What's the scoop on RR's new movie Sin City? This is a comic book or something?
Near the bottom:
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=3212&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
Quote from: metroshaneWhat's the scoop on RR's new movie Sin City? This is a comic book or something?
hoooo da fuck is RR?
director of desperado, from dusk till dawn, etc.
Thanks and sorry for the double post.
Well, since this thread is here...
The Vine: All-star lineup seduced by 'Sin'
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Robert Rodriguez is packing up a U-Haul with a host of top talent in hopes that they'll move into "Sin City," which he is directing for Dimension Films. According to multiple sources, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bruce Willis, Elijah Wood, Mickey Rourke, Brittany Murphy, Kate Bosworth and Jaime King have been targeted for the film, an adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel series. Some of the actors have already signed on for parts in the pic, while others are only in discussions or have just received offers to join the cast. Other names being bandied about include Benicio Del Toro and Maria Bello, though offers had not yet gone out to either as of late Wednesday. Set to start shooting shortly, "Sin City" will be composed of three intertwining vignettes revolving around a dark set of characters that call the fictional corrupt town home.
I guess Bruce would be playing Marv? I can dig that for sure. Leo as Dwight? I picture him in Romeo + Juliet, in the scene where he kills Tybalt, and it makes pretty good sense.
And Benicio and Maria Bello would both be perfect for this movie, so I hope they sign on.
The way RR works, this could be out by this fall. I can't wait.
I seriously hope Mickey Rourke is Marv. That casting would be *perfect*!
that would be an awesome cast and yet i'm just so worried about Rodriguez now after OUATIM and Spy Kids 2 (didnt see 3). i just thought they were ROYAL MESSES. i used to like him when he made 'real' movies (from dusk till dawn, desperado). he needs to slow down and make sure he has a good movie. maybe if he gets a little more help in the script dept. he will be okay. but i really wasnt loving the digital either. oh well, this better be good.
No arguments here that RR needs some ritalin and needs to calm down. I have a little more faith on Sin City just for the sheer fact that RR had to actually write a whole thought-out script (it seems quite absurd that this is true, shouldn't this ALWAYS happen?) to convince Miller that the movie would work. Frank's notoriously protective of his baby, and his involvement gives me hope that this might just work. Here's hoping the blacks are black, the whites are really white, there's plenty of gritty VO, and cuts are kept to a minimum.
Side note: For the transfer of Seven, Fincher wanted the blacks so deep around the edges so that it wouldn't be possible to tell where the frame starts/ends. I hope Sin City gets this right.
Quote from: Weak2ndActI seriously hope Mickey Rourke is Marv. That casting would be *perfect*!
according to AICN, "MARV is being played by Mickey Rourke... he's been doing voice-over work with Robert the past couple of days and Robert has been incredibly jazzed about the way those Miller lines are coming out of Mickey. He will be undergoing a transformation of sorts to end up looking extremely close to what Miller drew as looking like Marv. You'll see."
all the details here.... http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=17215
Michael Fleming at Variety.com has broke a story about how Robert Rodriguez, in order to be able to have Frank Miller as his co-director on SIN CITY, resigned from the Director's Guild (DGA) as to not set a potentially damaging precedent which could be abused outside of this particularly unique situation. However, in talking to Michael Fleming he spilled the beans on some of the additional "Holy Shit" cool things about SIN CITY.
#1: He says that Quentin Tarantino will be a "Special Guest Director" on one of the Sin City stories in the film!!!
#2: In addition to the names mentioned in yesterday's story - he mentioned to Fleming that he's been talking with Johnny Depp, Steve Buscemi, Christopher Walken and Michael Douglas!
Add those names to Leonardo DiCaprio, Bruce Willis, Elijah Wood, Mickey Rourke, Brittany Murphy, Kate Bosworth, Jaime King, Josh Hartnett, Marley Shelton, Maria Bello and Benicio Del Toro and you've got a potentially amazing line up, possibly the biggest all star line up for a comic adaptation period.
And that's the latest from SIN CITY...
all i can say is DAMN
Quote from: meatwadall i can say is DAMN
what else can one say at this point? i mean really? like, hahah. if this turns out to be anything BUT the coolest movie EVER, then something went wrong. haha.
that sh*t sounds great.....but my vote for potential coolest film ever ..would be The Fountain......
Go get the comics if you haven't read them before. Then you'll seriously go into a geek meltdown. They're just amazing.
Actually, I'm very happy RR is onboard just for sheer fact that I know this won't be dragged out for over 2 years. Yes, I'm that impatient.
Quote from: Weak2ndActGo get the comics if you haven't read them before. Then you'll seriously go into a geek meltdown. They're just amazing.
They really are. I'm really excited that they're telling multiple stories, because there are just too many great Sin City tales. And I don't know why I didn't immediately pick up on Mickey Rourke as Marv when I read that cast list -- he's perfect. Ugly, big, mean and sensitive.
I wouldn't even know where to buy a comic book. I'd feel less rediculous walking into a porn shop.
That's a sadly common POV.
All of the Sin City stories can be found in graphic novel form at most bookstores and online retail outlets (so you can remain anonymous). If you like noir, you'll be in heaven.
Helmer strays from DGA
Source: Variety
Robert Rodriguez is one filmmaker who doesn't see himself as an auteur. In fact, he likes company when directing a movie, even if it means having to resign from the Directors Guild.
Days before beginning production on the Dimension drama "Sin City," Rodriguez resigned his DGA membership so that he could co-direct with Frank Miller, a film neophyte who created, wrote and illustrated the three-book graphic novel series on which the movie is based.
DGA rules dictate that there be only one director assigned to direct a motion picture at any given time, although the guild occasionally grants a waiver to that policy. On Thursday, a DGA spokesman said, "The guild regrets Mr. Rodriguez's resignation, however, we stand firmly behind the principle of one director-one film."
Rodriguez portrayed his ankling as hardly acrimonious; he asserted that since his movie is so unorthodox, he decided it would be easier both for him and the DGA if they're not shackled together when production begins Monday on his soundstages in Austin, Texas, beginning Monday.
For one thing, Rodriguez plans to have Quentin Tarantino direct part of the film, along with Miller and him. Tarantino may be billed as a "special guest director" or whatever title Rodriguez wants to bestow, now that he's no longer under strict DGA guidelines about who gets behind-the-camera credit.
It's not the first time that Rodriguez has quit the DGA. He did so a decade ago so he could take part in the Tarantino-orchestrated film "Four Rooms," released in 1995.
Rodriguez said it would be easier to turn his card in again than test the rigorous DGA rulebook.
"I didn't want Frank to be treated as just a writer, because he is the only one who has actually been to 'Sin City,' " Rodriguez said. "I am making such a literal interpretation of his book that I'd have felt weird taking directing credit without him. It was easier for me to quietly resign before shooting because otherwise I'd have been forced to make compromises I was unwilling to make. Or set a precedent that might hurt the guild later on."
Rodriguez often agrees with the spirit of DGA policies, but they "make it very hard to do something that is exciting and different, which is exactly how I sold this project from the beginning," he added.
Rodriguez, who partly financed "El Mariachi" by volunteering himself for medical experiments, has always been comfortable making films by the seat of his pants, even though he has built studios in Austin grand enough to accommodate both "Sin City" and the pic he'll direct right after, the $100 million Paramount sci-fi blockbuster "A Princess Of Mars."
He hardly seemed rattled, for instance, that aside from his DGA defection and welcoming a new baby, he was in the thick of assembling cast for a film that begins shooting in four days. Rodriguez has been talking with the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio, Johnny Depp, Bruce Willis, Steve Buscemi, Brittany Murphy, Christopher Walken and Michael Douglas.
All that's certain is that Mickey Rourke will anchor the story segment that will begin shooting Monday. The remaining cast will draw from those who are available for a reasonable price to work a short shift in a cool film.
None of this would have been possible if Rodriguez hadn't pledged to make Miller a major part of the creative process.
Though Miller has done acclaimed graphic novels on Batman and Daredevil and created the Elektra character that will be reprised by Jennifer Garner in the Rob Bowman-directed "Daredevil" spinoff film, the author refused to sell "Sin City" to any filmmaker. Rodriguez wanted it badly enough to write a feature script on spec and shoot the first scene on his own dime with Josh Hartnett and Marley Shelton. That and a promise to make Miller his co-director won Rodriguez the property.
Rodriguez also said that quitting for the second time was hardly traumatic. He was persuaded to rejoin the DGA before directing "The Faculty" because DGA brass told him he was about the only significant working director who wasn't a member.
The helmer also asserted that the DGA needs to do a better job of judging individual cases rather than working from a rulebook.
"I'm fine with leaving and they're fine with my leaving," he said. "Someone in my position doesn't need the protection of the guild as much as a newcomer who might get strong-armed by a film company. In my case, the obstacles I face come from the guild. Studios are only too happy when I suggest shooting something in digital, or when I try to do 20 jobs at the same time on my movies. I don't consider this a negative thing, and perhaps it's better that I resign and come back later than have someone use my precedent as an example to strong-arm a directing credit they don't deserve on some future film."
Other directors who are not members of the DGA include George Lucas and Tarantino.
Quote from: MacGuffinhe was in the thick of assembling cast for a film that begins shooting in four days.
FOUR DAYS! this is clearly the most insane thing i've ever heard of!?!? NO WORD OF THIS PROJECT, even in RUMOR FORM until a week ago and now they're shooting in 4 days!??! thats insane?!? what happened to pre-production, sets, costumes, getting into character, rehearsals, assembling a cast, etc.!? wow.
Hurray for RR. He opitimizes the "Texas way".
...and I'm a fan of Noir, so maybe I'll put on some dark glasses and buy some Sin city.
Quote from: themodernage02what happened to pre-production, sets, costumes, getting into character, rehearsals, assembling a cast, etc.!? wow.
Well, I think a lot of the sets and production design will be taken care of digitally. The comic is is drawn very sparse (only the BG's and the parts of the locations that are lit are drawn, everything else is black as midnight), and I suspect the film will look the same too. Or at least I hope so.
To clarify Weak2ndAct's explanation, here are some (large) pics:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myfreewallpapers.com%2Fcomics%2Fwallpapers%2Fsin-city.jpg&hash=29c408cfbb43aef5b6b005df67015176fe461708)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comune.modena.it%2Fglamazonia%2Fcomicsengine%2Fdownload%2Fwallpaper%2F13_sin_city.jpg&hash=d5632fa742551bf3b90c97bfa59de34f63a7613b)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jackasscritics.com%2Fimages%2Ffuersty%2F2002_12_17%2Fsin_city_miller.jpg&hash=3e749504f1514ef2af0cf20d1c48fd28c9091c9b)
Contra! I wanna see the filming SO BADLY. If anyone has any news as to specific days or locations (preferably the weekend) when or where they'll be shooting, please let me know, I wanna drive down and check it out. Man, Rodriguez, Rourke, Depp, Willis...I'm gonna cry if I don't get to check out some location shooting or SOMETHING!
I have a feeling you'll only be able to catch some filming if you break into RR's Austin soundstages.
No Trouble (get it? Cuz it's called "TROUBLEmaker Studios!")
Carla Gugino Moves to Rodriguez's Sin City
Source: Variety
Former Karen Sisco star Carla Gugino has been tapped by her "Spy Kids" series helmer Robert Rodriguez to play a role in his Dimension Films drama Sin City, reports Variety.
Gugino will play a lesbian parole officer in the film. She begins work in Austin, Texas, next week, acting in a story arc that is expected to include Bruce Willis and Mickey Rourke.
The film is an adaptation of the Frank Miller graphic novel series, and an all-star cast will be populating the roles.
The trade adds that Gugino will be unable to take part in the Adam Shankman-directed Vin Diesel starrer The Pacifier, which had been expected.
this film should be animated, by frank miller himself
Just a small update: one of the actors in my last film has a part in this, and he said that it's being shot largely against green screen, and that (true to Chandler-esque narration in the comic) there's going to be a massive amount of VO, to the point that he had to improv most of his dialogue, since it's going to end up being covered by Mickey Rourke's narration.
uh oh, rodriguez green screening makes me worried.
Me too, but after thinking about it, I'll bet it means he's planning on having the background be almost entirely black.
well i hope that miller has a close eye on him cause i did not like the look of spy kids 2 at all.
Quote from: GhostboyMe too, but after thinking about it, I'll bet it means he's planning on having the background be almost entirely black.
mod's got a point. i'm sure u meant "he's planning on having the background entirely BRIGHTER THAN ANYTHING U'VE EVER SEEN". that's the rodriguez way, the dude CANNOT hav a dark spot in the frame.
I doubt it -- Miller gave him the rights to the material based partially on the script and partially on how well he was able to visually approximate the look of the comic in the test footage. Not much room for brightness there.
This movie is shaping up to be sickkkknessssss. DiCaprio, Bruce Willis, Depp, Del Toro, Michael Douglas, Steve Buscemi, Rourke, Walken and Elijah Wood. I think it would be cool if it was filmed in black and white.
Quote from: StefenThis movie is shaping out to be sickkkknessssss.
only if elijah wood wipes away that shit eating grin that he always has.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.clearchannel.com%2FPhotos%2Fmale_celebrities%2Felijah_wood%2Felijah_wood_Lawrence-Lucier.jpg&hash=96e7836ec0294d1933e09a991f124a6fb30359bc)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.clearchannel.com%2FPhotos%2Fmale_celebrities%2Felijah_wood%2Felijah_wood_SionTouhig.jpg&hash=eba46f379fd16a2329b7e45006138b9b3c3355da)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.askmen.ca%2Fmen%2Fentertainment_100%2Fpictures_100%2Felijah_wood%2Felijah_wood_150b.jpg&hash=729d1fff5521989e80f8d9e57984c0eb1e35c7af)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.celebstation.org%2Factors%2Felijah_wood%2Fthumb%2FElijah_Wood-001.jpg&hash=f6d06d243f55d5b8d378aff6768fda2732aaa1e9)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comciencia.br%2Fresenhas%2Fclonagem%2Fia02.jpg&hash=e8f1bb7efd9e78f0b5e55502a072067bcd6216d4) + (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apollocinemas.co.uk%2Fbios%2Fhaleyjoelosment%2FAIC-392.jpg&hash=20fdbdc26470358f35788c9691fa04b2af3e5158) = (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.clearchannel.com%2FPhotos%2Fmale_celebrities%2Felijah_wood%2Felijah_wood_SionTouhig.jpg&hash=eba46f379fd16a2329b7e45006138b9b3c3355da)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comciencia.br%2Fresenhas%2Fclonagem%2Fia02.jpg&hash=e8f1bb7efd9e78f0b5e55502a072067bcd6216d4) + (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gratisgifs.com%2Fimages%2Fanimals%2Fbambi.gif&hash=93f45afc1ad6a1440bb04cc427dc3a84cfeb6f1c) = (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.clearchannel.com%2FPhotos%2Fmale_celebrities%2Felijah_wood%2Felijah_wood_SionTouhig.jpg&hash=eba46f379fd16a2329b7e45006138b9b3c3355da)
that'd be great to have Elijah Wood playing a guy who just always looked like that.
"Man, you just won a million dollars!"
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.clearchannel.com%2FPhotos%2Fmale_celebrities%2Felijah_wood%2Felijah_wood_SionTouhig.jpg&hash=eba46f379fd16a2329b7e45006138b9b3c3355da)
"Man, your car just got totalled!"
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.clearchannel.com%2FPhotos%2Fmale_celebrities%2Felijah_wood%2Felijah_wood_SionTouhig.jpg&hash=eba46f379fd16a2329b7e45006138b9b3c3355da)
"Elijah, the U.S. Government wants you to be the first human celebrity cloning subject."
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.clearchannel.com%2FPhotos%2Fmale_celebrities%2Felijah_wood%2Felijah_wood_SionTouhig.jpg&hash=eba46f379fd16a2329b7e45006138b9b3c3355da)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.clearchannel.com%2FPhotos%2Fmale_celebrities%2Felijah_wood%2Felijah_wood_SionTouhig.jpg&hash=eba46f379fd16a2329b7e45006138b9b3c3355da)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.clearchannel.com%2FPhotos%2Fmale_celebrities%2Felijah_wood%2Felijah_wood_SionTouhig.jpg&hash=eba46f379fd16a2329b7e45006138b9b3c3355da)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.clearchannel.com%2FPhotos%2Fmale_celebrities%2Felijah_wood%2Felijah_wood_SionTouhig.jpg&hash=eba46f379fd16a2329b7e45006138b9b3c3355da)
i've started a revolution.
Quote from: StefenThis movie is shaping up to be sickkkknessssss. DiCaprio, Bruce Willis, Depp, Del Toro, Michael Douglas, Steve Buscemi, Rourke, Walken and Elijah Wood. I think it would be cool if it was filmed in black and white.
Yes. It will be the
Dick Tracy of our time!
Quote from: Ravi(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comciencia.br%2Fresenhas%2Fclonagem%2Fia02.jpg&hash=e8f1bb7efd9e78f0b5e55502a072067bcd6216d4) + (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gratisgifs.com%2Fimages%2Fanimals%2Fbambi.gif&hash=93f45afc1ad6a1440bb04cc427dc3a84cfeb6f1c) = (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.clearchannel.com%2FPhotos%2Fmale_celebrities%2Felijah_wood%2Felijah_wood_SionTouhig.jpg&hash=eba46f379fd16a2329b7e45006138b9b3c3355da)
\
That is the funniest thing I've seen all day. You're my Hero of the Day!
QT might co-direct for a dollar
Greetings from SIN CITY
Scoopage spills from the set
Source: Cinescape
Today's edition of Lying in the Gutters, which delivers insider news and scoops for the comic industry, has published a report from an individual with knowledge of the SIN CITY movie that Robert Rodriguez is now filming. Thanks to that scoop, we've learned the following:
*The movie will be similar in structure to Rodriguez's pal Quentin Tarantino's PULP FICTION, meaning that the three stories that make up SIN CITY will weave together.
*The three Frank Miller SIN CITY comics used for the majority of the film's storyline are SIN CITY, THAT YELLOW BASTARD and THE BIG FAT KILL.
*The film's introduction, featuring Josh Hartnett, is from Miller's BOOZE, BROADS AND BULLETS story.
*Rodriguez is using actual photocopied pages from Miller's SIN CITY books to determine the shots of his film. "They line up the camera to look like the panel, and they shoot," was how the scooper described it.
*Mickey Rourke is indeed playing everyone's favorite thug from Sin City, Marv. According to the LitG scooper, Rourke is underneath makeup prosthetics that make him look like the battle-scarred Marv, including giving the character his trademark square jaw look.
Director Robert Rodriguez talks "Sin City" and "A Princess of Mars"
Source: Entertainment Weekly
Date: April 21, 2004, 2:03 pm
Submitted: Junkyard
In the recent issue of Entertainment Weekly, director Robert Rodriguez ("Desperado") talks about his upcoming crime flick, "Sin City" which is a film adaptation of three acclaimed comic books ("Sin City," "The Big Fat Kill" and "That Yellow Bastard") from legendary writer-artist Frank Miller.
In the interview, Rodriguez told EW that the way he persuaded Miller's approval was to offer him to come down to Texas and be a total participant in the film's production and direction.
"I said (to Frank Miller), I'll shoot the opening sequence (with) Josh Hartnett and Marley Shelton. You'll come down - hang out - be part of it." Rodriguez adds, "I'll cut it together, put the effects in. If you like what you see, we'll make a deal and keep going. If you don't, you've got a nice short film to show your friends."
Rodriguez also confirms that Bruce Willis will be playing "Hartigan, a cop who's retiring. He's got a bad ticker." The director reveals that in the comic book the character is 60 years old, so Willis will have to be slightly aged for the film.
"(He)'s got this great, hard boiled black-and-white face. Bruce's section's black and white – in keeping with the comic. Some sections are color," Rodriguez said.
The project has ruffled some feathers with the Directors Guild of America (DGA) because Rodriguez wanted to share directing credit with comic-book creator Frank Miller, which - unbeknownst to him – is against DGA's rules.
"How was I supposed to know that? I see co-directors all the time ... the Wachowski brothers, the Hughes brothers. It's a subjective ruling. There's nothing in the rule book that says it specifically. The rule book is very thick, by the way. I looked at it and it said you have to be "a bona fide team." Whatever the fuck that means."
Unfortunately or fortunately due to this disagreement, Rodriguez dropped out of DGA. The act may have jeopardized the future plans of directing the upcoming sci-fi film "A Princess of Mars" for Paramount Pictures, where the rule stipulates that a studio could not employ a non-union worker. Rodriguez clarifies his situation with that film.
"I can still do that movie ("A Princess of Mars"), because I was assigned to it before I left the DGA. I'll occupy that island of misfit directors like Quentin Tarantino and George Lucas. That's where I've been banished. (Laughs) It's actually really nice here."
Jessica Alba Moves to Sin City
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
The Hollywood Reporter says that Jessica Alba (Dark Angel, Honey) is in talks star in Sin City for Dimension Films. Shooting is under way in Austin, Texas, on the project, which is being co-written, -directed and -produced by Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller.
Miller wrote the graphic novel series that inspired the film. The film will comprise three intertwining vignettes revolving around a dark set of characters who call the fictional corrupt town home.
Alba will star in a section opposite Bruce Willis and Mickey Rourke playing Nancy, a beautiful exotic dancer known as "the sweetheart of Sin City." Jaime King, Elijah Wood and Brittany Murphy round out the cast.
Quote from: MacGuffinMickey Rourke playing Nancy, a beautiful exotic dancer known as "the sweetheart of Sin City.
haha, this made me laugh.
LOL
Dude, this movie is getting me so amped
Quote from: LinkDude, this movie is getting me so amped
SIN CITYFROM THE MINDS THAT BROUGHT YOU ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO AND ROBOCOP 2 & 3...better now?
Overrated, fanboy worshipped Frank Miller.
His stories are bland. His artwork looks like crap.
I like the cast, though.
Nick Stahl is Traveling to Rodriguez's Sin City
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
Nick Stahl will star in Sin City for Dimension Films, Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller. He would play the dual roles of Junior and Yellow Bastard, says The Hollywood Reporter.
The film, composed of three intertwining vignettes revolving around a dark set of characters who call the fictional corrupt town home, is based on Miller's graphic novel series and is shooting in Austin, Texas.
Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Jaime King, Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood and Brittany Murphy also star. Rodriguez and Miller co-wrote the script and are co-directing and co-producing the film.
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: LinkDude, this movie is getting me so amped
SIN CITY
FROM THE MINDS THAT BROUGHT YOU ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO AND ROBOCOP 2 & 3...
better now?
I loved Once Upon A Time In Mexico, so I have no problem with that. Then I'll replace Robocop 2 & 3 with Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2. 8)
Quote from: meatballFrank Miller...His artwork looks like crap.
Dude, call him overrated if you like, but have you read (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navilys.net%2Fbedees%2Fcouvertures%2FH%2FHard%2520Boiled.jpg&hash=5860f601d7709b83d444e086511d83529c7ecb79)?
Quote from: RegularKarateQuote from: meatballFrank Miller...His artwork looks like crap.
