition I think is that facial features ought to be relatively close-up in this particular image. MURGH ^disc. 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We can always put the Crandall placeholder back, but what does everyone think of this shb image I've just inserted, taking a detail from a Warren cover?--Tenebrae 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I love the Warren cover. It looks Eisner to my eye, but we do need confirmation that it's not an imitation. It's also a 1974 reprint, not a Golden Age comic, but if it's Eisner, it's Eisner -- we just need proper attribution. Tenebrae's image isn't bad either. It's framed little strangely and out of proportion, but it's not obviscated by shadows the way the Crandall image is. ~CS 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a prob: Go to this image from Grand Comics Database, and you'll see that it's signed. See also the GCD listing for that issue. Cool!--Tenebrae 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Opps! I guess I was unclear. The Warren image I really like is the Spirit #1 cover that MURGH posted. That one doesn't have any attribution, but I can now see here that it is not by Eisner. But I like the image you uploaded as well, and I'm happy with it. ~CS 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)