sin shitty
― latebloomer, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:18 (fifteen years ago) link
that's brilliant!
― blueski, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:22 (fifteen years ago) link
who scotches the botchmen
― blueski, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:23 (fifteen years ago) link
300 and Sin City are both excellent popcorn movies; you went expecting high drama? Miller's high points as a writer for my money are Give Me Liberty, Ronin, Year One and most of the Daredevil run. Dark Knight, Sin City and anything he's done in the past five years doesn't hold up too well. Also: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ryan.coombes/Myworld/cain1.JPG
― forksclovetofu, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:23 (fifteen years ago) link
nuke
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:23 (fifteen years ago) link
gimme a red
― forksclovetofu, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:25 (fifteen years ago) link
300 and Sin City are both excellent popcorn movies; you went expecting high drama?
I went to Sin City expecting a good movie.
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:26 (fifteen years ago) link
but it was a comic book adaptation
― blueski, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:27 (fifteen years ago) link
I got one. Your mileage varied, I guess.
― forksclovetofu, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:28 (fifteen years ago) link
ONLY SEVEN MONTHS AWAY
JUST THINK
― David R., Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:28 (fifteen years ago) link
Miller's second run on Daredevil (w/Mazzuchelli) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his first run
― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:29 (fifteen years ago) link
Remember that feeling of watching “Sin City” on the big screen and being blown away by what a faithful translation of the source material it was, in terms of both content and visuals? Triple that, and you’ll come close to watching “Watchmen.”
This actually sounds pretty bad, because one of the reasons Sin City sucked was exactly the way it tried so slavishly to transfer everything in the original comic to the screen. Film is a different medium than comic, and you as a filmmaker should realize that.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:36 (fifteen years ago) link
I wouldn't call Kevin Smith a filmmaker. He's more like a fanboy with a camera.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:38 (fifteen years ago) link
Yeah, but I was referring to Snyder and whoever it was who did Sin City.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:41 (fifteen years ago) link
jesus god you people are dour
― HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:41 (fifteen years ago) link
whadayamean Dan I lol at you all the time!
― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:42 (fifteen years ago) link
re: pretty-looking movies, I mean
― HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:43 (fifteen years ago) link
I'm not going to defend either "300" or "Sin City" as an artistic triumph in terms of storytelling because they aren't (although "300" does a better job of getting its story across than "Sin City", mostly because there isn't a prominent actor completely flubbing an American accent in it) but both of them are visually-stunning; most of my enjoyment of both movies came from the deep commitment to visual style evidenced in both.
― HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:46 (fifteen years ago) link
yeah i use that one to justify Matrix Reloaded all the time :/
― blueski, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:48 (fifteen years ago) link
how's that working out for you
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:49 (fifteen years ago) link
I've actually liked all the Kevin Smith films I've seen. He's not much of a filmmaker, yes, but at least the dialogue is usually funny.
Sin City, on the had, was at least cinematically ambitious, but nevertheless a failure, because 1) it tried to cram three different comic series into one movie instead of filming just one of them, thus making the pacing terrible with no breathing space at all, and 2) the director thought he could do the exact same things in a movie than in a comic, and it would still look equally good. Stuff like the cartoonish weightless bodies or caricatures like the Yellow Bastard simply looked silly, because cinema is inherently a more "realistic" medium, and therefore exaggeration and caricaturization can't be used in it the same way as in a comic.
(xxx-post)
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:50 (fifteen years ago) link
Film is a different medium than comic, and you as a filmmaker should realize that.
-- Tuomas, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:36 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
ya no duh. that doesn't mean experimenting by combining the two might not be worthwhile! or at least produce interesting results.
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:50 (fifteen years ago) link
i agree it's not quite a success but it was still pretty neat & different and a lot more interesting than many other ways a sin city adaptation could have gone.
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:51 (fifteen years ago) link
i mean the fact that people are making experimental art flicks based on "sin city" these days still kind of blows my mind... think about what an '80s adaptation would have looked like
Reloaded is great, though! It's Revolution that is super-embarrassing.