Dude, call him overrated if you like, but have you read (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navilys.net%2Fbedees%2Fcouvertures%2FH%2FHard%2520Boiled.jpg&hash=5860f601d7709b83d444e086511d83529c7ecb79)?
I'd read it for Darrow's artwork.
Del Toro & Owen Aboard Rodriguez's Sin City
Source: Variety Thursday, May 20, 2004
Robert Rodriguez has closed his cast on Sin City by adding Benicio Del Toro and Clive Owen to the Dimension Films ensemble project, reports Variety. Rodriguez wrote the script and is co-directing the screen version of the graphic novel series with its creator Frank Miller.
The noir drama is divided into three chapters named for titles in the Miller series: "Sin City," "That Yellow Bastard" and "The Big Fat Kill." Del Toro and Owen will be seen in the last segment, along with Brittany Murphy. The film cast also includes Bruce Willis, Josh Hartnett, Mickey Rourke, Nick Stahl, Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, Carla Gugino, Jaime King and Marley Shelton.
The trade adds that Rodriguez still hopes to draft Quentin Tarantino to direct at least part of that segment, once the "Kill Bill" helmer returns from presiding over the Cannes Film Festival jury. "City" is shooting in Austin, Texas.
Entertainment Tonight also gave a brief look at the set of the film on Wednesday, a clip which you can download in QuickTime here: http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2005/STUVWXYZ/SinCity/footage/ It shows Jessica Alba as stripper Nancy with all the right moves, Bruce Willis as Hartigan and more.
If they replace all that green screen with a solid black wash, or something to that effect, it'll look exactly like the comic book. The costumes are dead on, although Alba would have to lose hers if they stayed COMPLETELY faithful to the source material.
Which one hopes they will...
well, they dont want to upset the fans...
what, and NOT overlight every corner of the screen?
did rodriguez hav a stroke? i guess we'll hav to wait till he talks again. (a second)
I'm excited about this flick. Can't wait to see how it turns out. 8)
Rosario Dawson Travels to Sin City
Source: Variety
Variety reports that Rosario Dawson (Men in Black II, The Rundown) has joined the ensemble cast of the Robert Rodriguez/Frank Miller-directed Dimension Films adaptation of Sin City.
Dawson will take part in the third and final segment. Rodriguez based the film on Miller's graphic novel series. The finale also stars Benicio Del Toro, Clive Owen and Brittany Murphy. Quentin Tarantino is considered likely to direct some of that episode.
The film's cast also includes Bruce Willis, Josh Hartnett, Mickey Rourke, Nick Stahl, Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, Carla Gugino, Jaime King and Marley Shelton.
Oh God.
Yay. :-D
how many more actors can they squeeze into the goddamn thing??!?!!
read: excitement.
Quote from: themodernage02how many more actors can they squeeze into the goddamn thing??!?!!
three
CASE
CLOSED
Here's (http://www.sketchbooksessions.com/shanesboard/download.php?id=10161&sid=511aad6d0e55e296d8c84ab73b5dbd73) a teaser poster, probably a promotion for the upcoming ComicCon panel.
more teaser posters:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdforum.nu%2Fimages%2Fgalleri%2F13%2F13398%2F013398D2SNHSRJQIFAHF9DYBXGK7IA.jpg&hash=7ef5c045150cdd3d73cd8ca948c67f0f730917cd)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdforum.nu%2Fimages%2Fgalleri%2F13%2F13398%2F013398P3KOMRHGR03YOFL7OFZ99RWT.jpg&hash=64847f29e283ebcc7aa502c91c642478889320e1)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdforum.nu%2Fimages%2Fgalleri%2F13%2F13398%2F013398VNBLQE9KMEFPJ0YFQOGQP7JI.jpg&hash=392388590f2a00b8291eca6355df4a6381307c6e)
That report on the panel at AICN practically had me drooling...and yet no mention of a release date. Here's hoping they release it on Christmas day. Brilliant counter programming.
Wow, Rosario. Wow, Alba. :twisted:
Those teaser posters are awesome.
yeah, what he said
Rosario looks like Gina Gershon in hers.
and jessica alba looks like britney in hers
Man, those posters sure do tease.
ComingSoon.net Reports: Dimension Films has scheduled the Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller big screen adaptation of Miller's Sin City for release on April 1st, 2005 (April Fool's Day).
Could Jessica Alba BE any hotter? (ala chandler)
No. I stared at that picture for a few minutes while going through my Entertainment Weekly.
Quote from: metroshaneCould Jessica Alba BE any hotter? (ala chandler)
:lol:
Hopefully these stay up for a while...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg36.exs.cx%2Fimg36%2F8603%2Fsincity-1.jpg&hash=d91b609855d0b4f497c39815fecdf8ec51e148ea)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg36.exs.cx%2Fimg36%2F8752%2Fsincity-2.jpg&hash=0ee0ad439a2be4a349f09b56b66a87b0325c0517)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg36.exs.cx%2Fimg36%2F9796%2Fsincity-3.jpg&hash=4c77a2f0cb660168f83051619dc9345336098712)
Oh, man that looks good.
robert rodriguez didn't shoot that on HD did he?
Of course he did.
then the cinematography will suck.
it looks like he's resisted his urge to overlight every inch of the frame, so it might be good.
sum of those pics look, dare i say, decent.
yeah, but those production stills were taken by on-set photographers, no? they're not screen-captures of the actual footage, I assume.
I don't doubt the lighting or framing of this film, but the camera itself, does it provide enough contrast and leverage to do a film like that justice?
is that a gilmore girl in one of those pictures?
Shi-iiiit. If that's actual footage from the flick, I'm in heaven. :P
They're all screen grabs from the footage.
Who plays the Yellow Bastard?
Quote from: meatballWho plays the Yellow Bastard?
Nick Stahl.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv402%2Fchiba9000%2Fsincity5-big.jpg&hash=c017b10552eda3a532cc0b1534219ab3adb2d190)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv402%2Fchiba9000%2Fsincitypic3.jpg&hash=37f0119c7a9db45e84e4b61f352a34c55d71a6a0)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv402%2Fchiba9000%2Fsincitypic2.jpg&hash=49466b1a7a7d94e23c7ac6ed8a96667ef55a8385)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv402%2Fchiba9000%2Fsincity4.jpg&hash=962c4407afceaab95320d81f2a725e0bc6034cb3)
Some of the pictures look cool, but is it just me or do some of them look like part of a student movie? I expected more saturation and higher contrast. Much of it simply looks like black and white plus some color, which isn't exactly the "innovative imagery" that they've been touting. But it's far too early to judge. Perhaps there's additional computer work that will go into it. The teaser posters, however, do look fantastic, and that's what I hope the movie will look like.
I wonder if all that black and white is going to hinder the marketability of the movie. Well, perhaps the cast will make up for that.
Quote from: meatwad(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg36.exs.cx%2Fimg36%2F8752%2Fsincity-2.jpg&hash=0ee0ad439a2be4a349f09b56b66a87b0325c0517)
is that a gilmore girl in one of those pictures?
Yes, it is the gorgeous Alexis Bledel with the gun to her face. She's fantastic on Gilmore Girls, and only has Tuck Everlasting to her movie credits (as far as I know), so I'm as happy about her casting as I am for much of the casting in this movie.
Expect a six minute or so clip to be online within the next few days
Quote from: RegularKarateExpect a six minute or so clip to be online within the next few days
http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2005/STUVWXYZ/SinCity/comic_con/
wow. wow.
the Owen Del Toro bit is classical. a big mistake blhre.. a biig mistake..
wow indeed.
rosario dawson is a babe. totally.
the frames from the actual comic won't be in the movie right? that's just a trailer right?
well, the black and white looked quite subpar, as expected, maybe the final print will be different.
quit yer bitchin.
on the one hand, i'm glad there were at least some high contrast shots, it's the most i could hav hoped for from rodriguez. i guess he's thinking, if he followed the frank miller lighting scheme there might never be enuff light on the actors' faces to justify their casting..
there's that, and jessica alba doesn't hav the ass to support her role.
Quote from: Pubrickquit yer bitchin.
I second that.
The screen grabs and the footage look great.
Quote from: Pubrickquit yer bitchin.
on the one hand, i'm glad there were at least some high contrast shots, it's the most i could hav hoped for from rodriguez. i guess he's thinking, if he followed the frank miller lighting scheme there might never be enuff light on the actors' faces to justify their casting..
there's that, and jessica alba doesn't hav the ass to support her role.
yeah, sorry, man, how could I have missed the "HIGH CONTRAST SHOTS"? whoa whoa whoa what's this color? BLACK!? What's this one over here? WHITE?!? MAN, that contrast is fucking high!
I guess it's back to jerking off to comic characters with big asses for me, I just hope the Miller ass lighting scheme will illuminate those justifiable asses.
That's not a trailer, and it didn't blow me away the way a great trailer would. It just offers a taste of what the movie might be like. Judging by this footage, it will be good and fanboys will eat it up, but it won't be great: a near perfect replication of the comics, but therein lies the problem. Oh well, I'm still excited as hell.
The MPG compression sucked, so I wouldn't judge the b/w qualities just yet. And also the only part that was actually edited was the Josh Hartnett opener, which was indeed great. The rest of it was just a showreel, and thus it didn't exactly have much flow or build much tension. It still looked awesome, and I for one loved the inclusion of the comic shots -- I hope they keep that for the actual trailer (although not for the movie). Seeing all these scenes from the comics brought to life was just fantastic. Clive Owen as Dwight will own this movie. The main thing I'm worried about now is Marv's facial prosthetics...seemed sorta goofy in a few of those shots.
Quote from: peteyeah, sorry, man, how could I have missed the "HIGH CONTRAST SHOTS"? whoa whoa whoa what's this color? BLACK!? What's this one over here? WHITE?!? MAN, that contrast is fucking high!
I guess it's back to jerking off to comic characters with big asses for me, I just hope the Miller ass lighting scheme will illuminate those justifiable asses.
Quote from: peteplease, tell me what the real crime is.
Quote from: pubrick8:30am - 1:00pm.. cry.
"EDIT"
Quote from: peteQuote from: pubrick8:30am - 1:00pm.. cry.
Quote from: CinephileQuote
Such beautiful poetry.
Quote from: peteQuote from: pubrick8:30am - 1:00pm.. cry.
"EDIT"
and now it's gone.
hey! message boards kinda make time travel possible!
"Time travel will be the most destructive technology ever."
__- that guy who said
Holy crap. This is going to be right up my alley.
I wasn't entirely impresesed by the footage that was briefly online earlier in the fall...but holy shit. (http://progressive.stream.aol.com/aol/us/moviefone/movies/2004/sincity_019736/sincity_trlr_01_dl.mov)
Quote from: GhostboyI wasn't entirely impresesed by the footage that was briefly online earlier in the fall...but holy shit. (http://progressive.stream.aol.com/aol/us/moviefone/movies/2004/sincity_019736/sincity_trlr_01_dl.mov)
I know. If the previous footage with Hartnett is an indication of what to expect, this movie is going to be a very embarassing time. But with this finely cut trailer, I can still cross my fingers.
oh my god, I haven't been paying much attention to this movie's production, but that trailer is fucking unbelieveable, best one I've seen in a long long time.
god this looks cool, but after OUATIM i am SO worried about his ability to tell a story.
i must say i was quite impressed with that trailer
Gugino in the buff:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv50%2Fjohnnymoreno%2Fsettledownmarvtakeanotherpill7.jpg&hash=7147c7459a44fcd16792957d89d5c6432ef9e5ea)
How the HELL did I miss this?
:lol:
Oh my god I just creamed my pants after watching this trailer.
:shock:
Definetly on my list of films to see on opening day for 2005..
Quote from: themodernage02god this looks cool, but after OUATIM i am SO worried about his ability to tell a story.
My concerns exactly.
My faith is increased by the fact that Frank Miller is "co-directing" and maybe that'll help Rodriguez out...
Then again, the original graphic novels aren't exactly complex in their plot structure. More abour the atmosphere, visuals and characters than complicated plot-strands.
One thing that annoys me slightly... Rodgiruez doesn't need to save any more money, so he could just hire himself a real cinematographer. For this, maybe it won't be as necessary as he's working off an excellent storyboard (the Sin City source material) , but the cinematography in OUATIM was so flat. And the editing was quite mediocre as well. Shot, chopped and scored by RR himself... and boy, you can tell.
And in my book, Rodriguez has yet to make an _excellent_ movie. Hope this is what actually showcases his actual talent.
Quote from: SlimepuppyMy faith is increased by the fact that Frank Miller is "co-directing" and maybe that'll help Rodriguez out...
Quote from: imdbRodriguez, who credits Miller's visual style in the comic as relevant as his own in the film, insisted that Miller receive a "co-director" credit with him. The Directors' Guild of America would not allow it. As a result, Rodriguez resigned from the DGA, saying "It was easier for me to quietly resign before shooting because otherwise I'd be forced to make compromises I was unwilling to make or set a precedent that might hurt the guild later on." Unfortunately, by resigning from the DGA, Rodriguez was also forced to relinquish his director's seat on the film John Carter of Mars (2006) (at the time "A Princess of Mars" after the book on which it was based) for Paramount. Rodriguez had already signed-on and been announced as director of that film when the DGA situation took place, planning to begin filming soon after wrapping this film.
Good for him. Sticking to what he believes is right over self-preservation. I think he's more comfortable shooting small budget movies anyway, so it may be a torpedo effort on purpose.
Still though, major kudos and respect.
Awesome, I've always wanted to see Gugino naked since Snake Eyes
(Been mentioned I know, but a bit more information..)
Tarantino Confirmed for Sin City
Variety has confirmed that Quentin Tarantino has directed part of Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller's big-screen adaptation of the latter's Sin City graphic novel series.
So how much did it cost to hire QT? Precisely one dollar. That's reportedly the same amount Tarantino paid Rodriguez to score Kill Bill Vol. 2.
The trade says "Tarantino filmed a scene in the final segment featuring Clive Owen, Benicio Del Toro and Brittany Murphy."
He also went to Sin City's Austin set "because he wanted to sample the digital filmmaking techniques Rodriguez used."
__
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2Fimages%2F153%2F1000868.jpg&hash=b918c99442dcde10e7aeba0ea4346d39a1ed75df)
Weak2ndAct, what is that picture of Gugino from?
If it is actually from Sin City, how did you get it?
It's a screen grab from the showreel that was online briefly in September/October, which was discussed a few pages back in this thread.
This movie is going to be Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow cool! Nothing like we have ever seen. :-D
final poster
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comingsoon.net%2Fgallery%2FAction%2FSin_City%2Ffinalposter.jpg&hash=90d8eb60fe00e700089708bfac10c79a3e4a67df)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bartcity.de%2Fdownload%2FVideos%2Fpics%2Fis06.jpeg&hash=42cee9f5a071360eda806444df9b703cf3d35698)
Exactly.
He's also gonna be the "Special Guest Director" for the season finale of CSI.
Link to newest trailer (http://movies.channel.aol.com/franchise/exclusives/sin_city_movie)
This movie is going to be fantastic.
Quote from: RaikusLink to newest trailer (http://movies.channel.aol.com/franchise/exclusives/sin_city_movie)
This movie is going to be fantastic.
god, i hope so. this new trailer looks even 100 times cooler than the other one. plus, i didnt know rutger hauer was in this. or michael madsen. if this movie ends up being even HALF as cool as it looks, it will rule.
it could very easily suck though.
"Special Guest Director Quentin Tarantino"
tisk tisk
Looks great and the new trailer sure is cut alot quicker..
Quote from: themodernage02it could very easily suck though.
betcha it will
It looks so very artificial in parts. Not only can you tell that the backgrounds were added in later (which is obvious, since they're so stylized), but you can tell that the actors are acting in front of a big green or blue screen. There's a sort of hollowness to the image.
That said, it looks like it could be cool. If not for the stylization, then for (hopefully) the gritty nature of the comic that the movie promises to stay true to. I like the style a lot, but it's just strange to look at because even in "exteriors," you can tell that they're performing on a stage.
The car scenes were getting to me. When that one flips...fake, fake, fake. I couldn't buy a lot of it. It seems like a movie with so much atmosphere would benefit from being grounded, but it's too loose and digital. Dunno, as has been said, maybe this will benefit from style. I just want some damn atmosphere.
Watch it in the rain then.
I happen to think the digital lends itself beautifully to the comic style. What makes this look great is that the atmosphere is trying to be the book's atmosphere. It's not trying to root itself in the real world like all the other comic adaptations.
Quote from: RaikusLink to newest trailer (http://movies.channel.aol.com/franchise/exclusives/sin_city_movie)
Here (http://progressive.stream.aol.com/aol/us/moviefone/movies/2005/sincity_019736/sincity_trlr_02_dl.mov)'s a direct link if anyone wants it.
Quote from: Gamblor Ain'tWorthADollarThe car scenes were getting to me. When that one flips...fake, fake, fake. I couldn't buy a lot of it. It seems like a movie with so much atmosphere would benefit from being grounded, but it's too loose and digital. Dunno, as has been said, maybe this will benefit from style. I just want some damn atmosphere.
As long as the cinematography serves the story I'm fine with the entire movie shot on a green screen. Movies like "Sky Captain.." with average stories and great CGI end up on the "two for $20" DVD rack at your local video store a year from now. I'm sure Sin City will have both. It sounds like Rodriguez and Miller as a team are set to release something really special.
I for one am chomping at the bit. I mean after all, if I'm going to sit around and complain that there's nothing new or even good coming out of "hollywood"...then I'm not going to bury it before it's even born.
I like the idea of these guys pushing the limits like this.
HILARIOUSLY OVER THE TOP! RIDICULOUSLY VIOLENT! UNBELIEVABLY NOT BAD!So i saw Sin City tonight. Anyone expecting this to actually rule, drop those expectations right now. It doesn't. Going into the movie i had very mixed feelings because I wanted it to rule so badly even though my rational mind (and Rodriguez recent work) told me that it probably wouldn't. The cast ruled. The LOOK RULED. The trailer ruled. BUT Rodriguez last few films for me, (namely Spy Kids 2 and Once Upon A Time In Mexico), have been disastrous and near unwatchable. (Or at least re-watchable.) So I approached it with cautious excitement and optimism. The movie started and very quickly was just SO over the top in the dialogue and the action and everything that i started to get a little bummed out that it clearly wasn't going to be very good. But somewhere along the way, i had a reversal and just ended up enjoying the hell out of it. I mean, its SO RIDICULOUS and SO OVER THE TOP. And the violence, oh the violence you wouldn't believe.
Though i have seen a lot of the artwork I'm not too familiar with the comic so, i had no idea what to expect. Probably even if i had i still would've had no idea they would actually included all the stuff they actually put in this movie. I can now see why they are throwing around Tarantino's guest credit as largely as they are. Because those movies were still weird as hell but people still saw them. This will require a similar patience from 'average moviegoers' in regards to their tolerance for certain things. I mean it's comic-booky, i guess but it still gets pretty disgusting. And there is SO much of it. Just sick depraved violence wall to wall. Kill bill was like a Saturday morning cartoon compared to this.
SPOILERS there are more decapitations and decapitated heads in this movie i think than any movie I've ever seen.
END SPOILERS Quote from: GhostboyJudging by this footage, it will be good and fanboys will eat it up, but it won't be great: a near perfect replication of the comics, but therein lies the problem. Oh well, I'm still excited as hell.
Exactly. It is a comic book, and you can tell. But that's why comic books are comic books and movies are movies. They're different mediums and storytelling that can work for one does not necessarily work for the other. I do however give them credit for trying, though. On the one hand, after seeing the movie i can now envision a version of this movie done very conventionally in a new noir-ish way with things more grounded in reality and the structure being more traditional. And that probably would've been a better film, but that wouldn't be the comic book. And this, as Rodriguez has said himself is not an adaptation, it's a translation. So you almost have to give them credit for doing things their own way without giving a fuck as to how movies are supposed to be. Maybe the formulas is tired, and maybe this is what is new. Rodriguez here is still in his hyperactive mode, though it's much better than his last few efforts (though admittedly i didn't see the 3rd Spy Kids). Whereas FDTD and Desperado and The Faculty can function as 'real' (read: somewhat normal) movies, these last few have been clearly made by someone with ADD hopped up on soda pop. But in this movies weird ass way, it ends up not being too bad a fit.
There is a lot of voiceover, almost wall to wall, which is odd especially coming from 3 different characters. It can be hilarious, possibly unintentionally due to the extreme hard-boiledness of many of the characters but when it works it works well and I cant imagine them having tried to tell these stories without it. My only real complaint about the film other than its unwillingness to play by the rules and make something that actually resembles a 'movie', is that i expected them to interweave the plots of the stories, possibly cutting back and forth between them or at least having them intertwine more like pulp fiction. But it's more like an anthology of 3 or 4 almost unrelated tales that sort of end and the next one begin. Not to jump on the CO bandwagon, but i think Clive Owens voiceover and acting seemed the most natural though Rourke and Willis were also pretty good. Actually surprisingly everyone in the film was pretty good, with the unusual exception of Michael Madsen who seemed bored and Rosario Dawson who went even more over-the-top than most of the other actors.
The movie, like the trailer LOOKS awesome. Just gorgeously, unbelievably cool. So if for nothing else, things like this and sky captain have opened up the doors to trying different things. But unfortunately like sky captain, neither director has matched his storytelling ambition with that of the look of the film.
It's the kind of movie Harry Knowles will rave about loving in a week or two but not end up anywhere on his Best of the Year list. It's a guilty pleasure not a movie that is bona fide great that I can get behind recommending to everyone. So on the one hand if someone said this movie was a piece of shit then i might not be able to argue with them, but that didn't stop me from really having a good time. So, i think i will actually go see this again. It's kind of ridiculously over the top, but maybe that's good.
Mod, your review makes me equal parts troubled and excited (the gushes at AICN have boosted my anticipation too). Question: have you read the comic(s), and if so, are you a fan?
Mod's review, even though it was critical makes me really revved up to see this.
Quote from: Weak2ndActMod, your review makes me equal parts troubled and excited (the gushes at AICN have boosted my anticipation too). Question: have you read the comic(s), and if so, are you a fan?
i think i read
an issue, years ago. other than that i'm only familiar with the artwork which i've seen flipping through The Art of Sin City book many times. basically, the review should steer you guys in the right direction. it doesnt rule the earth so drop your expectations for it to do so, BUT its not a total disaster either so you'll probably still love it.
i saw it yesterday at a free screening. they had a digital projector. it looked awesome. the movie itself was awesome. i won't go into much detail b/c mod already covered it and i'm the laziest poster ever. mod, i don't know what you're talking about when you say you didn't like rosario. she was one of my favorite people in the film. all in all, it's just an incredibly entertaining film.
Mod, about it being over-the-top. Were you expecting it to be deadly serious? Or is it truly like going to Circus Circus?