Tuomas:
1. If Rodriguez/Miller had only done one story, the movie would have been 40 minutes long. 2. The entire point of the movie was to transfer the comic book's imagery to film; change that and you basically have three shitty stories unworthy of direct-to-video release. (or s1ocki OTM)
― HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:53 (fifteen years ago) link
The entire point of the movie was to transfer the comic book's imagery to film
this doesn't strike me as a particularly good reason to make a movie
― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:56 (fifteen years ago) link
what does strike you as a particularly good reason to make a movie?
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:57 (fifteen years ago) link
eh, grandma?
"I really wanted to help the homeless, so I decided to make 'The House Bunny'."
― HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 19:59 (fifteen years ago) link
In Every Multiplex, A Meet The Spartans
― David R., Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:02 (fifteen years ago) link
</raggett>
1. If Rodriguez/Miller had only done one story, the movie would have been 40 minutes long.
I think you could've actually easily made an enjoyable 90-100 minute feature film based on the first comic only. But now the whole story is told in 50 minutes super-speed with no room for atmospherics, breathing space, etc. For example, take the scene where Marv walks in the rain and tries to figure out who's pulling the strings behind everything that's happened. In the comic Miller devotes several splash pages to it, and it really feels like a needed pause between the action scenes, a calm before the final storm. But in the movie the whole scene is done with fast cuts in a couple of minutes, and it doesn't have the same effect at all.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:04 (fifteen years ago) link
omg that would have been the most excruciating thing on Earth
― HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:04 (fifteen years ago) link
To make an adaptation that uses cinema's own strengths and gives the viewer a new interpretation of the basic story, instead of slavishly copying all the visual aspects and the plot from the original comic.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:05 (fifteen years ago) link
Too true.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:06 (fifteen years ago) link
-- Tuomas, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:05 PM (17 seconds ago) Bookmark Link
what if the visual aspect is the only interesting thing about it?
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:06 (fifteen years ago) link
15 minutes of Marv walking in the rain is probably the number one thing I would say "Sin City" would never need.
(again, s1ocki OTM)
― HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:07 (fifteen years ago) link
one of the reasons Sin City sucked was exactly the way it tried so slavishly to transfer everything in the original comic to the screen.-- Tuomas
-- Tuomas
both of them are visually-stunning; most of my enjoyment of both movies came from the deep commitment to visual style evidenced in both.
― contenderizer, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:08 (fifteen years ago) link
Robert Bresson's Sin City.
― Pancakes Hackman, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:08 (fifteen years ago) link
i think it farts and sings
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:08 (fifteen years ago) link
fine really
― blueski, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:09 (fifteen years ago) link
then its NOT A GOOD IDEA. sheesh.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:13 (fifteen years ago) link
Well, then you should realize that sometimes a certain visual aspect only works well in a comic book. If you can't come with any original ways of trying to convey the same effect in cinematic terms, don't try to slavishly the ape the comic's visuals if they're bound to look silly onscreen.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:13 (fifteen years ago) link
(x-post)
yeah the Man Without Fear is pretty unfuckwithable
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:14 (fifteen years ago) link
jessica rabbit was hot in the comics too
― remy bean, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:15 (fifteen years ago) link
http://www.cinematical.com/media/2008/04/jessicarabbit1.jpg
― remy bean, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:17 (fifteen years ago) link
im not even a big sin city fan, it's just that the dogmatic approach to what SHOULD and SHOULDNT be a movie is kind of annoying
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:17 (fifteen years ago) link
I go back to my "jesus god you people are dour" post.
― HI DERE, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:17 (fifteen years ago) link
convincing world-hating brutalist Crass schlocky alive dynamic kinda adult arrested erotic explicit Disneyfied Maxim squeaky-clean T&A full-grown/stunted sexuality fuck you fury robotically beautiful slickness ugly as shit visually-stunning appallingly stupid ugly graceless farts drools sings
― omar little, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 20:17 (fifteen years ago) link