An 11 Minute Behind-The-Scenes Featurette:
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=mf_frame&id=1808560210&mspid=&mfurl=http://mediaframe.yahoo.com/launch?lid=wmv-700-p.1350400-145981,wmv-100-p.1350398-145981,wmv-300-p.1350399-145981,wmv-56-p.1350397-145981&p=movies&f=1808560210&.spid=1808663232&.dist=Dimension%20Films&type=m%22,737,503);
Wowza. Learn some codes. (//)
the other night after i wrote my mini-review for here i sent it off to aicn as well. which i regretted almost instantly after sending it. i thought #1: i dont want to be the dick that spoils everyones good time and #2 i didnt change anything when i copied and pasted it even stuck with gb's quote still in the middle. rodriguez probably reads these damn things, the studio probably reads those damn things. i dont want to make any trouble so i even sent a retraction email basically saying 'i sent you a sin city review last night but i dont want to ruin anyones expectations so just dont post it if you were planning on it'. a few days go by, i figure i'm in the clear. but OH NO, i'm the "ONE NEGATIVE REVIEW" amongst a batch of positives. i wouldnt even consider my review negative. if anything its mixed but positive. i'm just saying dont go into it expecting it to be as good as it looks, that would almost be impossible. its good, but not great. i think my analysis in towards the end was perfect in summing up what type of film it is. the type that harry knowles will rave about but will end up nowhere on his top 10 in favor of some foriegn/lesbian movie he's never mentioned before and not the films like this or Blade II, Hellboy, Sky Captain, Shaun of the Dead that he praises to death. oh well.
http://aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=19683
whats worse is 'do you ever see a movie and know how you feel about it, but then the next day you start thinking about the movie and you cant remember anything wrong with it. everytime you think about it, the movie seems awesome even though you're pretty sure when you were watching it, it wasnt?' yeah, i'm having that for this movie. another reason i need to see it again just to make sure i wasnt wrong, and it does rule compeltely.
I try and see a movie twice before I bash it or kiss it's ass. Other than that, hey it's your first impression. If you feel that you may be changing your mind, then write a follow up...not a retraction. I think it's very important to have that kind of outlook where it's ok to change your mind. I can't count how many movies I hated when they first came out and then some reason learned to love them.
Quote from: themodernage02It's the kind of movie Harry Knowles will rave about loving in a week or two but not end up anywhere on his Best of the Year list.
Rave is too weak a word. (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=19700)
haha, yep i called it. you just wait till A. everyone can see the film for themselves and realize they've been overhyped AGAIN by aicn and B. he still wont acknowledge it at the end of the year for his top 10.
Quote from: themodernage02haha, yep i called it. you just wait till A. everyone can see the film for themselves and realize they've been overhyped AGAIN by aicn and B. he still wont acknowledge it at the end of the year for his top 10.
i don't know if you can overhype this movie. it's damn good. i think it's better than the kill bill series (as a whole). it's just incredibly entertaining, and when you see it, you won't be able to deny that. everybody leaving the screening had a great time at the movies, and there are so few movies that do that these days. i like that it's not trying to be anything more than really cool - it doesn't condescend to its audience. it's not a masterpiece, but it's really rawsome.
i cant wait to see this fucking thing. im not reading any post, so this will be my only contribution to this thread.
I saw this last night and was extremely satisfied with it.
It's relentless, though. They really don't beat around the fact they're condensing an entire series into 2 hours. It's the equivalent of being force fed stuff that you hope to god will go down smooth, and for the most part the movie's entertaining but it's also extremely self aware. I guess a lot of noir is self aware in principle, but this is inverting that genre and rather than playing it down, it plays up up up. It doesn't look easy, either. There are some films that look like they were a breeze to make, and knowing films are never easy to make that sort of quality is a testament to the expertise of the craftspersons. This, however, really struggles in its effort and you feel that sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.
That said, this shit is glorious. Rourke is fascinating. All the characters play well with one another...great chemistries. The actors you hope don't recieve too much screen time...don't! And thank god for that. If the opening scene of the movie scared you off it does clinch the credits with the greatest line I've heard in a long time so it made the whole thing worth it.
Other than that, there's stuff here for everybody. I would recommend it to people not familiar with the comics....especially.
Rodriguez has a very elaborate DVD planned for the movie already. "We shot the full stories of the books, and I knew we could truncate it down, knowing that we weren't going to lose any scenes; eventually they would all be available for people to see. So the DVD will come out with the theatrical cut, and then there'll be a separate disc that's got the individual episodes separated with their own title card, and you can just watch The Big Fat Kill from beginning to end, the full cut. That's a single story, and then switch over and watch The Yellow Bastard and that's forty five minutes. It'll have all the material back in. So it'll be like the experience of picking up the book, where you pick up one story and you read it from beginning to end. And it'll have all the material in it. You can shuffle your own version of the movie and just watch them all separately... And then I'm gonna add on a twenty minute film school, probably for this one, cause there's so many things and I want another ten minute cooking school to be 'Sin City breakfast tacos'; which I'll make a home-made flour tortilla, and it's the best meal you can probably ever learn."
hehe. rodriguez is funny.
one thing i did remember after sal's post. the credits. it was so obvious that he just made the credits on his computer at home. i wish that they had a cooler title sequence.
theres a decent article in this month's WIRED about Sin City.
Quoteit was so obvious that he just made the credits on his computer at home
Have you SEEN his home computer? :shock:
'Sin City' Effects Crews End Up on Same Page
Visual effects artists typically struggle to make phony computer-generated imagery appear intricately real. The challenge for Robert Rodriguez's "Sin City," which opens nationwide Friday, was to make live-action photography appear boldly hand-drawn.
To emulate and amplify the visual style of creator and co-director Frank Miller's graphic novels for the silver screen, Rodriguez tapped three digital boutiques to create stark virtual worlds for each story in the "Sin City" triptych.
Canadian firm Hybride Technologies tackled 600 shots on "Hard Goodbye," Santa Monica-based CafeFX handled 600 for middle story "Big Fat Kill" and the Orphanage's San Francisco branch produced 600 for "Yellow Bastard."
Stu Maschwitz, senior visual effects supervisor at Orphanage, recalls that he was delivering shots on "Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over" when he caught wind of Rodriguez's ambitious new project.
"I read about it on Ain't It Cool News, and I called him immediately," Maschwitz says, noting that he made the call with some incredulity given Miller's tense relationship with Hollywood based on prior adaptations of his work.
Once he confirmed the news, the VFX supervisor says that Rodriguez doled out the shots and allowed each house to come up with its own home-brewed techniques to convey Miller's style onscreen.
Each story's distinct look in "Sin City" is largely due to how each digital boutique first interpreted Miller's graphic style and then devised an in-house process to render the desired look. Maschwitz notes that there was little discussion among houses, which is highly unusual in the VFX realm where multiple shops often need to collaborate to match each other's looks.
"Robert's vision for film is broad enough to include other people's ideas," he explains.
The Orphanage, for example, recognized that Miller drew very detailed pencil images -- in stark black and white, no shades of gray -- and then later painted in silhouettes, "blowing over meticulous detail," Maschwitz says.
To apply that graphic aesthetic to the cinematic realm, the Orphanage first tackled the virtual production design, relying largely on matte painters and 3-D modelers. Next, the crew concentrated on lighting using a global illumination ray-tracer rendering engine called Brazil, developed by Splutterfish.
Whereas a sole artist like Miller can fluidly move between such mediums as pencil and ink or paint, in cinema there are distinct departments, Maschwitz notes.
"Usually the production designer wants to light everything," to display the detail in the sets. "And the cinematographer wants to light nothing," to impart dramatic lighting, he explains.
That same interdepartmental struggle can flare up in computer graphics production.
"There's sometimes a preciousness with a small crew," Maschwitz says. "You never want the guy who built the 3-D model to light the set (because) he wants you to see every nook and cranny."
Instead, the Orphanage relied on copious amounts of darkness and shadow even if it meant blotting out hard-won CG details. Making matters more complex is that the application of such extreme lighting is pretty illogical to artists who work so hard to make the phony look passable by using realistic lighting.
"We didn't want the stylization to come out of a traditional CG aesthetic -- CG doesn't look good," Maschwitz says. "The focal point for us was always that the problems are aesthetic not technical. Sure, we had numerous technical problems to solve, but the most important problems to us were always aesthetic ones."
this will be the first time i will see a film solely for someone in it
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsupermodels.nl%2Fdevonaoki%2F10.jpg&hash=191a13ad5b072d58a602aa7189a4d9b1ed8e75f5)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsupermodels.nl%2Fdevonaoki%2F04.jpg&hash=ae38205ed7452bb3ca3d1b99750d444f7c8a92cf)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsupermodels.nl%2Fdevonaoki%2F11.jpg&hash=fc5bff83358216da8f6466864e7b41e83bda9f85)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsupermodels.nl%2Fdevonaoki%2F12.jpg&hash=ff8c41d9c657430de2b72f9432d1f48ea07e9f56)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsupermodels.nl%2Fdevonaoki%2F15.jpg&hash=d0b5e734d9a6128ed28a4cf2c07b6196cb7eabd9)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsupermodels.nl%2Fdevonaoki%2F16.jpg&hash=5f250cf27fd0bc3085332a42fa5a7a12fd5e0152)
This has more noirish density than anything I've seen. It's everything I expected.
I loved this movie in the same way I liked Kill Bill. I feel like this is where Tarantino might have arrived 10 years from now.
It has the kind of unapologizing masculine brutality that makes you feel guilty. And the whole thing is beautifully overacted, though it became a little obvious with Brittany Murphy's role.
what
Freakin' incredible. Papa say he hasn't felt that way coming out a flick since he was a chillin.
I plan on seeing this movie tonight; I'm wary of the extreme digital stylization (Sky Captain didn't work out too well), and I'm inclined to agree with the philosophy of Armond White's scathing New York Press review, but the geek in me is still excited beyond belief.
yeah, i just saw it a 2nd time and i feel exactly the same as i did the first time. my criticisms still stand but its still pretty damn cool. B-
I thuroughly enjoyed the movie, it was hard to hate it since I'm an unabashed fan of Miller's comic and the movie is so unabashedly faithful. That being said, it stumbled in one respect: in trying to cram so much in so little time (three graphic novels in 120 mins), the whole thing felt a bit rushed. I would have liked to have seen a bit more patience, a bit more poeticism. Hell, some slow-motion-- like when Marv crashed feet-first though a squad car. The scene where Marv visits the priest carries so much more weight in the book, but it's so damn sudden that we hardly have a moment to realize what's happening.
And Jessica Alba sucks. I mean seriously.
But I really did like it. And christ, the most violent thing I've seen in ages (if Marv's car/interrogation technique doesn't shock you, who knows what will).
This was an all-around great film. It's like JB said. I sat through this movie not looking for some spectacular plot but waiting for each page to turn. I could see the bubbles above each character's head and the narration scripted at the bottom of each frame in the comic book. Whatever it might lack in dialogue it more than makes up for in being one of the (if not THE) most visually stunning film this year.
It was great, as I expected, but also had all the numerous problems I was also anticipating (posted somewhere in the first three pages of this thread). As I wrote on my blog just now, I think what it comes down to is: the comics are works of art, and the movie is an imitation of those works of art, and there's a loss inherent to such slavish adherence.
Still, I can't wait to see it again.
The Yellow Bastard was the best story, in my opinion - which I wasn't expecting, since I much prefer the original Marv story when it comes to the graphic novels. It was the only one that didn't feel completely rushed, and the only one with a really solid emotional core.
Also, one of the lead actors from my film plays the DA who gets his arm broken by Marv. Which was sorta cool to see.
Oh, and how great was Elijah Wood's character? Cree-py!
Eh, didn't really like it.
The editing was complete shit. One thing people like to say is that because it's a comic book, that justifies a million things wrong with it. Sorry, if it doesn't work as a movie, it doesn't work as a movie. The movie was slow as hell and boring, and constant attempts at noir narration didn't make it move any quicker. I don't think the three seperate storylines were necessary, maybe if it was just Clive Owen's story, it would have fucking rocked.
See, I don't think you can have three seperate storylines without anything connecting them. If the only connection is Sin City, well I don't think they made it enough of a character. You try and get attached to one character, but then you have to meet and reattach to a whole new character. I think it would have worked better Sin City itself was the whole essence of the connection between the people. Then, you would understand these three guys all have the same shit to go through.
Edit: I guess I should add that I didn't read the graphic novels.
Also, what segment did Tarantino direct?
QuoteThe editing was complete shit. One thing people like to say is that because it's a comic book, that justifies a million things wrong with it. Sorry, if it doesn't work as a movie, it doesn't work as a movie. The movie was slow as hell and boring, and constant attempts at noir narration didn't make it move any quicker. I don't think the three seperate storylines were necessary, maybe if it was just Clive Owen's story, it would have fucking rocked.
See, I don't think you can have three seperate storylines without anything connecting them. If the only connection is Sin City, well I don't think they made it enough of a character. You try and get attached to one character, but then you have to meet and reattach to a whole new character. I think it would have worked better Sin City itself was the whole essence of the connection between the people. Then, you would understand these three guys all have the same shit to go through.
I'm not being facecious when I say that that is your problem. What I mean is that RR was completely upfront when he said he wasn't trying to make this a movie version of a comic. He was trying to do something new. A hybrid so to speak that just so happens to be shown in a theater. So I, at least, have to give him the respect of trying to view it as 'not a movie version of a comic'. Why don't 3 separate stories work? Probably because we've been using the same narrative format for every single story since Shakespeare and we've been conditioned to accept that. If you start comparing this to other movies...then you just don't get it. Slow and boring? It may have not been you're cup of tea, but how could it have been boring?
All I know is that I came out of the theater feeling like a bad-ass...a feeling I haven't had since I was 9 years old coming out of Smokey and the Bandit.
Quote from: Gamblor Ain'tWorthADollarAlso, what segment did Tarantino direct?
not a segment. just a scene: the one with Owen and Del Toro in the car.
LISTEN TO KEVIN SMITH INTERVIEW ROBERT RODRIGUEZ AND FRANK MILLER ON NPR.ORG HERE: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4569989
there's a 5 minute soundbite that aired, and the hourlong unedited interview which is really interesting.
I have to agree with metroshane.
I saw this movie last night. I thought it was great. I don't really see how it was low moveing or boring. There was alot of action, emotion,comdey and extreamly entertanting stories. As far as the film being separate stories, i thought it just made it more interesting. The film was Beautifully shot; great cinematography and visual effects. It really does feel like your turning pages in a comic. Being a big comic fan it was great to see such a great transition from comic to film. I thought the editing was pretty good. It had some flaws though, but nothing distracting. I can't wait till the dvd. I might go see it again lol.
(I never read the comics ither)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foregonstate.edu%2F%7Elawr%2Fihnp-172420.gif&hash=de516af6e23fa9034e14e025eafff615312553bc)
Is this part in the movie?
I didn't expect to like this, but I really did.
I don't think anybody is less thrilled about this comic book craze than me. I remember being persecuted for disliking the first Spiderman because of how rushed it felt in the story. To me the film was rushing through the major scenes of Superman with no density or motivation. Superman is as far away from comic book filmmaking as you can get so automatically people just labeled me as being against comic books. I couldn't deny it. Though Sin City has a large comic book touch, it also has a unique spirit to it. I realized it wasn't really comic book films I was against, but just bad films. Spiderman is still the worst taste in my mouth. Sin City has enough of a flare to it that by the end of watching it I realized the major ad campaign going for it wasn't going to gurantee big box office. Its a unique film in the way Kill Bill was for Tarantino. That film didn't impress me as much. I saw touches of Tarantino's past that reminded me of how better he use to be. I see touches of Rodiguez becoming a better action director in Sin City.
Visually stunning. One of the most violent movies I've seen in a while but in such a good way. Its just as good as everyone says..but better
Quote from: metroshane
I'm not being facecious when I say that that is your problem. What I mean is that RR was completely upfront when he said he wasn't trying to make this a movie version of a comic. He was trying to do something new. A hybrid so to speak that just so happens to be shown in a theater. So I, at least, have to give him the respect of trying to view it as 'not a movie version of a comic'. Why don't 3 separate stories work? Probably because we've been using the same narrative format for every single story since Shakespeare and we've been conditioned to accept that. If you start comparing this to other movies...then you just don't get it. Slow and boring? It may have not been you're cup of tea, but how could it have been boring?
Sure, I'll give him credit for trying something different. However, film is a medium, and every medium has rules. This movie could've been "not a movie version of a comic" and worked totally fine. I don't think it worked at all. How could it be boring? When they do so much voice-over that whatever visual is onscreen becomes meaningless, or when they push-in just to get all the words spoken. Sorry, that's boring.
And for fuck's sake, do you REALLY want this movie to be your reason for a new narrative paradigm? That's so stupid. I get it, you liked the movie but just because you can't defend it having three disconnected storylines, don't say something as asinine as it's ahead of its time in terms of narrative format. Rodriguez isn't Jesus, this movie isn't the second coming. He's not a genius, and he didn't just invent some new format. Why in the fuck should this film not be compared to other movies? I hate to break it to you, but it's on celluloid, it's a fucking movie. It plays in cinemas, just like every other movie. If you wanna justify something that doesn't work by saying it's its own new form of cinema, well fine. I guess Glitter is beyond the reach of criticism because the filmmaker was brilliant enough to avoid such trite cinematic conventions as editing, proper storytelling, and good acting.
Yes, I have a serious problem with something, and it's bad filmmaking. It's not like I hated this movie, it just wasn't great. And your defense is stupid, sorry.
Quote from: Gamblor Ain'tWorthADollarfilm is a medium, and every medium has rules.
for fuck's sake
Why in the fuck
it's a fucking movie
Gamblor, relax. You've taken the flick way too seriously. It's exactly what you've called it, a fucking movie. Don't get all hot and bothered about it. Are you hung up on the fact that the movie doesn't 'follow rules' or what?
As for myself, I loved it. It's the little engine that could, chugging along confidently and splashing blood every which way it can. If I was still a film student, I might be hung up on a lot of imperfections... but it's like reading a comic book... you accept the style that it's giving you and you go for the ride. If not, you close the book and move on. No use fussing about it.
Rourke's Marv was the best part of the film for me, while (sadly) Owen and Del Toro's the weakest. Sin City definitely has a lot of spirit, enjoys itself, and was simply a blast to watch. I grew up as a comic book fanboy, and as far as I'm concerned this is the best film translation of the comic book spirit.
Nailing a serial thriller
"Sin City's" painstaking journey from the pages of Frank Miller's life-in-terrordome comics to the nation's multiplexes was a cool convergence of a determined director, a trusting studio and pure tech savvy.
Source: Los Angeles Times
Walk down the right back alley in "Sin City," as a poster for the movie that came out Friday grandly proclaims, and you can find anything. Well, maybe not anything.
To be specific, graphic novelist Frank Miller's hard-boiled wonderland is a place of vice, corruption and brutal street justice. To wit: For "Sin City's" big-screen adaptation, Clive Owen's character, Dwight, fronts a gaggle of gun-toting prostitutes, a battle-scarred Bruce Willis (as Det. John Hartigan) gets pistol-whipped and hanged, Jessica Alba pole dances in a rhinestone bikini and cowgirl chaps, and Benicio Del Toro, in a signature screw-loose role, has his head unceremoniously dunked in a toilet. A menagerie of other rough-trade characters played by Mickey Rourke, Elijah Wood and Alexis Bledel don't get off so easy.
Starkly rendered in black and white (with select flourishes of color) and shot on high-definition digital video, "Sin City" may be the most faithful comic book adaptation ever made. Panel by panel, down to the last diagonal sheet of rain and stinking garbage heap, three volumes of the popular series were painstakingly "translated" to film. That's in part because Miller was permitted to adapt his own material, teaming with Robert Rodriguez (of "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" and "Spy Kids" fame) for his directorial debut. But if not for the confluence of a lot of cutting-edge technology and un-Hollywood ego suppression, some pretty persuasion by Rodriguez and the wide studio latitude Miramax granted the filmmakers, Miller's creation would probably remain the exclusive province of his devoted fans.
"I decided years ago that there would never be a 'Sin City' movie because it would never be done faithfully," Miller explained by phone from New York. " 'Sin City' was my baby. If it came out and was some crappy thing that winked at itself, I wouldn't have been able to look at myself in the mirror." Rangy Texan Rodriguez, on a hot streak after the $100-million-plus successes of his "Spy Kids" trilogy and "Mexico," had other ideas. "I didn't want to take 'Sin City' and make it into a movie," Rodriguez said. "I didn't want to adapt it or squeeze it down. I wanted to take cinema and make it a moving graphic novel."
After tracking Miller down through his lawyer and comic book editor, Rodriguez made his pitch. "His book was bolder and more visionary than anything anyone was trying to do in cinema," he remembered. "I said, 'We could reinvent cinema just by reshooting what you did page for page.' " The result is a $45-million art-house movie on steroids — an experimental marriage of green-screen special effects and film noir shot cheap and fast on Rodriguez's Austin soundstage with big-name stars.
For Miller, 48, the Stanley Kubrick of the comic book world, "Sin City" represents the culmination of a tortured relationship with Hollywood. After several bruising experiences working for the film industry — notably, writing the story and original script for 1990's disappointing "RoboCop 2" — he vowed never to eat lunch in this town again.
"For me, it's been a real joy and an unexpected one," Miller said. "There's always wasted opportunities, squandered moments. And there's ones like this where this crazy Texan showed up and suddenly 'Sin City' is a movie." Echoing a famous line from his graphic novel, he added: "I turned a certain corner and I was in a whole different world."
Stumbling blocks
In 1991, Miller wrote and drew "Sin City" with the intention of self-publishing a quick-hit, 48-page serial. Arranged around the exploits of a barely sane, tough-as-bricks hit man named Marv, out to avenge the murder of a prostitute, the first installment, "The Hard Goodbye," ran nearly 200 pages. It eventually spawned seven volumes that feature recurring characters, baroque violence and interlocking themes.
There were never any plans to make it into a film.
Enter Robert Rodriguez. In 2003, the director, intent on adapting "Sin City," met the reluctant writer-artist at his favorite Hell's Kitchen watering hole to show him a homemade digital mock-up of the film on his laptop computer. Although visually impressive, the answer from Miller — who had never heard of Rodriguez as a director — was still a firm "No."
"Even after seeing the wonderful stuff he showed me, I still turned him down," said Miller. "I thought all moviemaking was Hollywood. I was that paranoid about it." Undaunted, Rodriguez invited the comics auteur to come to his home studio in Texas to observe what he referred to as a "test with a couple of friends" — actors Josh Hartnett and Marley Shelton.
"Usually, an artist has to assume all the risk," Rodriguez said, recalling the elaborate courtship. "He has to sign away everything and hope you don't screw up the movie. I knew I had to reverse that to where I would take the risk, pay for the shoot, shoot the material, cut it together and do the score. Only if he really loved it would we make a deal. And if not, he could keep it as a short film to show his friends."
As Miller recalled, the gamble paid off: "In 10 hours, we shot this scene and I got to work with the two actors. Watching the whole green-screen approach and having Robert describe how the scene was going to work really put the hook in my mouth — just the way he planned it!" The scene became the movie's opening sequence. "Turned out there was no difference between that test and the first day of principle photography," Miller said.
For Rodriguez, an exuberant, cowboy-hat-wearing 37-year-old — moreover, a guy whose cellphone ring tone is the opening guitar riff from AC/DC's "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" — the next logical step was to invite Miller to share directing credit.
"I wanted it to be 'Frank Miller's Sin City,' " explained Rodriguez at his suite at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills. "I really wanted him to be there as a director rather than as a writer or producer. Otherwise, they might just stick him in a corner and feed him a sandwich every once in a while. As a director, everyone would have to listen to him." What they had not figured on, however, was violating the Directors Guild of America's co-directing policy. "I didn't know it was against the rules until a week before we were about to shoot," said Rodriguez. But by that point, the choice was no choice.
"Nothing was gonna stop us," Rodriguez said. "This movie just felt too new, too right and too experimental. You think, 'Do I want to make movies or do I want to belong to a club?' The rules — which say the two co-directors have to have been a duo before the movie — are behind the times." The director resigned his DGA membership. "You think about the trade-off," he continued. "This movie wouldn't exist otherwise." "I was moved," said Miller, sounding both grateful and sardonic. "I kept on saying, 'What a mensch!' "
Star bursts
The movie began to take shape quickly when word of the production spread. Actors were signed on to come and work in bursts. Jessica Alba agreed to film for seven days, Del Toro came in for four and Willis was contracted for 10 days' work, during which they shot an average of 65 setups a day. "That's like two months' shooting in Rodriguez time," the director said with a laugh.
Having two directors on the set proved a useful resource for members of the cast who wanted to understand more about their character's back story or motivation in a particular scene.
"It was very self-indulgent because we got to talk each director's ear off about our characters," said Alba, Sin City's token stripper with a heart of gold. "It was so narcissistic."
"It was like having a historian there all the time," added Brittany Murphy, playing a lovelorn waitress caught in a love triangle between Owen's and Del Toro's characters.
Miller's most immediate on-set impact, however, was on storyboards. "He'd draw something out and then the next day, he'd be like, 'This is actually a good shot,' " recalled Rosario Dawson, whose character, Gail, is something like the CEO of a platoon of tough-talking, pistol-packing prostitutes. "And then he'd just set it up." Rodriguez's running dispute with Quentin Tarantino about the future of cinema being digital led Rodriguez to invite Tarantino (with whom he had previously collaborated on "Four Rooms" and "From Dusk Till Dawn") to sit in as a "Special Guest Director" for a scene in which Owen and Del Toro argue in a CGI car.
"He came in so prepared, he made Frank and I look like bums," said Rodriguez. "He had every shot prepared, all this visionary stuff. Frank just said, 'This is the most fun I've ever had in my life!' "
"[Tarantino] would come over and ask questions — he was very solicitous," Miller said. "Not arrogant at all. He brought his own ideas about how to treat the sequence — good ideas."
Shot against a green background screen, the movie's various "sets" were almost entirely virtual, added in by computer later — a technique Rodriguez had perfected while shooting his "Spy Kids" trilogy. The upshot was that many actors who share screen time never physically met.
"I did the shot with Mickey Rourke — who had been in the shot three months earlier," said Dawson. "I'm throwing handcuffs to him [in the scene] and I was never in the room with him."
A Miramax miracle
WHILE Miller and Rodriguez have entered into a de facto mutual admiration society for all the obvious reasons, Rodriguez takes pains to point out the film could never have been made by any studio other than Miramax, headed by departing honchos Harvey and Bob Weinstein.
"They give me so much freedom," he said. "With Bob, it's like, 'I'm here at the bar with somebody you gotta meet.' He comes in on a Saturday, meets Frank Miller, looks at the tests and says, 'You can make the movie.' "
"You don't get that anywhere," Rodriguez added. "That's why wherever those guys go, I'll follow them."
But at the end of the day, all parties say Miller's input proved to be the crucial X-factor. "I think having Frank there was absolutely essential," said Owen, who had just seen a final cut of the film and admitted to feeling "blown away." "He's the guy that conjured up this crazy world. I have to say, I think the guy's a genius."
Quoteand every medium has rules
Ah, I didn't realize you felt that way. In light of that, you have every right for hate it for not being every other movie in the FUCKING universe.
Also, I didn't say RR was the messiah. And I'm not saying it was perfect. But my question is, if the filmmaker himself says that he didn't edit traditionally, film it traditionally, or tell it traditionally...then why the hell did you go see it? It seems you already had your filmmaking dogma in place. Please understand I'm not attacking you, I'm only using the language you seem familiar with.
QuoteAnd for fuck's sake, do you REALLY want this movie to be your reason for a new narrative paradigm?
Of course not, and I doubt RR does either. What I do want is something different. Different from other movies...and in the future different from this one.
Quoteasinine as it's ahead of its time in terms of narrative format
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that. I don't think it's ahead of it's time...I think it's been a long time coming.
QuoteIt plays in cinemas, just like every other movie. If you wanna justify something that doesn't work by saying it's its own new form of cinema, well fine.
So do cell phone commercials and local eye doctor ads. And got news for you. The 'cinema' is being reduced to pre-emptive marketing for DVDs, the future of movie making. In a time when we have directors cuts, alternate endings, interactive soundtracks, multiple angles, etc...no movie is made without thinking of the DVD purchases. Some directors are already filming in a way that is condusive to DVD extras. Soon writers will too.
QuoteI guess Glitter is beyond the reach of criticism because the filmmaker was brilliant enough to avoid such trite cinematic conventions as editing, proper storytelling, and good acting.
Where's your masterpiece?
QuoteAnd your defense is stupid, sorry
OK. I accept your apology.
Quote from: Meatball
Gamblor, relax. You've taken the flick way too seriously. It's exactly what you've called it, a fucking movie. Don't get all hot and bothered about it. Are you hung up on the fact that the movie doesn't 'follow rules' or what?
Just because I say fuck a lot doesn't mean I'm angry. I'm just pissed off when people say something is ok because it's different, and that it being different, and that fact alone, excuses it from forms of criticism. Or if they say "the dialogue is supposed to be bad", as if that justifies anything.
QuoteOf course not, and I doubt RR does either. What I do want is something different. Different from other movies...and in the future different from this one.
See, I appreciate movies that do something different. But when they do it differently, they should at least do it right. I don't think they did. I think they got a few things right for the audience to enjoy and ignore the fact that stories are slapped together.
Filmmaking does have rules and form. Otherwise, that's like writing without sentences or grammar. Take for instance In the Bedroom and We Don't Live Here Anymore, both adapted from Dubois stories. In the Bedroom gets something unbelieveably right with the way the story is told and how it goes about it. We Don't Live Here Anymore is a messy messy piece of shit. There is a right and wrong way to tell a story and make a movie. I don't think Sin City got it right.
QuoteWhere's your masterpiece?
What is that? I have to make Citizen Kane before I can say that Citizen Kane is brilliant?
Saw this tonight. Fantasticly fun and really wild. I really really liked it alot. I don't much about the comics but Igot the gist of what kind of comics they were and by the end of it, I wanted more. So... :yabbse-thumbup:
QuoteSee, I appreciate movies that do something different. But when they do it differently, they should at least do it right. I don't think they did. I think they got a few things right for the audience to enjoy and ignore the fact that stories are slapped together.
Valid critisisim. Sorry about the masterpiece comment...I just thought bringing Glitter up was irrelevant.
saw this tonight. pretty damn entertaining. i enjoyed myself.
I liked the nudity. Not just because I'm a perv (a.k.a. man). Nudity is rarely done well in movies, really. Swimming Pool got it right, and this movie got it right (to a much lesser extent than Swimming Pool, of course). I guess it goes back to Frank Miller, really, who knew how to use nudity when he was drawing the comic. Plus all the girls looked gorgeous, even if they were all either hookers, stippers, or "dykes." I thought "you're so pretty" many times during the movie. And all the men look just as terrible as they're supposed to. Excellent job.
But more than that, I loved the distinct feeling that the directors didn't give a damn whether or not the audience liked it or not. There were tons of the things that the more "sophisticated audience member" would find boorish and gaffaw at. It was SO comic book-y, so direct, so silly, and I'm glad it got onto film (or digital, really) the way it did.
It would never be my favorite film of any year, but I truly appreciated its artistic integrity. This was really an Art Movie in its purest sense, because every artist involved did exactly what they wanted to do and nothing else, without feeling the need to cater to an audience that didn't lap this stuff up. When I went in, I thought it was gonna be more crowd-pleasing. I'm glad it wasn't. I, however, was quite pleased by it.
And the NPR interview with Kevin Smith, Rodriguez, and Miller was great, and helped me enjoy the movie more, because I better understood the nature of the beast.
SPOILERISH:
Hartnett's 'lil unibrow in his second appearance cracked me up a bit. I really don't know how intentional that was.
Quote from: matt35mmI liked the nudity. Not just because I'm a perv (a.k.a. man).
I liked it, too. It wasn't smutty in any way, just beautiful women.
Quote from: Dtm115300Being a big comic fan it was great to see such a great transition from comic to film.
(I never read the comics ither)
the second sentence makes the first kind of meaningless.
he probably only read the pictures. :saywhat:
Amazing adaptation, and it makes me wonder how it might've lacked if Frank Miller wasn't as involved.
Quote from: WalrusAmazing adaptation, and it makes me wonder how it might've lacked if Frank Miller wasn't as involved.
Well, Rodriguez's goal was to make it a direct transfer of the comic to the screen. Obviously, having Miller there helped in that endeavor. Without Miller involved, the goal would've been the same, but it probably would have been less successful. A lot of the elements would've been the same, but it'd all be at about 50 or 60% of what it is now. It elimated the need to interpret the source, because the source of the source was on set everyday.
I think it would've had about the same look. I think Miller helped the actors out a ton, because how these should be played, only Miller really knows. And it probably just would've been a less assured movie, because Rodriguez would have been plagued by wondering what Miller would've thought about it every step of the way. This was probably more directed by Miller than by Rodriguez, actually. Rodriguez was the guide of the technical elements and brought his filmmaking experience and power (all of the actors he was able to get, the financing, etc.), and so Miller directed through Rodrigeuz.
So I guess the answer is that the direction would've been different and less assured without Miller involved, but that it would've still had that bold look and comic-book atmosphere. It still would've been different from anything that anyone's seen before, which is the major drive behind the hype over Sin City, but the movie itself would've only been about half of what it is.
didn't like it, though it does have its moments. i dont think frank miller's writing translates well to film. when spoken by the characters for me to hear, i felt a lot of it was over-the-top beyond reason or campy fun/pulpy cool, but i imagine miller's words are much more effective on the page alongside his jarring illustrations, which the film also failed to capture. it gets the color scheme right and that's about it. the photography is boring -- the lighting is generally bland and it displays a lack of understanding of black and white photography, indicative of rodriguez's misunderstanding of the genre he aspires to not emulate but expand upon (not a good idea) and of cinema in general. he's the industry's most economical and efficient film technician but by no means a director, or at least not what i consider a director. obviously he does the duty of any director but lacks vision, or a unique one anyway. rodriguez's work is completely derivative, no more so in any of his other work than it is here since he's directly lifting from the material that compelled him, though i guess miller directing with him gives him some legitmacy.
i felt while watching the film that there was a lot that could have been done and i do think a good adaptation instead of trying to create a cinematic graphic novel, a decision that i think was both lazy and naive on his part, despite his claim to wanting to do it that way for the sake of faithfulness. if that's the only way it could've possibly been done, i dont think the resources used for this film including the talent involved (most of the acting was great) should have been wasted. rodriguez might as well have put out a full-page ad in all forms of print media telling everyone to go and buy Sin City books and it would've been just as compelling and interesting as this film was. i'd rather experience them for myself instead of having a guy without an imagination or an arbitrary need to utilize every bit of film technology available essentially read it to me through a film that feels way too long considering its nature.
this is all being said by someone who didn't even know the Sin City books existed before the film was announced, but i dont think that should matter. films should speak for themselves, and this one is only a trailer for the books. rodriquez confuses grauitousness for the kind of indulgent bliss that is apparent in the works of tarantino, leone, and even some of godard's work, post-production manipulation for style, imitation for creativity, suffocating adherence to the original work for faithfulness. the key to all these differences is that the directors mentioned all brought a certain confidence and originality to what they were putting on screen. some of it is incredibly outlandish but handled with such style and confidence in the greatness its creator was achieving that we can't help but feel the same way. someone mentioned the artistic integrity of the film and i couldn't disagree more, because rodriguez is performing hero worship of the most boring sort, and seems to direct everything with reservation, trying to make sure he's pleasing both miller (who i think was well intentioned but doesn't know enough about the medium) and all of Sin City's fans. for something that's supposed to be a revelation in cinema, Sin City is incredibly underwhelming and generally lifeless.
i don't hate the film but there's this inevitable feeling as to how big this movie is going to be and how it will epitomize film culture and further limit most people's already small view of cinema to just the overly sentimental, simplistic, and manipulative (Garden State, The Notebook) and the technologically advanced (The Matrix and now this one)... i'm only picking on those because i often hear them come up in "discussions" about movies among my peers (with the exception of Sin City since, you know, it just came out). i don't knock people for liking those movies, or i try not to anyway, and i don't see a problem with them being so popular outside of the fact that so much is being ignored as a result of it.
I totally agree with your last paragraph. I was at my friends' apartment, and, while deciding what movie to watch, it seemed like they only knew of the existence of the following movies: Fight Club, Requiem for a Dream, Donnie Darko, Boondock Saints, and Memento. I like all of those movies (haven't seen Boondock), but like you said, simple, manipulative, technological films are the ones that are remembered.
Quote from: samsongi don't see a problem with them being so popular outside of the fact that so much is being ignored as a result of it.
This isn't oil and brushes samsong.
The fact is, people pay a lot of money to get movies made. Those people want to see a return on that investment. If films were cheap, we could imagine a much more diverse and interesting marketplace for everyone. People want an escape. However, that isn't enough. You have to sell them that escape and everyone needs to spread the word that a film is great. Movies get ignored because they get mixed in with the rest of the thousands of low budget obscure films that are released every year. People don't have the time or inclination to sort through what they spend two hours and $8.50 on.
Quote from: Gamblor Ain'tWorthADollarFight Club, Requiem for a Dream, Donnie Darko, Boondock Saints, and Memento.
You know it's funny, the people who have these movies (though I must say that I own Fight Club, Requiem, and Memento) think that they're particularly knowledgeable about movies, or have a sophisticated taste in movies, and they get aggressive when one of those movies are dissed--Boondock Saints gets dissed all the time, and Donnie Darko is frequently called overrated, but not really by anyone who knows what they're talking about. Which is why people can go years without anyone disputing that The Boondock Saints is an awesome movie (I haven't seen it either, so I'm not gonna say otherwise). But I've called Donnie Darko overrated, and I've said that I don't have any particular interest in seeing Boondock Saints, and most of these people seem surprised at my opinion, since I'm supposed to be "the movie guy." (I'm sure a lot of us are the "movie guys/girls" of our respective locations) It's just funny that as "the movie guy," I'm supposed to like these tiny, weird "independent" films, especially ones that are really "edgy" and have a lot of cussing in them.
I guess this is what it feels like to be stereotyped. Of course, I get the same thing for being half-Asian. But it's interesting that when I get a comment on my race (like when I was wolfing down a bunch of candy and a friend said, "Don't they have any candy in China? My God!") I find it funny or at least harmless, and that the attacks on my movie-geek status is what tends to offend me.
For the record, out of the bunch listed above, Memento and Requiem are the two truly brilliant movies, and Fight Club is pretty solid--although most of the fanbase is just attracted to the violence and tough-guy stuff. Donnie Darko is overrated--the director did a great job in creating the mood and atmosphere that ultimately, for me, worked as a slight of hand in distracting the audience from realizing that it was actually a fairly mediocre movie. And I think it's fair to say that I'd probably hate The Boondock Saints.
I've rambled way too much and none of this has to do with Sin City. I'm sorry. I'm just tired and unfocused right now.
Quote from: samsongi don't hate the film but there's this inevitable feeling as to how big this movie is going to be and how it will epitomize film culture and further limit most people's already small view of cinema to just the overly sentimental, simplistic, and manipulative (Garden State, The Notebook) and the technologically advanced (The Matrix and now this one)... i'm only picking on those because i often hear them come up in "discussions" about movies among my peers (with the exception of Sin City since, you know, it just came out). i don't knock people for liking those movies, or i try not to anyway, and i don't see a problem with them being so popular outside of the fact that so much is being ignored as a result of it.
I don't think I'd put Sin City on par with Garden State or the Notebook at all. Sure, it had a big budget and there was a lot of hype surrounding it, but that doesn't mean it's a bad film.
It was very exaggerated and very stylized, but no more than the comic book (well, as film goes, it was more stylized, but in a similar vein as the book). Hell, the book itself was very cinematic. When I read it years ago, I felt like a movie had to come out about it sooner or later.
So, it did take an extremely stylized approach to the subject, and when someone gets really stylized it's easy to say the film is empty and is using the special effects or techniques to make up for lack of subatance.
This film, however, was overflowing with substance. Rich storylines, amazing dialogue, and it all came across as a fantasy noir comic book. If you didn't even know about the graphic novels it was based on, you'd still understand the connection. It had great acting, great directing and was basically eye candy. This movie had some spectacular elements, and never lost my attention.
Quote from: matt35mmAnd I think it's fair to say that I'd probably hate The Boondock Saints.
You probably will, it's ok, but not great. I wasn't that impressed with it much...I gotta sell that DVD.
It's funny reading these posts. They come off sounding like the last surviving humans huddled in a shadowy meeting room planning the future of mankind. Sin City is entertainment, who gives a shit what it's place is in cinema. The majority of the world's population don't. It's great that you guys take this stuff seriously because you're passionate about it, but sometimes you've got to lighten up.
I think viewers these days are so spoiled with commentaries and behind-the-scenes featurettes, everybody fancies themselves a guru. Then it becomes like an art gallery where the discussion of the making and significance.. and bull shit about the piece becomes more important than the piece itself. You like it or don't. It doesn't matter what color shoes Rodriguez was wearing when he directed a particular scene.
Boondock Saints is horrible. Overnight, a documentary about the director, is great, though. See that. :yabbse-wink:
Sorry meatball, we'll stop thinking and discussing accordingly.
And I think you're right, viewers have been spoiled by commentaries and attempt to play sciolists and pass it off as their own knowledge. When you see people doing that, please come back and describe it in detail.
Quote from: MeatballIt's funny reading these posts.
Not yours.
Quote from: MeatballI think viewers these days are so spoiled with commentaries and behind-the-scenes featurettes, everybody fancies themselves a guru. Then it becomes like an art gallery where the discussion of the making and significance..
that was like watching the word 'interpretation' getting violently raped.
Quote from: WalrusQuote from: samsongi don't hate the film but there's this inevitable feeling as to how big this movie is going to be and how it will epitomize film culture and further limit most people's already small view of cinema to just the overly sentimental, simplistic, and manipulative (Garden State, The Notebook) and the technologically advanced (The Matrix and now this one)... i'm only picking on those because i often hear them come up in "discussions" about movies among my peers (with the exception of Sin City since, you know, it just came out). i don't knock people for liking those movies, or i try not to anyway, and i don't see a problem with them being so popular outside of the fact that so much is being ignored as a result of it.
I don't think I'd put Sin City on par with Garden State or the Notebook at all. Sure, it had a big budget and there was a lot of hype surrounding it, but that doesn't mean it's a bad film.
It was very exaggerated and very stylized, but no more than the comic book (well, as film goes, it was more stylized, but in a similar vein as the book). Hell, the book itself was very cinematic. When I read it years ago, I felt like a movie had to come out about it sooner or later.
So, it did take an extremely stylized approach to the subject, and when someone gets really stylized it's easy to say the film is empty and is using the special effects or techniques to make up for lack of subatance.
This film, however, was overflowing with substance. Rich storylines, amazing dialogue, and it all came across as a fantasy noir comic book. If you didn't even know about the graphic novels it was based on, you'd still understand the connection. It had great acting, great directing and was basically eye candy. This movie had some spectacular elements, and never lost my attention.
i understand that it's a stylized film... that's all i addressed. the potential of the substance was great but i dont think it was reached in the film, especially because it's simply an imitation of the graphic novel, which may in itself be cinematic but to simply mimic it in film form seems boring to me, and was boring when i watched it. for as stylized as it was it certaintly lacked any distinctive quality other than how it was entirely done in post production, which was both good and bad for the film. nothing about the film excited me and given its nature, it felt incredibly long... i thought there were some serious pacing issues, something a heavily stylized film of substance shouldn't have.
This thread is like incredible. Seriously. This is just an entertaining movie, it's not Waiting for Godot god damnit. Stop analyzing what was not meant to be analyzed. "The use of nudity wasn't on par with the nudity of Swimming Pool" or whatever, just say : "I LIKE LUDIVINE SAGNIER'S BOOBIES BETTER"
Loosen up a little. If you tought : "hum, the lighting is bland and this is a lazy attempt at converting comic-book-to-film" when a chick was dancing around a pole, please consult a physician.
Quote from: cronopioQuote from: MeatballIt's funny reading these posts.
Not yours.
You're so sweet!
Quote from: Pas Rapport"The use of nudity wasn't on par with the nudity of Swimming Pool" or whatever, just say : "I LIKE LUDIVINE SAGNIER'S BOOBIES BETTER"
Oh, that's not what I said. I said I liked everybody's boobies; I definitely never ranked anybody's boobs, and I wouldn't say a thing against the nudity in this movie.
And since I was the only one who said anything about the nudity, and since I wasn't really analyzing it, there was no nudity analyzing at all.
All I meant to say was that the nudity was actually sexy in this movie, which is surprisingly rare in movies.
But I agree with what you were trying to say, even if you misunderstood what I was saying. Overanalysis of movies is a tedious thing to sit through. Same with books.
I don't really think that anybody has overanalyzed this movie so far in this thread, though, so I can't tell what the big deal is. Just because it's an entertaining movie doesn't mean you're not supposed to talk about what you thought in detail. NOBODY was thinking about the stupid lighting when Alba was dancing on the pole or anything like that.
This movie was different from most movies in serveral ways--in its direction, in its look, its style, its editing (edited to be like the comic book, whether you like it or not)--which opens the door wide open for discussion and analysis on what works and what doesn't and why. There are times when people overanalyze things and I hate that just as much as you do, but I honestly don't think that's happened yet. And it certainly didn't happen when I said I liked the nudity. You said don't analyze what was not meant to be analyzed--who has done that in here? The look of the film, the style, the editing, the translation of comic book material directly onto the screen... that all WAS meant to be analyzed!
Why should people zip their lips on entertaining movies? Most movies strive to be entertaining in some way. None of the makers of Sin City would want you to treat this like fluff that you just watch and say "that was entertaining" and then not talk about and just completely forget about. This movie was entertaining, but it wasn't lightweight fluff. The comic book was a bold piece of art, and the movie was an interesting experiment in making a comic book movie in a whole new way--there's a TON to talk about here. And for the most part, all of these comments have been intelligently stated reasons why they felt it worked or didn't work.
What do you want from us? Is this thread supposed to be dead, or just filled with several "I just saw this, it was entertaining" comments? It is the nature of most of us to state what we liked and didn't like about it, and why those things worked or did not work. That's the premise of this entire forum!
Quote from: MeatballSin City is entertainment, who gives a shit what it's place is in cinema. The majority of the world's population don't. It's great that you guys take this stuff seriously because you're passionate about it, but sometimes you've got to lighten up.
A lot of us rightfully give a shit what its place is in cinema, because as I just stated, this movie is a fairly bold experiment in filmmaking. This movie was a fairly big cinematic event for that reason. Yeah, it's just a cool new movie for the majority of the world's population, but why should we "lighten up?" We sign onto this forum to discuss movies.
Nobody has done anything wrong in this thread, so why are you guys picking on the people who came in to this forum and clicked on this thread to discuss Sin City--a movie that I think gives a lot to discuss about? I liked the movie. As for the people who didn't like it that much--they have been giving solid comments as to why not.
And actually, nobody's been treating this like a particularly deep movie. All of the analysis has been on-the-surface stuff. Nobody's caught up in what this meant or what that meant, so I'd say we all are fairly lightened up in this thread. Nobody is taking this too seriously. But when you click on the thread "Sin City," it's implied that you're supposed to discuss Sin City. And I expect, when I click on the thread to read other people's thoughts in as much detail as they feel like giving on Sin City. I don't want to see a whole thread of just :yabbse-thumbup: or :yabbse-thumbdown:
I guess I got more upset than I expected to be, but only because I think the entire purpose of this forum has been challenged.
yeah, i dont appreciate when the movie is just brushed off like 'oh, it was cool.' like there was NO WAY it would be actually good. it SHOULD'VE been actually good, not 'just for a comic book movie'. you know? why should you hold movies to a different standard? like 'oh this is fluff,' but 'this is worth criticizing'. i guess i'd rather read someone like samsongs review tearing apart why he didnt like it than someone who dismisses it as not worthy of a review even when they liked it. i dunno. the movie could've been Pulp Fiction, but unfortunately it was just pulp fiction. and thats disappointing.
The visual effects are great... and it was fun for the most part... but thats all... no big deal
I saw it at the Regal South Beach, it was packed, and a lot of people left in the middle of it... I dont know what they were expecting but hell, it was alright
I'm disappointed that people are following modernage's lead, dragging in baggage of expectations and narrative/structural/visual standards that really don't stick to this film. We're getting close to the "but it's style instead of substance!" comments from that one City of God thread... and that's just scary. Are you the same people who walked out of 2001 saying "where were the aliens?"
I appreciated this movie for what it is. The only expectations I had were visual, and those were fulfilled. I loved the overacting. I loved the jarring speed, the impatience and the incoherence.
Samsong, are you really complaining that this is a derivative work? Are you kidding? And did you forget that Frank Miller co-directed this thing?
You lost me when you complained about it being "beyond reason."
How can an adaption not be derivative? Superman 2 was really derivative of Superman 1?
Anyway, I really liked the boobies. I loved the fact that Carla G. was probably the oldest and least 'in shape'(by E standards) and probably the only one with kids...but was way far the sexiest. Go Carla.
Quote from: matt35mmAnd since I was the only one who said anything about the nudity, and since I wasn't really analyzing it, there was no nudity analyzing at all.
My feelings are hurt. I also approved of the nudity.
I'd have to agree with my colleagues here... some of the critiques on this movie have been ridiculous.
Quote from: MeatballQuote from: matt35mmAnd since I was the only one who said anything about the nudity, and since I wasn't really analyzing it, there was no nudity analyzing at all.
My feelings are hurt. I also approved of the nudity.
Okay, but I think my comments were the ones being targeted, with the reference to Swimming Pool and all.
derivative may be the wrong word to use in this case but it works (for me, anyway) when describing rodriguez's work in general. i clearly acknowledged that miller was a co-director, but that doesn't really matter to me because despite his involvement, the film still brings nothing new to the table. not one part of this film was unique excluding the visual aspects of the film which to me weren't impressive, and that this is sort of a precedent for the transition from comic books to film.
when it comes down to it, i thought the film was extremely slow for the kind of film it was. visually i was unimpressed, and found no means of escapism in the film because i was distracted by how inconsitent it was without any larger goal at hand; there's nothing innovative about the film's style besides the technology involved. it's all arbitrary and intuitive, and for me it didn't work. preconceptions and standards are unavoidable when it comes to films and the worthwhile ones rise above them. you brough up 2001... i'll admit i expected to see aliens and other conventional sci fi shit when i first saw it but by its end i was too awestruck to care about my own standars being met. this is something that especially plagues genre films and that's exactly what Sin City is, and for me it did absolutely nothing because it stays within conventions and doesn't really do anything interesting. i didn't expect groundbreaking though that's what it was made out to be by some, i expected new, and i didn't get it. this was old and tired. you appreciated the movie for what it was, i dislike it for what it is and the wasted efforts for it not rising to the occassion and being great like it could've been (the inevitable comparison to Kill Bill arises in my mind).
but it's just an entertaining film, right? so who gives a shit...
Hum yeah so I was kinda bitter in my last post, I just came back from the movie and expected some major acclaim so I was kinda shocked.
I still stand by what I say, that it totally ruins YOUR OWN viewing experience if you analyze every bit of the movie instead of just watching it. I mean, just let yourself get in the movie, when you see a second or third time then analyze it. Don't do it on the go, you just don't have time to enjoy and analyze at the same time.
Also, about the boobies, those were nice boobies and I was glad of their presence too. Just because they were good boobies. Matt35mm, I misunderstood your comments, I'm sorry. I tought you were like : "the boobies held a really deep philosophical undertone" or something. That wasn't it, so, :kiss:
I think that the main issue people are having with this movie isn't style over substance, but that the style was uncompromising. I, frankly, loved that fact, but others here take the opposite approach. The movie worked for me because the entire thing stuck to its style. It didn't flinch or waver where most movies of this type would. It stuck to its guns.
Most of the qualms are about the film doing just that. "It could have been so much better." Or; "Some of the scenes could have been emphasized." The point is all of the scenes/panels were handled with exactly the same emphasis (with the exception of a few slow downs) and they kept coming a mile a minute. I thought this communicated the idea that although this is set in a make believe universe, it still conforms to actual life. There's no |> for life and some of it's harsh and brutal with its own stream of consciousness. Call it noir, call it stylized, call it crap, but I'll call it meaningful and look forward to seeing it again.
Quote from: Pas RapportI still stand by what I say, that it totally ruins YOUR OWN viewing experience if you analyze every bit of the movie instead of just watching it. I mean, just let yourself get in the movie, when you see a second or third time then analyze it. Don't do it on the go, you just don't have time to enjoy and analyze at the same time.
Oh, I agree with this. People ask me all the time if I'm always analyzing things during the movie (they think I might since I'm "the movie guy" around town), and I tell them that I really don't think much at all during the movie. I do most of my thinking afterwards, or sometimes I really never think about the movie at all, ever. Although I do take mental notes, even on first viewing, on shots that I like, nice acting moments, stuff like that.
Quote from: Pas RapportAlso, about the boobies, those were nice boobies and I was glad of their presence too. Just because they were good boobies. Matt35mm, I misunderstood your comments, I'm sorry. I tought you were like : "the boobies held a really deep philosophical undertone" or something. That wasn't it, so, :kiss:
So then we agree to agree!
Although I think all the time on the uses of nudity, and how audiences react to it. I find nudity pretty interesting. Not that I think about its "philosophical undertones" at any point, but people have an interesting attitude towards nudity in film, especially Americans, and I've always thought about how that could be used by the filmmaker. Nudity can be used for all sorts of things, like seduction, it can be threatening, etc. There's a palpable mood change in the theater when someone takes off their clothes. It's just another tool in the old arsenal, I suppose.
Hmm well something strange is going on.
There are people here saying, "What the fuck? The movie is brainless so quit using your brain to analyze it." But there are people, including myself, who did not enjoy the movie when we saw it. It's not that I was expecting anything, I had heard good and bad things, but I went and saw it and could not get into it all. Things about this film bugged me.
I come here and try to explain and reason out why things bugged me. But I can't do that apparently, because I'll get bombarded with people telling me to shut up and just watch the movie that I didn't enjoy in the first place. See, I'm not going to enjoy it, so I would like to learn why my opinion is the way it is.
Now if we could all get over this and quit telling people to shut up, that'd be great, thanks. (Even though I"m being a total hypocrite and did this to GT somewhere in the Scorsese forum)
Carla Gugino is the sexiest woman alive.
Quote from: Gamblor Ain'tWorthADollarCarla Gugino is the sexiest woman alive.
yeah, in S
pin City.
I'm new here. Don't shit down my throat please. :shock:
This movie, to me, was just a movie to keep me entertained for a few hours. I didn't go into the theatre expecting to see anything groundbreaking, or to analyze it any deeper than the overall story. I watched and enjoyed. Taking a movie for what it's worth when it comes to huge movies like this is much more important to me than being oh-so-critical over continuity flaws and the likes.
But what do I know.
PS. Was I the only one totally creeped out by Elijah Wood's character?
I thoroughly enjoyed Frank Miller's cameo. At first I thought it was a 'professional' actor, then I realized on my second viewing that it wasn't. Does anybody know which story segment he directed? I have a feeling it was Marv's.
Quote from: MeatballI thoroughly enjoyed Frank Miller's cameo. At first I thought it was a 'professional' actor, then I realized on my second viewing that it wasn't. Does anybody know which story segment he directed? I have a feeling it was Marv's.
he co-directed the whole film, save for tarantino's scene. rodriguez had originally offered him the chance to direct a segment until he realized he'd rather have him around for the whole thing so they both co-directed the film.
Quote from: deathnotronicI'm new here. Don't shit down my throat please. :shock:
This movie, to me, was just a movie to keep me entertained for a few hours. I didn't go into the theatre expecting to see anything groundbreaking, or to analyze it any deeper than the overall story. I watched and enjoyed. Taking a movie for what it's worth when it comes to huge movies like this is much more important to me than being oh-so-critical over continuity flaws and the likes.
But what do I know.
PS. Was I the only one totally creeped out by Elijah Wood's character?
welcome.
not to shit down your throat but...
i dont think anybody said that continuity flaws were a problem.
whats huge about this movie? why shouldnt huge movies be as good as smaller ones?
I recently read one of the graphic novels the film was based on. Technically, I'm less impressed with the film after. Its a pretty precise adaptation when it comes to dialogue, but I felt the shot compisition was weaker in the film. Miller is very thorough in presenting a new angle and perspective with every little piece of dialogue that I got the impression each drawing he did was more important than the overall scene he was telling. Rodiguez manages to keep many scenes to standard perspectives and little variety. He does duplicate many of the interesting shots well, but not nearly all of them to the extent Miller went into.
Do I really like the film any less? Not really. If my opinion was professional, I imagine I'd even feel obligated to write a negative review. Its an entertainment vehicle and the film popped and crackled enough on those levels to keep me involved and enthused. Actually, the film reminded me of my appreciation for Sam Fuller. Fuller excelled in pulp stories like Sin City does. Though Fuller has larger issues in mind, you really can't see an excellence of art in the traditional sense with Fuller. Its storytelling to such a spirit that his shortcomings are redeemed. Actually, when I first got into Fuller, my opinion was mostly negative because he didn't work for me in a traditional sense. His films have a classification similiar to Sin City. Sin City is just for entertainment though.
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: deathnotronicI'm new here. Don't shit down my throat please. :shock:
This movie, to me, was just a movie to keep me entertained for a few hours. I didn't go into the theatre expecting to see anything groundbreaking, or to analyze it any deeper than the overall story. I watched and enjoyed. Taking a movie for what it's worth when it comes to huge movies like this is much more important to me than being oh-so-critical over continuity flaws and the likes.
But what do I know.
PS. Was I the only one totally creeped out by Elijah Wood's character?
welcome.
not to shit down your throat but...
i dont think anybody said that continuity flaws were a problem.
whats huge about this movie? why shouldnt huge movies be as good as smaller ones?
I never said that anyone said that. I was speaking in generalities, my friend.
And, huge as in funding, promotion, etc... you don't see trailers for The Sea Inside everywhere, do you? Huge may have been the wrong adjective.
"Huge" movies should be just as good a smaller ones. There's no reason for them not to be. We'd all love this to happen, but, unfortunately, given the direction Hollywood has been going, I can't forsee this option being a viable one. What it comes down to is the general public paying for shitty movies. See: New Ashton Kutcher movies. Nearly every movie that fits my definition seems to be the wheel of reinvention sputtering out hour and a half atrocities.
Again, generalities.
I thought it was interesting how the very last scene of the film, the coda with Alexis Bledel, was the only scene that was shot on an actual location, with no blue screen; it looked completely different from the rest of the film, and the telltale signs of HD were visible for the first time.
Quote from: Gamblor Ain'tWorthADollarThere are people here saying, "What the fuck? The movie is brainless so quit using your brain to analyze it" . . .
Now if we could all get over this and quit telling people to shut up, that'd be great, thanks.
Fair enough, but I didn't say any of those things.
I recognize the things that you and others dislike. I liked them. It's just been bothering me that people are surprised, horrified, and offended by these things.
I like the comicness, which includes by coincidence things that are in a lot of bad movies.... overacting, unrealism, jump cuts, CGI... Are people making misleading associations here? Do they expect either an art film or a conventional action film, and because it has superficial elements of the latter they pull it into that group with disappointment? I don't know. And why are these things
good in this movie? Because there's a totally different level of recognition. That's what I loved about the movie. It's completely unafraid of its comicness, and that changes everything. Or it did for me.
Quote from: samsongdespite his involvement, the film still brings nothing new to the table.
I think you're trying to argue against adaptation in general. If that's true, you have a lot of convincing to do. Do you believe in absolute originality?
Quote from: samsongvisually i was unimpressed, and found no means of escapism in the film because i was distracted by how inconsitent it was
That's your problem right there. The point of Sin City is not to let you escape, but to trap you. I also distinctly felt "trapped." And please tell me what you think was inconsistent, and why it's a problem.
Quote from: RaikusI think that the main issue people are having with this movie isn't style over substance, but that the style was uncompromising. I, frankly, loved that fact, but others here take the opposite approach. The movie worked for me because the entire thing stuck to its style. It didn't flinch or waver where most movies of this type would. It stuck to its guns.
I agree... which is why Samsong's comment about inconsistency confused me. Does he mean it was inconsistent because there were different storylines? I don't know. Have you seen Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow? That's a perfect contrast to Sin City... it fades to normality (visually and narratively) in a very big way.
Quote from: GhostboyI thought it was interesting how the very last scene of the film, the coda with Alexis Bledel, was the only scene that was shot on an actual location, with no blue screen; it looked completely different from the rest of the film, and the telltale signs of HD were visible for the first time.
I noticed that too. It jumped out at me, the hospital walls, the nurses walking around. It kind of slaps you. I have to say, I couldn't tell nor did I even think that the film was shot in HD. I guess Rodriguez is right about its potential.
Quote from: GhostboyI thought it was interesting how the very last scene of the film, the coda with Alexis Bledel, was the only scene that was shot on an actual location, with no blue screen; it looked completely different from the rest of the film, and the telltale signs of HD were visible for the first time.
Jumped out at me, too. Mostly because of the shot follow Bledel walking, the camera was either dollied or steadicammed, which was nothing like what had come before, since you couldn't really do that with greenscreen stuff and match the background's movement realistically. It all of a sudden felt like realistic environment.
I also didn't notice any HD signs or anything like that, I just noticed that it looked like a "real" movie all of a sudden. What are those signs of HD that you noticed? I know you've worked in HD, so I'm sure you know more than I do about it.
Quote from: matt35mm
What are those signs of HD that you noticed?
Just an ever so slight murkiness -- especially in black and white, where the two tones and the graduation between them aren't as crisp and rich as they would be in film.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanWhat the I think you're trying to argue against adaptation in general. If that's true, you have a lot of convincing to do. Do you believe in absolute originality?
then you thought wrong. my comments for the film were strictly reserved for the film itself, though i'll admit to going off on a tanget about my dislike for robert rodriguez which may have effected the way i decided to articulate my thoughts. i have no problem with adaptation whatsoever but i don't think Sin City is an adaptation so much as an imitation. rodriguez unabashedly admits to this, since his believe was the frank miller's work is "above cinema" and the adaptation here seems to be that of cinema to the work, and i personally think it failed.
to answer your question, i believe in absolute originality as much as i believe in absolute objectivity -- i dont think it exists. i obviously viewed this film with subjective eyes and was not excited or entertained. that isn't to say that i thought it was wholly bad or boring (though i know i haven't exactly been evenhanded in presenting my opinion). as far as expectations go i just wanted to be entertained, and that was somewhat met but not satisfied. i don't see why this reaction is so unacceptable. you seemed to have seen something unconventional and uncompromising, i didn't. i felt it was a lifeless and drab experience. i certainly respect what you think of the film despite my inability to relate... i dont think either of us have a definitive answer as to what the film is and how everyone should react. at least i don't. if what i said came off that way then let me say that it wasn't my intention at all.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
That's your problem right there. The point of Sin City is not to let you escape, but to trap you. I also distinctly felt "trapped." And please tell me what you think was inconsistent, and why it's a problem.
i know this was an element of the graphic novels but the transition from the expresionistic to "realistic" (the more fleshed out, detailed) set pieces was rough and confusing as to its intention. this is where my problem with the adaptation comes. the goal/vision of recreating Sin City panel by panel to film i think was a much better concept than the finished product. whatever the intention behind that decision was, to me the defiance of cinematic conventions here seemed arbitrary. it doesn't really do anything for narrative storytelling through cinema nor does it break any bearers for imagery, and that doesn't necessarily have to be the result of breaking conventions but i'd like to think that there's a purpose behind breaking the rules beyond simply recreating the illustrations of an admired artist. rodriguez to me blurred the lines between hero worship and truly adapting the books to film.
i assumed that escapism was the purpose of the film since it does present us with with a reality that obviously isn't familiar to (most of) us. at any rate the storytelling didn't engage me, nor did its other elements but again, the film isn't without its moments. i'm sorry i didn't get that the film was supposed to "trap" me, or that i didn't feel "trapped." i'm not even sure what you mean by the word anyway. "please tell me what you meant, and why..." well, you know.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman... which is why Samsong's comment about inconsistency confused me. Does he mean it was inconsistent because there were different storylines?
thank you for indirectly patronizing me. i liked it. was it as good for you as it was for me because i'm ready for round two, big guy.
all the childish, "witty" exchanges aside, i'd like to reiterate something Gamblor said.
Carla Gugino is the sexiest woman alive.
that, and there are people who just didn't like the damn thing, and we obviously have our reasons, some of which are rooted in personal preference. i don't get what the problem with that is. what i said seemed to need some refining and i'm fine with the discussion and explaning where i'm coming from, but don't treat it as if it's wrong to dislike this movie. i might've strongly advocated the dislikes but that's just my opinion, and i dont think i ever said it was wrong to like it. just because the film was meant to entertain doesn't mean that everyone who sees it has to find it entertaining. what a film is worth to the viewer varies... i don't remember there being a standard or guide as to how all audience members should watch the movie or what its worth is. if the film rodriguez and miller is truly is as uncompromising as you think it is, then there will be dissenting opinions, and i don't think they give a shit. neither should you... not to a point where it's not okay to dislike a movie you obviously saw more in than some of us have... i dont think either of us are wrong, nor should it ever really be an issue of right and wrong (i just got defensive and assumed you were "attacking" [for lack of better word] my opinion. if that wasn't what you were getting at, then... i dont know). hopefully i cleared up the things that confused you or caused misunderstanding.
Quote from: samsongi have no problem with adaptation whatsoever but i don't think Sin City is an adaptation so much as an imitation.
I can sympathize with this if you've read the graphic novels (have you?). Otherwise it's kind of a moral objection, which I don't have and can't understand.
Quote from: samsongas far as expectations go i just wanted to be entertained, and that was somewhat met but not satisfied.
I think that's strong enough to be a preconception, not just an expectation. I think Sin City is more unpleasant than it is entertaining, which completely worked for me. And I think your openly stated desire for "escapism" means that you tried to understand the movie in a fundamentally different way.
I'm not implying any inferiority here, so please don't take it personally. I'm just trying to understand how your experience was different from mine.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanWe're getting close to the "but it's style instead of substance!" comments from that one City of God thread... and that's just scary. Are you the same people who walked out of 2001 saying "where were the aliens?"
Excuse me, I just had to step in and roll my eyes really quickly. I am rolling my eyes. All over the place.
Carry on. I don't care about Spin City. Or Sin City. Is that so wrong?
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI'm just trying to understand how your experience was different from mine.
it might be cause you're both two different people but i'm gonna research this one and get back to both of you, separately.
"Buh-zing."
Quote from: CinephileQuote from: Jeremy BlackmanI'm just trying to understand how your experience was different from mine.
it might be cause you're both two different people but i'm gonna research this one and get back to both of you, separately.
I said
how, now
why. Should I have said
in what ways?
Go back to English class, Cinephile! All the way back!
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: CinephileQuote from: Jeremy BlackmanI'm just trying to understand how your experience was different from mine.
it might be cause you're both two different people but i'm gonna research this one and get back to both of you, separately.
I said how, now why. Should I have said in what ways?
Go back to English class, Cinephile! All the way back!
hahaha he said how now why cinephile! get back to english class HOW!
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
I said how, now why. Should I have said in what ways?
Go back to English class, Cinephile! All the way back!
NO, YOU GO BACK! ALL THE WAY BACK! EDIT ALL YOU WANT BUT I'VE GOT THE SOLID FACTS JB! YOU WILL NOT ESCAPE ME!
WHY ARE SO QUICK TONIGHT GIVE ME TIME TO EDIT MY POTST
I love it when people edit their posts. It's called a changeover. The thread goes on, and nobody on the board has any idea.
^^^
Sea, prime example.
I have nothing to say and I am saying it and that is poetry.
--John George Peppers.
admin edit: nobody is editing your posts. but pretty soon you will break B.C. Long's record
¿URETHRA MAURA
WHORE?!!!?!1
The cockroaches again.
Quote from: MeatballThe cockroaches again.
haha your name is meatball. man, that cracks me up like a moustache.
Quote from: MeatballThe cockroaches again.
Ironic coming from someone with a Sizemore avatar. Lemme guess... you thought it was PTA?
i love all* of you.
* - all = some
but for tonight, a special shoutout to cinephile and jb.
:inlove:
what the HELL happened here? since when did everyone on xixax turned into a bunch of "I'm just your average guys"? every other post in this thread becomes another person saying "it's just a MOVIE" holy crap no shit shylock shamrock homos the III? it was just a MOVIE!? I thought I was watching survellance camera footages from different convenience stores, I thought that was why everything was black and white!
if you find someone's interpretation of SinCity to be obnoxious, there are more intelligent ways to put it down than "I'm just a simple folk with a simple dream, I gots no capacity for your fancy educated big city doubletalk."
please, one andyk at a time.
Waaah, waaaah, waaah.
hahahaahah
Caught 'Sin City' this past weekend and I really enjoyed it. I had my trepidations about it, especially after seeing OUATIM (more like El Ritalin!) but I was quite surprised at RR's approach with the movie. Loved the cinematography of it. I'm not totally converted to film's obsolescence, but the HD works for making Frank Miller's artwork come to life. The key scenes where the white bandages against a shadowy Marv, Becky's earrings and trinkets glowing as she walks down the alleyway, and the white silhouettes, especially the shot of Dwight as he slowly sinks into the tar pit. That's my favorite shot in the movie! And whoever said something about the coda looking weird with an actual hospital wing, I totally agree. I reckon that scene was intentionally there as a bookend for the story, but it seems like it was an afterthought scene with the change to a real set. As if the movie was done and then later someone says "Hey, we should put a scene at the end to bring it to a proper ending." Speed of thought, eh?
One thing about the movie that got me at first was the constant narration. I know that it's a heavy part of the comic, and there are other movies that use a lot of narrations (specifically Goodfellas and Casino), but it just seemed to be too much at the time. But then the weirdest thing happened as I thought about the movie a bit. Of course, it's heavily publicized how this movie isn't a revision of the source material, but rather a filmic interpretation of it. And that has rubbed some people the wrong way as far as how it doesn't make for a quality film. The thing that's really unique about Sin City, and makes it better than stuff like X-Men and Spiderman, is that even though it is a film it utilizes the comic language more than other comic based films. Not just the images and editing, but the conventions of the comic book medium, which is something that Hulk attempted to do with the split screen shots. Most people may be put off by the forward momentum of action that leads to a cliffhanger and an abrupt cut to black, but that's the comic language. You read one issue, you're rapped up into the story, action, drama, conflict, and the hero is on the train tracks and the last page is to be continued. Wait until next issue. Whereas you have something like X-Men, it relies on filmic language and filmic language only. Sure they are from a Marvel Comic, but it's more like Marvel characters in a movie instead of seeing the Uncanny X-Men onscreen as though you're reading a story arc.
Another bit that goes with that comic book language is where Marv is ready to extract revenge on Kevin and Cardinal Rourk and he goes through his checklist of items. That little series of shots against a black background just says "comic book." Perhaps where it fails in the eyes of some viewers is because it so readily uses comic book conventions. Short from actually seeing the screeching sound of the cars as they whiz. And after giving that consideration as to how RR and FM were telling the story, then I realized that the voiceover narration wasn't really as annoying as I thought. It was only annoying because I was thinking of it in the filmic sense and the filmic sense only.
What I like about this movie more than anything is that it is an experiment. Instead of just aping characters and settings, it goes so far as to use the pacing of comics on the page as the way to tell the story. Whether or not it succeeds is up to each individual viewer, but it's that facet of the movie as a whole that elicits the most reaction from the film.
it is clear to me, this movie has made everyone an idiot.
and this page has made pete a god among men.
also meatball appears to hav been babalitized..
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mkwarehouse.com%2Fanimations%2Fmk2%2Freptile-babality.gif&hash=c7eb0d893816f188b46a02665a01133e581a0010)
Quote from: MeatballWaaah, waaaah, waaah.
seriously, have you said anything on this board that hasn't gotten you humiliatingly owned yet?
Quote from: peteQuote from: MeatballWaaah, waaaah, waaah.
seriously, have you said anything on this board that hasn't gotten you humiliatingly owned yet?
seriously, do you think i care what happens on this board?
you keep 'owning' on message boards, pete. stand up and be proud, my brother.
hah.
you care enough to keep on trying to "own" people every couple of days. keep on pretending like you don't care though, you're only two decades behind on that one.
Quote from: Meatballseriously, do you think i care what happens on this board?
so leave.
yeah, put your money where your mouth is.. if you really dont care, then take off and find a new place to troll.
the problem in this board is when people like you (pete) believe they have so brilliant things to say about a film... and its all just bullshit
just let everyone say whatever they want to say and shut the fuck up
I'd like to formally jump in the fray and declare that I hate everyone. Equally, but with hatred that could burn the lips off of babies.
Quote from: andykaljust let everyone say whatever they want to say and shut the fuck up
yet ur telling pete what to say. hmm.
Quote from: petewhat the HELL happened here? since when did everyone on xixax turned into a bunch of "I'm just your average guys"? every other post in this thread becomes another person saying "it's just a MOVIE" holy crap no shit shylock shamrock homos the III? it was just a MOVIE!? I thought I was watching survellance camera footages from different convenience stores, I thought that was why everything was black and white!
if you find someone's interpretation of SinCity to be obnoxious, there are more intelligent ways to put it down than "I'm just a simple folk with a simple dream, I gots no capacity for your fancy educated big city doubletalk."
please, one andyk at a time.
I'm not saying it's just a movie, I'm saying it's just a movie aiming entertainment. This is not Death in Venice. The point of the movie is to be cool, or I don't get art at all.
It's all good to discuss "educated big city doubletalk" sometimes, but I just don't think this is the movie to do so.
I rarely come to these boards anymore. I get tired of scanning through all the adolescent bickering to find a few posts that pertain to the thread topic. That's what PM's are for! The rest of us don't want to follow every play by play of your petty arguments.
Maybe it's time to switch threads? (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=6852)
i'm being called a troll? look back on your own post history cine and marvel at the sheer volume of jackass statements you make in response to other member's serious posts. i don't know if you get a kick out of being an ass, but you've been doing it for quite a while now. you have even more fun with your sidekick pubrick.
while i throw out a few cockroach comments and gasp.. im the worst thing on this board. nice.
wow did you really waste that much time going through my old posts? cool.. i gotta say i'm pretty flattered you care that much to defend your idiocy by reading my posts from 2 years ago.
i dont know what your deal is around here but in case you haven't been paying attention, pete has been running circles around you, owning you everytime you think you're saying something worth reading. is this some grudge you've got with him cause you thought his hunter s thompson anecdote was in bad taste -- and then everyone bashed you for being a moron? just curious about that. and then your only post in your own defense was talking about cockroaches.
arguing with you is beyond pointless because you've already proven you're being a troll -- stating you could care less what happens on this board didn't help your case.
hah.
cinephiles avatar is mr. t though, and he could kick all your asses, so there, bitches.
vespa (i hate segways - hahahahahahah!)
SIN CITY
del toro was at his wildest since the dr. gonzo days, but not wilder. however, i loved him and his crazy grins and devilish eyes.
marv definitely had the best line in "know it's pretty damn weird to eat people".
elijah continues his awesome string of flicks since lotr, this one following eternal sunshine. i love you, elijah. PTA should do something with elijah. have him be an oil speculator or something.
was that nicky katt who got the arrow through his chest and said "heeeey"? sure sounded like him.
elijah really annoys me - I cant look at the kid - i just think of him as that annoying little hobbit and then it ruins the moment
too bad you can't get what I'm getting from him, because baby, it's gold.
Yeah, that was Nicky Katt with the swastika on his forehead with the weird gravedigger from Kill Bill Volume 2.
Quote from: TryskadekafobiaYeah, that was Nicky Katt with the swastika on his forehead with the weird gravedigger from Kill Bill Volume 2.
i thought that was probably the funniest moment in the film. although marvs narration when he's beating everyone up and swimming away from his car is pretty funny too.
I'm just content knowing that my life doesn't revolve around this board, "bashing" and "owning" and "trolling" anonymous strangers on this board, and then being proud of the fact.
Cine, I didn't waste my time looking at your old posts.. but whenever I see a new post of yours it's always a useless, smart ass comment that does nothing but temporarily satisfy your own self esteem.
psst, the "what the hell are you doing this here on the internet" line only works against people who are dumber than you.
hey that reminds me, Meatball, what the hell are you doing this here on the internet?
Not to change the subject, but can any specify exactly what Bruce Willis's character says after he beats the shit out of the yellow bastard and rips his balls off, etc?
My feelings towards this film are hard to explain. Because this is clearly groundbreaking filmmaking. But I feel like I only saw pieces of the puzzle. The movie just felt so fragmented to me. All the performances were nothing short of incredible, except maybe Jaime King. Some of her lines fell completely flat. There's no build-up to any of the action sequences. While every character died before you had enough time to care about them, which is partly due to cutting out a lot of scenes from the comic (Or it's because the source material wasn't that great in the first place. I haven't read the comics in a while). But the super-stylized filmmaking really helps mask all that.
I really wish Tarantino would of been able to adapt this with free-reign. He would of been able to handle all the cheesy things and made them totally work. (i.e. Kill Bill)
I can't even begin to understand why they got Tarantino to direct that small segment. It wasn't anything special. It was a scene anyone could have directed. To be honest, I think the only reason that happen was to slap Tarantino's name onto the marketing package so people would go "Oh Tarantino! I'm seeing this!". It was more like "Hey, for a Million Dollars you film this 5 minute scene and then we slap your name on the trailer." Totally using his likeness to sell the movie.
Maybe I'll like the Uncut DVD better or this might be a comic book that just can't be adapted. I don't know what it was, but the violence just became overkill after a while. It just become senseless and meaningless.
I'm disappointed. I really wanted to like it.
Quote from: B.C. LongI can't even begin to understand why they got Tarantino to direct that small segment. It wasn't anything special. It was a scene anyone could have directed. To be honest, I think the only reason that happen was to slap Tarantino's name onto the marketing package so people would go "Oh Tarantino! I'm seeing this!". It was more like "Hey, for a Million Dollars you film this 5 minute scene and then we slap your name on the trailer." Totally using his likeness to sell the movie.
It happened because RR and Tarantino are friends. RR wanted to show off the HD and digital film and asked Tarantino to come down. And he paid him $1 to do it, the same amount QT paid RR to compose music for Kill Bill.
I'm sure having QT's name on the movie didn't hurt, but with all of the trouble RR went through to get Frank Miller's directors credit, I find it hard to believe it was a purposeful move just due to marketing.
I thought RZA from Wu Tang composed the music for Kill Bill?
It was during the shooting of this second part that Rodriguez's pal Quentin Tarantino stopped by for a visit. Rodriguez had written some of the music for Tarantino's "Kill Bill: Vol. 2 " for only one dollar, and Rodriguez offered Tarantino the chance to direct a sequence of "Sin City" for just a buck.
For Miller, it was just more icing on the top of an already scrumptious cake. "All three of us share a pop culture sensibility and a macabre sense of humor so it was a good match. We were like three kids in a tree fort having a ball."
Tarantino, who is more of a fan of film than of digital cinema, knew that Rodriguez's use of digital technology was perfect for "Sin City" after seeing some test footage. "It was my first view of what this world was like and I thought 'oh my God' they're actually doing the cityscapes and the silhouettes which I just love and all the lighting, the camera angles - everything. I was interested."
And so Tarantino, for the tiny price of a single buck, directed the scene featuring Dwight driving down the highway hallucinating that a dead Jackie-Boy is taunting him. But, according to Tarantino, the price will be higher next time. "It'll be a two dollar bill after this." Tarantino is listed as a "special guest director" on the film.
Source article is linked here. (http://www.wishtv.com/global/story.asp?s=3120136&ClientType=Printable)
I was just under the impression that RZA did all of the music. According to allmovies.com, Lars Ulrich (Metallica) did some of the soundtrack as well.
most of the music were actual old songs though, a lot of them from old westerns and a few from Japanese movies too.
The noirish jazzy stuff provided excellent atmosphere.
was the music from the trailer in the film? i read it was supposed to have been, but i dont think it could've been anywhere but the end credits.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThe noirish jazzy stuff provided excellent atmosphere.
I agree.
RR was ghost director of the scene in the Bonnie Situation where Quentin was in front of the camera as Jimmie. So it's not the first time each one has helped the other out.
I really loved this movie, and not in the "it's just a movie" way. JB mentioned earlier about how it was unpleasant. I agree, but at the same time it was really fun to me. The whole film was on this thin line between frightening me, or madly entertaining me.
www.christiananswers.net
(From his summary in a longer article about Sin City..)
"Minimal amount of personal side-effects." :lol:
QuoteWhatever I've described here, it's inadequate to fully convey the force of the film. It has no overall purpose, other than pushing the envelope just for the sake of "art." It didn't need to be made, and no one needs to see it. A mature adult who lives right and who has absolutely no imbalances or secret sins could probably watch it with a minimum of personal side-effects. Anyone else REALLY needs to stay as far away from this kind of material as possible.
He's probably right. I punched three people on the way out of the theater. Then a 13 yr old kicked my ass and I decided the movie was better than real life.
i really like jb's avatars. all those shots are so beautiful. if course, i won't see this till it comes out on video, but still, jb's av's rule.
Quote from: Stefenif course, i won't see this till it comes out on video.
why not?
i dont go to the movies. i can't deal with the audience who doesn't appreciate it. i wish they could give me 10 bucks and id sit them in front of a dvd and let them talk on the phone, fiddle with the baby, crack jokes and be loud.
stefen, where do you see movies? a nursery?
Quote from: Cinephilestefen, where do you see movies? a nursery?
haha..
I know what he's saying though. They should fucking ban candy at theaters. That shit is loud.
he didn't even mention candy.
Yeah its true... in Miami (and probably everywhere else) it has a lot to do with WHICH theatre you go, and the type of people that are going to see each film.
But anyways, I like going to the movies. I go at least once or twice a week, and I find it very enjoyable. I also watch some films directly on DVD, but I could never wait until they release Star Wars Ep 3 on DVD, or watch it from a downloaded file.. its not the same.
honestly, the only reason i go the theatre is cos movies are released there first. most movies that get released theatrically should've gone straight to video anyway.
the experience itself is not worth the effort. until i saw 2001 on the big screen, i would say a dark room at home is generally the best way to watch movies.
haha... it's so true tho
and seriously folks, what is UP with the butter on the popcorn? They call it butter, I call it grease!
There are films that truly benefit from a theatre viewing. Watching Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with an appreciative audience on a big screen was a far better experience than watching it alone in my living room.
Quote from: Cinephilehe didn't even mention candy.
I guess not..
It drives me crazy though. The first twenty minutes are always the worst. I get the guy who kicks the back of my chair and goes through an entire package of twizzlers, making as much noise as possible with the packaging. I also like the people who try and whisper, hoping that they're being polite. I can still hear you! Shut up. Talk after the movie damnit.
Contrasting theater to home watching, I saw Requiem first on dvd. But then they reran it at the Landmark theater here. So I saw it. And it was a complete fucking mind rape. It was such an assault visually and aurally.
So yeah, I think if you watch a film at a home, make sure that home has a big fucking screen, just in case.
unless i can be the only one in the theater, i don't wanna see it. the only movies enjoyable with an audience are the popcorn flick, and even those i don't wanna pay to see. i can wait till video. the last film i saw in the theater was the life aquatic which was ruined for me cause two loudmouths behind me kept shouting "Boring!" Before that it was pirates of the carribean, and before that it was fight club. each one was very unenjoyable. oh yeah, i saw y tu mama tambien in the art house theater and that was ruined by these two gay guys in the front row hollering everytime Gael or Diego showed homosexual undertones. and then they talked through the whole movie and threw popcorn at eachother. and it was only me and them in the theater. it was awful. watching the movies at home is a much more enjoyable experience. in the theater before the movie starts i find myself being aggitated that people are going to talk or answer their cell phones. i just choose not to go to the theater.
you should move
i have
Some movies NEED an audience, like Rocky Horror Picture Show. I tried watching it on DVD alone and it was torture. Seeing Lost in Translation in theatres wasn't the best thing either, because the movie isn't funny like the audience wanted it to be so they'd laugh at anything they could.
It's like being a church-goer. Are you the type to sit down and quietly study bible passages, or sing halleluiah in the choir?
I liked it a lot. The stories were engaging, the characters were memorable, the visual style was unique and it was entertaining. I also liked the nudity. I look forward to watching it again sometime (most likely on DVD).
**** out of 5 stars
Quote from: Gamblor Ain'tWorthADollarContrasting theater to home watching, I saw Requiem first on dvd. But then they reran it at the Landmark theater here. So I saw it. And it was a complete fucking mind rape. It was such an assault visually and aurally.
So yeah, I think if you watch a film at a home, make sure that home has a big fucking screen, just in case.
I saw Requiem [also at a Landmark theater] when it premiered, and you're right... it really is a theater movie. You don't feel trapped enough when you're watching a DVD.
Quote from: Stefeni dont go to the movies. i can't deal with the audience who doesn't appreciate it. i wish they could give me 10 bucks and id sit them in front of a dvd and let them talk on the phone, fiddle with the baby, crack jokes and be loud.
at the theaters here, they have people trolling the aisles, trying to sell candy and soda and stuff. it's like a fucking baseball game.
Quote from: deathnotronicQuote from: Stefeni dont go to the movies. i can't deal with the audience who doesn't appreciate it. i wish they could give me 10 bucks and id sit them in front of a dvd and let them talk on the phone, fiddle with the baby, crack jokes and be loud.
at the theaters here, they have people trolling the aisles, trying to sell candy and soda and stuff. it's like a fucking baseball game.
Wow..
Talk about desperation. They did that about 8-10 years ago here but people got fucking pissed and the theater actually lost money. I realize theaters make their money off selling candy, soda and popcorn. However, I still hate the idea. Why does eating/drinking and watching a movie seem natural for alot of American movie-goers?
Quote from: MyxomatosisWhy does eating/drinking and watching a movie seem natural for alot of American movie-goers?
America's the fattest, most indulgent nation in the world?
Quote from: MyxomatosisQuote from: deathnotronicQuote from: Stefeni dont go to the movies. i can't deal with the audience who doesn't appreciate it. i wish they could give me 10 bucks and id sit them in front of a dvd and let them talk on the phone, fiddle with the baby, crack jokes and be loud.
at the theaters here, they have people trolling the aisles, trying to sell candy and soda and stuff. it's like a fucking baseball game.
Wow..
Talk about desperation. They did that about 8-10 years ago here but people got fucking pissed and the theater actually lost money. I realize theaters make their money off selling candy, soda and popcorn. However, I still hate the idea. Why does eating/drinking and watching a movie seem natural for alot of American movie-goers?
I don't mind popcorn. Theater popcorn is really, really good. But like, pizza, and nachos, etc... I don't get. This isn't a sports game, nor is it a monster truck rally. Next thing you know they're going to have beer and peanuts.
This is why whenever I want to watch a movie, I go to my dad's house and use his home theater, complete with movie seats and all. :yabbse-thumbup:
That's why I always buy a big box of Junior Mints at the dollar store before I go to the movies. Fuck that four-dollar shit.
i don't know about u guys, but they serve alcohol at sum of the better cinemas here, with recliner seats and first class leg room. those i go to.
no one paying that much for a movie is gonna be making noise. the alcohol sedates them.
The theater nearest to me has this huge dinner and a movie thing. It's nuts and costs like $40 but it's catered with amazing food, I hear. They also show movies like a week early with it. I should try it sometime.
Sounds great. Where is this?
Birmingham MI. www.uptownpalladium12.com
I find it hard to believe some of you don't like being around other people.
Quote from: metroshaneI find it hard to believe some of you don't like being around other people.
not ppl, assholes.
Quote from: PubrickQuote from: metroshaneI find it hard to believe some of you don't like being around other people.
not ppl, assholes.
So, what must they think of you, just another face in the crowd?
Quote from: MeatballQuote from: MyxomatosisWhy does eating/drinking and watching a movie seem natural for alot of American movie-goers?
America's the fattest, most indulgent nation in the world?
No, Texas is.
Texas is a nation? Well, I guess you're right.
Quote from: MeatballQuote from: PubrickQuote from: metroshaneI find it hard to believe some of you don't like being around other people.
not ppl, assholes.
So, what must they think of you, just another face in the crowd?
i don't know what u mean by that and i don't know what it has to do with anything. also, don't make this into a personal thing like the time pete used the word "asshole". not everyone is talking about u when they use that word.
Quote from: Pubricki don't know about u guys, but they serve alcohol at sum of the better cinemas here, with recliner seats and first class leg room. those i go to.
no one paying that much for a movie is gonna be making noise. the alcohol sedates them.
Got the same thing, right here in the fattest nation in the world. It's awesome.
I've stated many times before my preference for seeing films on the big screen. There's not much that can beat it. Every now and then, I get a really lousy crowd at a mainstream theater, but they're usually not
too distracting.
I have good luck at matinees.
I saw Sin City at a semi-crowded midnight showing, and audience reactions actually helped the experience.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI have good luck at matinees.
I saw Sin City at a semi-crowded midnight showing, and audience reactions actually helped the experience.
Yeah. Going to see a film on opening night can be great fun.
I stopped by Barnes & Noble today and looked at the graphic novels. It's true that the dialogue is surprisingly faithful (except for some obvious improvements and cinematic adjustments). But it struck me how much of an improvement the film is. I know it's an unfair comparison, and I know my interpretation of the graphic novels would be different had I not seen the film first. But the movie has so much more control of tone, especially with the cheesy noir stuff. It's funny and thrilling in the movie, but in the graphic novels it almost looks like Frank Miller is taking things too seriously. That's just the sense I got. The film seems more... aware.
i dont think the film meant to be cheesy. its just so hard-boiled that it comes off that way. the graphic novel pulls it off with seriousness intact.
A good comparison to where the adaptation went wrong, I think, could be found in the adaptation of a play to the screen; there are certain things that plays have - emphatic monologues, (relative) overacting - that are necessary for that form but need to be modified when transposed to another medium. It's the same with comics, except that by not making those changes (and creating an admittedly fascinating hybrid animal in the process), Rodriguez has created problems that did not exist - or, if they did, lay dormant - in the original material. This cheesiness is just one of these problems; the comics, while written as a knowing bit of noir extremism - Chandler pushed to the max - had nary a wink to the audience in their pages. Neither does the movie, really, but it also lacks the real-world feel that Miller created in his stories; Hartigan's story aside, it never really feels serious.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI stopped by Barnes & Noble today and looked at the graphic novels. It's true that the dialogue is surprisingly faithful (except for some obvious improvements and cinematic adjustments). But it struck me how much of an improvement the film is. I know it's an unfair comparison, and I know my interpretation of the graphic novels would be different had I not seen the film first. But the movie has so much more control of tone, especially with the cheesy noir stuff. It's funny and thrilling in the movie, but in the graphic novels it almost looks like Frank Miller is taking things too seriously. That's just the sense I got. The film seems more... aware.
My opinion is the opposite. The film definitely mellows all the vantage points in the novel to a pretty straightforward tone, but the film still feels like a pure attempt to really recreate the uniqueness of the novel. If I had to really say I liked the film for the story, (which the film tries to make more of a vocal point) I couldn't. I like the film for the production, the slick feeling of this hazy world. I was hoping the filmmaking would have been even more unique!
This isn't an easy film to like. I have my opinion but I also agree with just about everything Samsong said in criticism against the film. Its not a bad film, but technically, it isn't good either. Its it own film of strengths and weaknesses where the usual criteria just doesn't work.
Quote from: GhostboyNeither does the movie, really, but it also lacks the real-world feel that Miller created in his stories; Hartigan's story aside, it never really feels serious.
I only read the one with Rourke's character, but maybe we see a different real here. The novel was filled anguish, pain and detail to be very real in the literal sense, but it never transcended its comic book origins for me. I thought what was best about it is that it made the comic book form epic.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: GhostboyNeither does the movie, really, but it also lacks the real-world feel that Miller created in his stories; Hartigan's story aside, it never really feels serious.
I only read the one with Rourke's character, but maybe we see a different real here. The novel was filled anguish, pain and detail to be very real in the literal sense, but it never transcended its comic book origins for me. I thought what was best about it is that it made the comic book form epic.
Let me rephrased myself: the comics are a reflection of reality. Marv's anguish and pain, which are of an epic sort, feel very real. At the same time, because they are comics, one can buy his almost superhuman acts over the course of the story - it's an exageration that comics can get away with. But by adapting this literally, Marv becomes a downright invincible killing machine, and there's never any suspense or empathy with what he puts himself through. That comic is my favorite of them all, but it just felt too over the top for me to love it in the film.
And I guess that's a good way to put it: the same things that feel over the top in the films may come across as subtle in the comics.
Quote from: GhostboyRodriguez has created problems that did not exist - or, if they did, lay dormant - in the original material. This cheesiness is just one of these problems; the comics, while written as a knowing bit of noir extremism - Chandler pushed to the max - had nary a wink to the audience in their pages.
The thing is, I think I needed that wink. I don't think it would have worked for me without the tone shift. I got bored with the graphic novels' one-dimensional seriousness very quickly... but maybe I'm too tone-obsessed to read graphic novels.
I wonder how conscious Miller was of the effects that the shift to film would produce.
Quote from: GhostboyBut by adapting this literally, Marv becomes a downright invincible killing machine, and there's never any suspense or empathy with what he puts himself through. That comic is my favorite of them all, but it just felt too over the top for me to love it in the film.
And I guess that's a good way to put it: the same things that feel over the top in the films may come across as subtle in the comics.
I think the Marv story arc is a perfect example of why comics shouldn't be translated to screen exactly the way you see it on paper. On film, Marv's story just had no build-up to any of the climaxes or action sequences (Granted some scenes were cut). It was just bam-bam-bam, THE END. I felt like I was watching an abbreviated version of Sin City. (That's why I hope I enjoy the DVD better with all of the storylines intact)
Another instance of the comic not adapting well to screen was Hartigan and Nancy's love for each other. It came off fine in the comic. But on film, it just came off melodramatic and silly. Maybe some comics weren't meant to be adapted into films, unless certain things are slightly or drastically altered. Alan Moore's Watchmen is currently being adapted and I think it has a LOT of chances to slip up. I think that's one graphic novel that's almost impossible to adapt because of the way the subject matter is presented.
I think it's great as an adaptation personally.
Some of us are looking at the trees instead of standing back and admiring the forest. The film is terrific. That it misses a beat here and there that the comic book didn't does not ruin my experience. We're dealing with two different ways of telling a story. Naturally when the two collide there will always be contrast and elements that not everyone is thrilled about.
Overall it's quite an achievement and a blast to watch..
I enjoyed this film a lot. I think the cheesiness is meant to be there as an homage to older noir movies. It the visual slickness the long shadows the black and white imagery its the reason to watch the film. It would have been much less of a movie without those things.
Its like a live action cartoon with the over the top violence and dialog.
Wow. It's kind of strange that no one has spoken in this thread for over a month.
Buena Vista has let it slip that Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez's neo-noir Sin City will hit DVD on 8/16. It looks like this is going to be a fairly bare-bones version, with a more elaborate special edition DVD set to follow later in 2005 or 2006.
P, what you said in the Grind House thread about "manufactured idea of 'cool'" is pretty much what I feel about this film.
I just found the film extremely tedious. I caught myself counting the cigarette burns to tell if we were on the final reel yet.
When Bogart slapped around Bacall (correct me if Im wrong on this) in The Big Sleep there was something despicable and dangerous about it yet he was Phil Marlowe, dammit and he wasnt spouting smart-ass over-stylised garbage dialogue. Maybe it was meant to be cheesy but what was the point of it all? To get us to laugh at over the top violence? I prefer Itchy and Scartchy - its 10 times as funny in a fraction of the time.
In Sin City they shoot, punch, and axe people in the balls a lot and people laugh but not in the good way that you might laugh when someone gets a football to the groin.
Sin City Double Dips on DVD
Dimension to offer a deluxe edition following August's bare-bones DVD release.
IGN recently received a deluge of email about what bonus materials and extra features are included on the August 16 release of Robert Rodriguez' Sin City. The disc, as some predicted, will offer only a bare-bones release of the film, including three sound formats (English DTS 5.1, English Dolby Digital 5.1, and French) and a behind-the-scenes featurette.
Rodriguez previously promised a deluxe DVD release for the film that includes a number of innovative features, including the next installment of his 10 Minute Film School series, and a programming option which separates and restores each story to its original length. But these will not be available until late 2005 or '06 at the earliest; while no release date has been set for the deluxe version, one expects the DVD will release during fourth quarter '05 to capitalize on the holiday shopping season.
taking a cue from the Rick Sands playbook of how to be THE BIGGEST DICK ON EARTH. "It's called multiple bites at the apple. And you multiply this internationally." thanks for the love, rodriguez! :yabbse-thumbup: how did he get a co-forum here anyway?
Quote from: themodernage02how did he get a co-forum here anyway?
He donated.
oh damn. i've been meaning to! I'M UNEMPLOYED!
A sequel, as RK said, would be a mistake (a mistake like Rodriguez touching this movie at all) the story was too great to get tainted like this, and Dame To Kill For should've been in the original anyway.
Quote from: WAmazing adaptation, and it makes me wonder how it might've lacked if Frank Miller wasn't as involved.
???
sin who?
the werd part is that it hasn't even been announced over here but there's an abundance of sharkboylavagirl publicity.
i don't think i'll see this..
I'LL SEE SB & LG !
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1656%2Farticle.jpg&hash=26fbe93f3949315083aed67dd6ee4f283b47f12e)
If I cut off seven of your fingers and asked you to name the top three comic book creators in the world, one of those digits would be Frank Miller. Miller was previously best known for seminal runs on the comic books Daredevil, Batman, creator owned works like Give Me Liberty [with Dave Gibbons] and Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot [with Geof Darrow]. He’s collaborated with many of the most brilliant creators in the comic book field such as Chris Claremont, John Romita Jr., Bill Sienkiewicz, David Mazzucchelli and many more.
But now that he’s co-directed [with Robert Rodriguez] the film version of his noir comic, Sin City, Miller is the first heavyweight comic book creator to become a major Hollywood filmmaker. Sin City combines four of Miller’s sordid tales, The Hard Goodbye, The Customer is Always Right, The Big Fat Kill and That Yellow Bastard into one beautifully rendered film. The film was a big hit in theaters and is now being released on DVD August 16.
I got a chance to chat with Miller about Sin City 2, the upcoming film adaptation of 300 which is his retelling of the battle of Thermopylae, comic book movies and much more.
Daniel Robert Epstein: From what I read, it’s hard to figure out what your exact role on the set of Sin City was.
Frank Miller: I was the co-director.
DRE: Were you literally directing just as much as Robert [Rodriguez]?
FM: Basically we worked on every scene together. Sometimes we’d keep my scene and sometimes we’d keep his. It went back and forth. It was a very organic meld between the two of us.
DRE: Would you work with the actors as much as you would on the look of the film?
FM: Oh yeah, working with the actors was my favorite part of the job. I never got to work with actors as intensely before and I found that I really loved that part of the job. I mean working with Mickey Rourke is a lot different than just having some abstract notion.
DRE: Were you satisfied with the whole process?
FM: I was thrilled. Quentin Tarantino described the Kill Bill movies to me as being like a marriage between him and Uma Thurman so I said “Well Sin City was like a string of mad affairs.”
DRE: There were some changes from the Sin City comic books such as the last scene with Alexis Bledel. Did you and Robert create that together?
FM: That last scene was Robert’s idea and I think I probably touched it up a little. But he’s got good ideas. We’re always bouncing things off each other and I don’t think that he could remember any better than I could who was responsible for what scene. But that last scene was his idea. No doubt about that.
DRE: When I first sat down to see Sin City, I said there was no way they’re going to be able to rip off the Yellow Bastard’s penis.
FM: Bruce [Willis] went and did it!
DRE: I know, it was horrible and terrifying.
FM: Oh come on, it was wonderful.
DRE: But I knew he wasn’t going to pop it off like a champagne cork like he did in the book.
FM: Yeah but I love the distaste with which he threw it away.
The whole genesis story of that story was from two separate incidents. One is, when I went to see the last Dirty Harry movie, The Dead Pool and I was disgusted. I went out and said, this is not a Dirty Harry movie, this is nothing, this is a pale sequel. But I walked out and said that’s not the last Dirty Harry story, I will show you the last Dirty Harry story. Years later, I just happened to be visiting my mother and I walked into her kitchen and saw the back of an absolutely beautiful five foot nine woman and she turned around and said “Hi Uncle Frank” and a bastard was born.
DRE: Was it just the fact that Bruce Willis is able to bring sympathy and empathy to a character that made Hartigan became a little softer than he was in the comic?
FM: It could be. I have a rather harsh drawing style so it’s hard for me to qualify that. I will say that Bruce just makes you love him. I think that you cannot look at Bruce without feeling rather adoring because he’s, just the coolest.
DRE: I interviewed him for Hostage, his other movie this year and I really wanted to just hang out with him rather than do an interview.
FM: The thing is he just warms up the screen. I regard him as my generation’s Humphrey Bogart.
DRE: That’s quite the compliment.
FM: Well, I mean it sincerely. I think that every generation produces one of those and I think that we got one with him.
DRE: If Bruce is Humphrey Bogart is Mickey Rourke Robert Mitchum?
FM: [laughs] That’s pretty good. I’m not going to try to top that.
DRE: When I first saw Sin City, I sat down going “No way, this is not going to work” and at the end of it I realized you all really pulled it off.
Certainly the only negative thing I’ve heard is Michael Madsen’s expository monologue to Hartigan at the beginning of That Yellow Bastard. Even though it works in the comics, do you think it’s just a lot of words for someone to say in a movie?
FM: That’s your and the audience’s call. We really rolled the dice with this movie. It was Robert’s vision from the start that we would be as faithful as it was. So we simply stayed as faithful as we could. In fact, many times Robert pulled me back when I wanted to change things by saying “Too late, you already inked it.” I was ready to adapt. The reason Sin City was not turned over to any moviemakers for 12 years is that I wouldn’t let my baby get sent down the river. Robert Rodriguez convinced me that he really meant that he wanted to make a movie of the comic, not some sanitized version of it. From then on, we were so much on the same page it was ridiculous.
DRE: Was the original color of The Yellow Bastard in the book invented by [Frank’s wife and colorist] Lynn [Varley]?
FM: Yeah, it was a basic full scale Y. It was as harsh a yellow as you could get. Then in the movie I asked for it to look a little bit like French’s Mustard. I thought that would be really disgusting.
DRE: Over the years you’ve done tons of comic press and some mainstream press. How was doing all the worldwide press for Sin City?
FM: It felt as if I had a very good bout of training to get ready for because it’s a whole different level of attention. When you’re at Cannes [Film Festival] or in London and people are all over you with questions, it was very lucky that I had developed enough facility to handle it. I’ve done a lot of publicity over the years for a very small audience and now I’m dealing with a very big stadium. It’s a different world but the same dynamics apply.
DRE: Like you said, you were doing Sin City for a relatively small audience so did you think the movie would do as well as it did? I think it made $70 million.
FM: Yeah it did great. I didn’t know how it would do. I had no idea. I remember that at the beginning the whole question was, “Would my stuff actually appeal to people?” I’m used to having my 100,000 buy the comics but we’re talking big time here and they showed up. I was thrilled.
DRE: The Sin City books were re-released by Dark Horse. How onboard were you with shrinking it down to Manga size?
FM: I wanted it immediately. I wanted to go smaller and I wanted to make the paper cheaper. I wanted it to feel more like something that you would read rather than an art book.
DRE: Did the art have to be adjusted at all?
FM: It shrunk down fine.
DRE: Now it’s the size of the old pulp novels.
FM: Yeah and I wanted it to be something that a woman could put in her purse or a guy might carry on an airplane. It didn’t have to be a precious item anymore.
DRE: I would guess that it wasn’t a coincidence that you started Sin City right after your Robocop experience.
FM: Definitely, it was my anti-movie. What is so funny about this whole narrative is that I sat down in an unfinished living room at my drawing board and simply came up with what I always wanted to do. At the time I had carpenters sawing up my kitchen, so the noise was terrible with band saws wailing away and all of that. I simply sat down and said “I don’t give a damn anymore, I’m going to just draw what I want to draw and I’m going to write what I want to write.” I came up with Sin City and then 12 years later I’m back in the movies.
DRE: Though it is much different than your previous Hollywood experience.
FM: Oh absolutely. This was a heavenly experience. I can’t tell you how good it felt. Robert is a great partner, [producer] Elizabeth [Avellan] is wonderful, the crew was great and I can’t believe how well I got along with the cast. We all walked away from the whole thing saying, “When do we start again?”
DRE: Was there any panel in the Sin City that you thought that Robert wasn’t going to be able to translate. Like the toilet bowl scene or Dwight sinking into the tar.
FM: Oh yeah, there were a lot of them. I didn’t know crap about movies and I certainly didn’t know about digital. Robert showed me that we could do whatever was in my head or on my page. I came in at a very high level on the business and the cutting edge of the technology and that was all due to Robert because he just insisted upon it and then showed me how to do it.
DRE: What’s the status of new Sin City movies?
FM: We’re working on putting the structure of Sin City 2 together but we’re talking about starting shooting in January.
DRE: What stories is it going to be?
FM: We’re talking about weaving together A Dame to Kill For and a new story I’m coming up with.
DRE: Cool!
FM: We got to have something new! You know?
DRE: Please!
Could Clive Owen still play Dwight since its pre-Big Fat Kill and Dwight’s plastic surgery?
FM: Man, I’m not answering any questions about cast. I got to negotiate with these people.
DRE: Clive Owen was so great, though.
FM: Oh my god, Clive was just wonderful to work with because he immediately grasps everything. That’s what got me about all three of the male leads. They were just so darn smart. I would say something to Bruce and he would just turn around to me and glare at me with that scary glare of his and then he’d deliver something I couldn’t imagine.
DRE: Even if Sin City hadn’t come out it would still be somewhat of a big year for you Hollywood wise, even though you weren’t involved with Elektra and Batman Begins.
FM: I was involved in Batman’s first draft with Darren Aronofsky. But when they changed the crew, they changed us too. So we just walked away from it, but I wasn’t involved in Elektra at all.
DRE: Did you see Elektra and Batman Begins?
FM: I saw Batman Begins. I thought it was pretty damn good.
DRE: When an element from your screenplay or from Batman: Year One showed up, such as when he signaled the bats with the boot button, did you like that?
FM: Oh wasn’t that fun? I just loved that. The thing is, when you work on a collection of works like Batman, you expect that people are going to naturally harvest your ideas. I don’t think it’s anything to be petulant about. Frankly I thought they did a pretty damn good job of it and mainly I just wanted it to be a good movie. That’s all I really cared about. I didn’t make up Batman so I’m making no claims.
DRE: Did you avoid Elektra or did you just not see it?
FM: I’m too close to her. She’s like my daughter. She’s my little baby girl and I know she’s been whoring around but I just don’t want to watch it. I’ve got nothing against the people who made Elektra but if I saw it I’d hate it. I met Jennifer [Garner], she’s a very beautiful, wonderful gal, and I met all the people that worked with her on Daredevil but when it came to Elektra I just couldn’t quite handle it.
DRE: I think my favorite comic story of yours for the past few years is definitely Man With Pen In Head [about his cameo in the Daredevil movie, published in Autobiographix]. I love autobiographical and semi-autobiographical comic books. It was so great because as much as Sin City and 300 are obviously very personal to you. Man With Pen In Head is peering directly into your head.
FM: Sure, yeah.
DRE: How was it creating that short story and do you want to do more semi-autobiographical work?
FM: I don’t know. When it occurs to me I suppose I will. Mainly that was a job done simply because [Dark Horse Comics editor] Diana Schutz called me and said “I’d like to get something autobiographical out of you.” So I had to come up with something because I can’t really turn Diana down because she’s such a sweetheart and has been a friend forever. Stuff like that is usually about people learning to masturbate so I thought, “Let me make fun of them, let me do one that’s nothing but a pile of lies.” That’s what I produced.
DRE: Recently Steve Gerber came out and said that he just won’t work on characters that the original creator is not getting compensated for it. You’ve been one of those creators for many years. How do you feel about that?
FM: I understand Steve’s position. I don’t really share it because at some point those things do become a collective property. But I understand his position and I respect it. I just don’t think that’s a reason not to write a Batman story.
DRE: It’s too hard to pass up, right?
FM: Also Bob Kane is kind of taken care of. But even if he weren’t it’s just one of those cases where you’ve got to say “Do I have something to do here?” Would it be more virtuous of me to come up with a Superman who isn’t Superman or Batman who isn’t Batman and put it out in the market saying I’m not going to pay anybody off?
DRE: That’s a very good point. I got to speak to Tyler Bates who’s doing the music for 300. He told me there’s a minute and a half of beautiful test footage. Have you seen that yet?
FM: I have. It’s really gorgeous and really brutal. [300 director] Zack [Snyder] showed it to me. I was in-between pieces for Sin City at the time and he showed it to me in the screening room and it was looking really cool. Of course I was jumping all over him about making sure that the phalanx was just right and that kind of stuff. I’m a military history freak so I have to push him that way.
DRE: I just heard just this past week that it might be shooting in October or November. How involved do you want to be with that and are you an executive producer for sure?
FM: I will be, yeah. What counterbalances that, is that I’m not the director. Zack is the director so he is the one making the movie. I have to respect that. I know what it’s like to be a director and you do not step on those toes. But I will be the fly on the wall jumping all over people saying this is not what a Spartan would do and that sort of thing. But it’s going to be Zack’s movie.
DRE: Did you have to approve Zack?
FM: Well, it all kind of came together as a package. At the time I hadn’t directed a movie myself so I didn’t have the perspective I have now. Now I understand that the position that counts is the director. The writer doesn’t count all that much and producers count a little bit but the director is the one making the movie.
DRE: Have you seen the fan film Rats?
FM: Yeah, it was pretty sweet actually. It seemed like something someone did out of love.
DRE: Can we talk about you still living in Hell’s Kitchen?
FM: Sure, I mean I’m standing in Hell’s Kitchen. Where are you at?
DRE: Right now believe it or not I’m in Australia visiting the set of Superman Returns.
FM: Is it cool?
DRE: We saw some sets that were just unbelievable.
FM: Yeah, how’d Superman look?
DRE: I touched the costume yesterday, Frank, I touched the costume! I met Brandon [Routh] who’s playing Superman. I asked him the toughest questions I could think of about Superman. Political stuff, the comics and he always came back with good answers and he seems to really understand the character.
FM: You know, that’s what’s happening now, man. I noticed that Christian Bale’s Batman was very informed by the comics. There was nothing sarcastic about it and there wasn’t some otherworldly take on the character. His very first moment, when he says, “No, you’re practice.” That’s the Batman I know. I really liked that about it.
DRE: It was really cool that the thugs never saw Batman. Batman is the best hand to hand fighter/ninja in the world and you never see him hit you. All of a sudden you wake up in the hospital.
FM: Yeah, right. “Hey what happened to my arm?” I think that they did a real nice job that way. We’ve got a new generation of actors coming up who really want to play the comic book characters instead of saying “This is my interpretation of these pissant comic books.”
DRE: Have you seen the X-Men movies?
FM: I love them! I eat them up. I like the Spider-Man movies too. I think that Sam Raimi is top notch. The first Spider-Man is Steve Ditko and the second one is John Romita [Sr].
DRE: What’s interesting is that the essential difference between Marvel and DC Comics really seems to show up in the movies. Marvel’s characters work in all sorts of adventures while with DC, the origin stories are always the best. What’s your opinion on that?
FM: My best answer would be that Marvel does folklore and DC does myth. So myth is harder. Folklore is Paul Bunyan but myth is Odysseus. It’s very hard to do a Batman movie and it’s very hard to do a Superman movie. I think it’s easier to do a Spider-Man movie because he’s kind of like the guy next door. I’m not attempting to diminish the efforts of Sam Raimi and Tom DeSanto with what they’ve done with X-Men and Spider-Man but I’m just saying I can understand why DC has to struggle a bit harder to do justice to the characters.
DRE: I’m always going out to eat and hang out in Hell’s Kitchen. Can you set stories in Hell’s Kitchen anymore?
FM: I could set stories in there, I’d just have to go two blocks further west. My avenue is 9th Avenue and it’s a very nice place at this point. It’s a great place to walk and I walk there everyday. It’s full of Irish pubs and sweet people with dogs and kids. Hell’s Kitchen is definitely not what it was when I first arrived in New York in the late 70’s.
DRE: God no. It’s obviously safer and that’s good but it isn’t the same.
FM: I would rather live in Hell’s Kitchen now than when I first showed up in New York from Vermont. You couldn’t even find a place to eat. I mean buildings were blown in half and the Westies were running it. Now it’s just a lovely part of town, but it still has a lot of character in it.
DRE: Well thank god it was bad when you first got there otherwise I don’t know if the Daredevil would have been the same.
Do you write screenplays anymore?
FM: Right now I’m in progress on the screenplay for Hard Boiled. I don’t write a lot of screenplays because it’s not my favorite area of work. I’d rather be shooting the stuff than writing it. But if it’s my material I kind of have to usually jump in although I didn’t write the screenplay for 300.
DRE: When Hard Boiled was first coming out and it was delayed, I was the guy who every week went into the comic book store and asked “Is it in yet?” Finally the store owner was just like “Stop asking.”
FM: Stop asking [laughs]. That’s great but I didn’t draw it.
DRE: Well you know how good Geof [Darrow] is but I wanted to read it!
FM: Geof is amazing. He’s a good guy and a great artist.
DRE: How close is the Hard Boiled screenplay to the book?
FM: It’s a take on it. It’s not meticulous, but I think it captures the flavor and it just embellishes a bit. What I’m looking to do with the screenplay is to make it funnier.
DRE: Are you taking your inspiration from your initial idea or what Geof and you did with it?
FM: There’s no way that I can approach that script without looking at what Geof did. Geof is a visionary and an absurdist so the screenplay needs to reflect that.
DRE: Is the story going to be as mysterious until the end like the book was?
FM: I get the sense that you’ve been around the block enough to know how movies actually work. Until you see the sign up on a marquee, you don’t actually have a movie. So until you’re actually shooting you don’t really know what the movie will be. I’m not going to deceive you and pretend I’m completely in charge of this thing. I’m just telling you I’m working on it.
DRE: Who own the rights to turn it into a movie right now?
FM: Warner Bros has the option.
DRE: I’ve spoken to a lot of creators from before your generation like Marv Wolfman and Len Wein and they can hardly get their foot in the door at Marvel and even DC.
FM: Really? I didn’t know that.
DRE: Yeah, Len says he can get a pitch in at DC but it’s always rejected.
FM: That’s rough. I’ve known Len and Marv forever.
DRE: What changes have you seen in Marvel and DC in this new age?
FM: Well it’s in the ascendancy of the artist. That’s pretty much undeniable at this point. A Jim Lee project is a Jim Lee project and if I’m part of it, well that’s cool too but I also draw. Drawing really counts now and I think it’s a healthy thing. Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman are the absolute apex of the writer’s era. All I can say really is that it gets down to simple economics. The market collapsed because it was revealed to be false in the 90’s and so it has become a buyer’s market whereas in the late 80’s it was a seller’s market. So now unless you’re a pretty bankable name, or you have something they really want to see, you got to hustle a little harder.
DRE: You’re in an enviable position for any creator. How has that affected you?
FM: Not at all. I’m very fortunate, I can say that much. I’m not going to pretend otherwise. I’m not going to shuffle my feet and act like Jimmy Stewart. But I’m very fortunate and I love the opportunities I’ve got.
DRE: What made you want to write All-Star Batman & Robin The Boy Wonder?
FM: This is my Robin story. This is Dick Grayson learning to become a superhero. Batman is a cool character and we already know that but it’s Robin who I’m out to make everybody fall in love with.
DRE: I think in the introduction to The Man Without Fear trade paperback, you said that you actually liked doing Daredevil better than Batman. Do you have any plans to do any Daredevil or any Marvel work?
FM: I got nothing planned now, but who knows? I’ve done this stuff long enough to know I shouldn’t say anything too abrupt. My relationship with Marvel has been up and down but a company is a company and it’s people that you count on. Marvel and I will talk one of these days.
DRE: Did you read Brian Michael Bendis’ Daredevil?
FM: No and I’ve got nothing against Brian at all, it’s just that if I read anybody else’s Daredevil I’ll probably throttle them. I’m very possessive with characters that I fall in love with. Daredevil is a particular source of affection because I cut my teeth on him and I love Matt [Murdoch] so I probably would disapprove anything that Brian does no matter how good it is.
DRE: If you said “I’m going to do a Daredevil story“, would you then read everything up until now?
FM: Nope. Do I have to read the last 500 of Superman to write a Superman story? I don’t think so. What I need to know is The Iliad and the stories of Hercules. I don’t need to read all those old comic books.
DRE: I did just read The Essential Daredevil that had the first 25 issues. I like to read those because it fills in some blanks for me.
FM: Well how is it? Is it fun? Is it stupid?
DRE: It’s fun and stupid.
FM: I don’t mind fun and stupid. I saw the Fantastic Four movie and it’s fun and stupid. I really enjoyed the hell out of it. I thought the guy that played the Thing [Michael Chiklis] was terrific and Jessica [Alba] was a delight as always. I thought that she delivered the goods completely in every which way. She’s a very clever actress. It’s just that people tend to discount her abilities because she’s gorgeous and now she’s blonde so now no longer can they say “a Latina.” Now she’s blonde so she’s got to be stupid. She’s not stupid; in fact she’s one of the smartest people I’ve ever met. Also the guy who played The Human Torch [Chris Evans] was hilarious!
DRE: Him and the Thing nailed Jack Kirby.
FM: I loved when Jessica says to The Human Torch “Don't even think about it!” and Johnny jumps off the roof saying “Never do!” It had those great moments of character. The Human Torch is a complete asshole. I thought they had some major Kirby moments in that movie and that’s high praise. That movie, even more so than the Spider-Man and X-Men movies, captured the silliness. When you think about it, a bunch of people go out into space for a DNA experiment, get hit by cosmic rays and gain weird powers. That makes no sense whatsoever. I mean come on, it’s complete nonsense.
DRE: Yeah, they’re going out to basically kill themselves.
FM: Then all of a sudden one of them is invisible, another turns into a big orange rock, another can stretch. It doesn’t make any sense at all.
DRE: Does Kirby still inform your work?
FM: Oh yeah and he always will. He’s our Beethoven and I work on that foundation. He and Eisner are the two giants that will always inform my work but there are so many great creators.
DRE: What comics do you read on any kind of regular or irregular basis?
FM: I read anything Richard Corben draws. I read Paul Pope’s work and I certainly read anything Brian Azzarello and Jill Thompson produce. Also I’m a big fan of James Kochalka.
DRE: I find Kochalka’s work so joyous.
FM: I think that he’s just going to become more important and it’s going to be fun watching that happen. He reminds me of me when I was six years old and I came into my mother’s kitchen with a bunch of sheets of typing paper folded over and stapled in the middle that were covered with drawings and I said “Mom this is what I’m going to do for the rest of my life.” I’ve learned a lot from people like Kochalka because they do stuff that shouldn’t work but does. Scott Morse does some fascinating things as well like The Barefoot Serpent. Also I happen to really enjoy the crime stories that Ed Brubaker writes, like Catwoman.
DRE: Do you read many new novels?
FM: I do and what’s most interesting lately is coming out of the Feminist Press. In a Lonely Place by Dorothy Hughes is the best crime story I’ve read this year. It is a brilliant story of a serial killer and it’s just stunningly good.
DRE: Does it have a feminist bent?
FM: The only reason it’s under the Feminist Press is because it was written by a woman but it hasn’t published in 50 years. They’re releasing all these novels again now and, of the ones I’ve read, Dorothy Hughes is by far the giant of the bunch. I think she stands as tall as almost anybody.
DRE: Really? I’m a big Jim Thompson fan.
FM: Jim Thompson’s great, but doesn’t he make you want to take a shower?
DRE: Yeah, I literally sometimes do after I read one.
FM: Yeah I know [laughs]. I’ll read The Killer Inside Me or Pop. 1280 and I’ll go “I really feel dirty right now.” Then in one of his more obscure novels a character gets a woman pregnant and she tells him so he punches her in the stomach and says “You’re not pregnant anymore.”
DRE: This is a broad question but do you think we’ll ever live in a world or at least in an America where the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund [CBLDF] isn’t needed?
FM: My answer would be no because some fights have to be kept on perpetually. The fund is defending retailers against the various wannabe district attorneys and other assholes. I don’t think that we’ll ever not need it but I just love the fact that it exists. When I first came in, the only thing we had was the Comics Code, which enforced censorship. Now we have an organization that actually fights censorship and I support it wholeheartedly. Have you heard Hillary Clinton talking about videogames?
DRE: Yes it’s just awful!
FM: This battle is never going to end and you’re working online. You’re in the real battleground. They’d have to kill you at this point.
DRE: Personally when I walk out of my apartment and I see homeless people and crackheads, I’m like “Why isn’t she fighting to save them?”
FM: I feel that and many other things. Why didn’t she try to keep these people from knocking the towers down? But I’m hearing about videogames. It’s pathetic.
DRE: Now that comics have been legitimized by movies like Ghost World, American Splendor and the superhero movies, has the CBLDF’s fight gotten any easier?
FM: No, it’s a tough fight. [CBLDF Executive Director] Charles Brownstein, [CBLDF President] Denis Kitchen and the rest of us are all in a big battle because you never know when somebody’s going to come at you. There’s always some guy or gal who really wants to get elected to some position in government who will use comic books as a nice foil because comic books don’t have the money that videogames, computer companies or movies have. The fund is willing to take up the banner, really charge and is changing the history of comics dramatically. They’re starting to know that we may be small but we’ll give you a very bloody nose.
Robert Rodriguez Interview
The Sin City director discusses a deluxe DVD and the forthcoming sequel.
Whether or not he's actually trying, Robert Rodriguez may soon steal from James Brown the title of Hardest Working Man in Show Business. The director has already released two films this year - Sin City and The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl - and has plans for two more, hopefully in the next twelve months. On top of that, Rodriguez recently announced plans for as many as four different, elaborate DVD releases for his earlier works, and discussed them at length with IGN DVD in between writing sessions with longtime collaborator Quentin Tarantino on the new project Grind House. Check out his descriptions of the upcoming DVDs for Sin City, Sharkboy and Lavagirl, and Spy Kids, as well as his comments about future Sin City films, which will begin with an adaptation of A Dame to Kill For.
IGN: Has DVD become a director's new best friend?
Rodriguez: Yeah. I mean, I think it's just the way you can perceive how entertainment is viewed, not just for DVDs but future HD DVDs and all of the extra things you can put on them. When I was doing Sin City, you're just very aware that, okay, there's the theatrical release, which is pretty much a one-shot; people go and see it at the theaters for a couple of weeks and then they forget about that, and then whatever comes out later is a more definitive version.
I told Frank [Miller], let's do three stories. I know it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but we'll cram three stories together. We'll shoot the full books, but in editing I'll just figure out what stuff we need to cut to make it flow as a feature for the theatrical release so people can sit there and in under two hours see sort of a resemblance what the movie is. But when it goes to DVD, we can do a special edition where the second disc can have the stories separated out in the full cuts so that you can see it the way you would read the books. You just watch "The Yellow Bastard," the full cut, or see "The Big Fat Kill," and that's the way you're supposed to read the books.
You're not supposed to read three really quick, so that's going to be cool. So we shot the full books and all of the voiceover knowing that we could put it together as single episodes, and that eventually if we did part two and part three we'd end up having the discs that had all of the stories separated, and you could put them in any order you want.
IGN: Knowing that there will eventually be multiple versions of a film released on DVD, how do you make sure that your audience is satisfied with each of those iterations?
Rodriguez: Well, usually I just put out one. With this one, they are already putting out one that comes out [August 16] that is just bare bones. I had not put anything extra on that, because I didn't have time to finish my DVD extras. They will put that out four months later because of piracy and stuff like that, and they actually don't put anything on there so that they know, 'well, this isn't the real DVD.'
The real DVD should come out fairly quick, [and] it's the one that will be obviously the double-disc set with all of the goodies on it. I mean, it has all kinds of stuff on there - I have a 20-minute Film School, a new Cooking School, Sin City Breakfast Tacos, and my favorite feature: when people watch DVDs, they complain 'oh, the only thing about home entertainment is you miss that audience experience.' Well, the best audience is in Austin, especially for a movie that was made there. We showed the premiere with the actors there in a 1500-seat theater, and they would go crazy and Sin City got a big reaction. I recorded the audience in 5.1 so if you're watching the DVD and you want to see it with an Austin audience on premiere night, you just click a button and they're all there going 'aaaah!' so it's really cool.
Quentin, when he was directing his sequence, he just let the tape roll when we were shooting, and the sequence taped for an hour, so there are some 20-minute uninterrupted takes. You see him wander in front of the camera and talk to the actors, and [he's] directing and you hear the whole sound of the set. It's like you're sitting right there on the set seeing the movie being shot from the point of view of the camera that's shooting the movie, uninterrupted, and it's really cool. You feel like you're right there, and you get to see what it's like to work with Quentin and the actors and how the movie actually gets made. [And] he will do a commentary on his section.
IGN: Will you have the same kind of working relationship with Frank Miller on the sequel?
Rodriguez: Yes. He wants to [direct]; he loves it now. He says, 'oh, I can see why you want to do this all of the time.' He can't wait to get back on the set.
IGN: What stories are you planning to adapt for the sequel?
Rodriguez: A Dame to Kill For is probably the basis of the second one.
IGN: Which characters would be returning?
Rodriguez: I think Marv comes back, because that's before he dies. I think Dwight's in that one, Gail is in that one. Both Goldie and Wendy are together; she's still alive, so we see the twins together - one blonde, one black and white. Miho's in that one, and then there's a bunch of new characters. We're still writing the script to see if there's enough for a third one, or if we're just going to do a second one.
IGN: Do you have all of the actors already signed for the film?
Rodriguez: No, but they would come do it. It was like two days of their life. They're like 'yeah, I'll do that again- I have a free weekend.'
IGN: Is there a timeline for the sequel(s)?
Rodriguez: We're supposed to shoot in January, but we might do it earlier if we continue working at this pace.
IGN: When do you expect you will put together a proper special edition DVD for the first Spy Kids film?
Rodriguez: We're doing that right now. I think that comes out at Christmas. We just did the commentary for it, and we shot a whole bunch of new interviews with the kids and stuff, and the actors. I've got all of the deleted scenes and all of the things that never made it to the [previous DVD].
IGN: Are you finished with that franchise for now?
Rodriguez: Well, we might do an animated straight-to-DVD thing, but that would be it. We couldn't do a live-action thing because the kids are too big.
IGN: What would feature on the Film School and Cooking School for the Spy Kids DVD?
Rodriguez: The Film School, I'd already cut a Film School for it, but I don't know if there would be a Cooking School - is there anything they ate in that? But the Sin City Breakfast Tacos are my favorite; it shows you how to make homemade flour tortillas like my grandmother, and nobody makes those any more.
IGN: What will the Film School be for Sharkboy and Lavagirl?
Rodriguez: It's actually called Creating Sharkboy and Lavagirl With Racer Max. it has all of this footage that I had taken over the years of my son since he was little and had a fascination with sharks; he's always loved sharks. I'm showing him conceptualizing the movie and showing me the first drawings of the bad guy and Sharkboy and Lavagirl and acting out certain sequences as he's coming up for them. We inter cut that with the final movie, and you see how close it is.
There's [also] one where we're in the pool, because we got a lot of ideas in the pool, and I was just videotaping to record the ideas because the pen kept getting my paper wet, so I just recorded because it was easier, and you see us just coming up with ideas in the pool, real-time, so I think that will inspire a lot of little kids and parents to draw and make home movies together because you see how funny it is and how close it makes you.
IGN: Are you planning a Cooking School for Sharkboy as well?
Rodriguez: We were going to do a Cooking School but we didn't finish it in time. We make these chocolate chunk volcano cookies that have peanut butter chips, white vanilla, just all kinds of sh*t. it's so good, but it's a sugar overload. We have a couple of outtakes that are really funny, and also there's a commentary [with my son]. It doesn't credit him - it just says I did a commentary - but if you listen to the commentary, about halfway through my son comes in and I say 'come sit down and do the commentary with me.' That was hilarious; he said some really funny stuff.
IGN: What kind of challenge - or perhaps relief - is it to jump back and forth between two series that have such different tones?
Rodriguez: I did it by accident when I did Once Upon a Time in Mexico and Spy Kids 2 and 3, and I like doing two very different projects at the same time as opposed to doing Mexico and Sin City at the same time. You'd get them all mixed up, like, 'whose head are we cutting off? Whose arm is that?' These series are just so different that it's almost easier to do two at once because you're not fixated on one project and overthinking it. It gives you a lot of distance to switch and do a kids movie for half a day and then come back to Sin City and go, 'oh, I know what to do here.' You get a lot more objective; it's like your mind went on vacation.
I know not everyone knows a special edition of Sin City is coming out, but so many people have been buying this lately and I'll tell them "You know the special edition is coming out in four months or so, right?" and they respond with "Oh cool, I'll pick that up, too."
It's called multiple bites at the apple. And you multiply this internationally.
I wanted the free comic book and lithograph set. :yabbse-undecided:
completists, it's what makes america great.
Quote from: WalrusI know not everyone knows a special edition of Sin City is coming out, but so many people have been buying this lately and I'll tell them "You know the special edition is coming out in four months or so, right?" and they respond with "Oh cool, I'll pick that up, too."
I just really wanted to see it again. The way I figure, if it lasted more than 2 weeks here, I would have seen it maybe twice more which would be the same as buying this DVD. I'll sell it on Half.com a week before the new one comes out and not mind a bit.
For the love of god, people, just rent it! You're feeding the beast! You're justifying the studio's purely-evil DVD release strategy for them! I'm very disappointed in all of you. :elitist:
http://davisdvd.com/news/news.html
Buena Vista Home Entertainment has just revealed complete details for Sin City: Recut & Extended Edition. Available on December 13th, the two-disc set will feature both the 124-minute theatrical cut, as well as a new 147-minute extended version presented in 1.85:1 anamorphic, Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS Surround tracks. Bonus materials will include commentary with directors Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller, a second track with Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino and a third with the Austin Premiere crowd.
More extras included are "A Hard Top With a Decent Engine: The Cars of Sin City," "Making the Monsters: Special Effects Make-Up," "Trench Coats & Fishnets: The Costumes of Sin City," "Booze Broads & Guns: The Props of Sin City," "How It Went Down: Convincing Frank Miller To Make the Film," "Giving the Characters Life: Casting the Film," "Special Guest Director: Quentin Tarantino," "The Movie in High-Speed Green Screen," "15 Minute Film School with Robert Rodriguez," "10 Minute Cooking School with Robert Rodriguez," "The Long Take: 17 Uninterrupted Minutes of Tarantino's Segment," "Sin City Night at Antones" cast & crew party, bloopers, a "Sin-Chroni-City" Interactive Game, teaser and theatrical trailers. Rounding out the package will be a special edition printing of original Sin City graphic novel "The Hard Goodbye." Retail will be $39.99.
That's more like it.
Love the new avatar, by the way. Chuck Close is the greatest portrait artist of our time (and I studied art at the same community college he went to, under one of his old friends from college. Therefore, I'm, like, two degrees away from being Chuck Close).
yeah, does it not have the stories can be viewed separately like rodriguez mentioned it would? either way, this is not the last edition of this movie. MARK MY WORDS. i will buy this one though, atleast he was speedier than the Kill Bill: SE's.
I enjoyed this movie greatly
I love how you can pretty much pause this film at any point and get a beautiful photograph out of it. This shot, for example, is my current desktop wallpaper:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg81.imageshack.us%2Fimg81%2F3082%2Fcapture952xa.jpg&hash=9f80dd71c337cbbf85bdef26c36ed5441f68f73b)
Quote from: modageyeah, does it not have the stories can be viewed separately like rodriguez mentioned it would?
It does now
DISC ONE
• Original Feature Film Presentation
• Feature Commentary with Robert Rodriguez & Frank Miller
• Feature Commentary with Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino
• Feature Commentary of Austin Premiere Audience Reaction
• Behind-the-Scenes Featurettes
--A Hard Top With A Decent Engine: The Cars of Sin City
--Making the Monsters: Special Effects & Make-Up
--Trench Coats and Fishnets: The Costumes of Sin City
--Booze, Broads & Guns: The Props of Sin City
--How It Went Down: Convincing Frank Miller to Make The Film
--Giving The Characters Life: Casting the Film
--Special Guest Director, Quentin Tarantino
• Sin-Chroni-City Interactive: As the viewer watches Sin City, it becomes apparent that the characters and their stories are not isolated, but intertwined. It is also revealed that the timelines for these stories are not in synch - and yet not entirely independent. This interactive feature allows the user to get a timeline view of the happenings of Sin City. The user can see the overview schematic of the scenes in chronological order and then zoom in for more detail on any of the events.
• Teaser and Theatrical Trailers
DISC TWO
• Sin City Recut Extended Unrated Feature Film Presentation (with 23 added minutes) Full-length expanded cuts of each individual episode ("Customer Is Always Right," "The Hard Goodbye," "Big Fat Kill"and "That Yellow Bastard") split out into short films - each with their own title cards and in their own complete form; viewers can watch separately and in any order desired.
• 15 Minute Flick School - Showing how everything was done, including the development of the look of the movie before there was financing, plus early screen tests, rehearsal tapes, final effects. Narrated and cut by Robert Rodriguez.
• All Green Version - A high speed look at the entire movie with only its green screen elements.
• The Long Take - A full uninterrupted 17 minute take during the filming of Quentin's segment. Audience gets to see what it's like to sit in the middle of a whirlwind of creativity while the camera is rolling. They never call cut, so everyone is concentrating, working, experimenting and being creative for 17 minutes straight. Very interesting to watch, and hear everyone brainstorming and improvising. Clive, Nicotero, Rodriguez, Tarantino, and Del Toro, Stevie J, all doing their thing at one point or another.
• Sin City: Live in Concert - Sin City filmmakers, cast and crew head over to Antone's restaurant one night after shooting "That Yellow Bastard" so Bruce Willis' and Robert's band Chingon could play a benefit show. Shows the full version of Bruce and his band playing the song "Devil Woman" and Rodriguez and his band playing the "Theme from Sin City."
• 10 Minute Cooking School: Sin City Breakfast Tacos - Rodriguez's meal of choice during the long night hours of making Sin City. Shows how to make Rodriguez's grandma's secret homemade flour tortilla recipe as well.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx%2Fcovers3%2Fsincityrecutexturdvd.jpg&hash=81a9dbe5ca568d5ca3c9fa77835941e83db69dbb)
with footage too sexy for theatres!
Sin City: The TV Series
It's not a dream. It's real and coming to a television set near you!
Frank Miller's Sin City graphic novels were turned into a critically and commercially successful feature film earlier this year. Director Robert Rodriguez has already confirmed that a sequel is in the works for 2006 and will be based primarily on Miller's A Dame to Kill For. Variety is reporting that the Sin City franchise will continue on the small screen following the release of Sin City 2.
"Also in the works [is] a [series] based on Dimension Films' 'Sin City' -- which would follow in the footsteps of 2006's second pic in Robert Rodriguez's 'Sin' series," Variety stated.
Details on the series will likely remain nebulous for some time, but a 2007 release seems a likely target. Whether the series will be live-action or animated is also unclear, though it would be difficult for a weekly live-action TV series to follow the visual template laid out by Rodriguez's film.
It's also unknown if the series will translate the remaining Sin City graphic novels or be based strictly on all new tales. Considering there are only a handful of Miller's Sin graphic novels remaining, it's a near-certainty that the bulk of episodes will need to be original stories.
The level of involvement from Rodriguez and Miller is also unknown. More details should become available when Miller and Rodriguez begin promoting the Sin City silver screen sequel next year.
unless this is for HBO, it will suck. it will probably suck anyways and miller is going to be like 'whatthefuck?' cause he got to have all this control with the movie and he is going to have to relinquish that to some crappy studio for a tv show. fingers crossed for hbo and good talent involved.
an animated series would be cool
It might make a good comic book.
it might make a good nickname for a city filled with casinos and whores
The Uncut DVD is really nice. Unrated implied to me that it was racier, but I think they just didn't bother to have it rated so they could call it that.
The features are great, it's worth the purchase alone just so you can get The Hard Goodbye with it. My big gripe about it: the box it comes in. That thing is going to fall apart, I'm sure of it. There had to have been a better way... and the way they overlap one DVD over the other shows it's almost inevitable to get fucked up.
I'll just be super careful, I guess.
I love the extra scene in the Yellow Bastard SPOILER When Hartigan is in the hospital and his fellow officers and wife come beg him to say it isn't true. This was huge in the book to me... In the original movie cut we know he has to admit it, but in the comic, it shows his loved ones approaching him about it... I have no idea why this was ever cut anyway.
Yeah, great dvd, ass box-- they should have taken a note from Criterion (Short Cuts). I was shocked by the extra 'kills' at the end of 'Big Fat Kill.' How could you not put that in the movie???
First chance I get, I'm making that breakfast taco recipe.
Quote from: modage on March 17, 2005, 12:11:36 AM
It's the kind of movie Harry Knowles will rave about loving in a week or two but not end up anywhere on his Best of the Year list.
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22103
Quote from: modage on January 01, 2006, 11:45:38 AM
Quote from: modage on March 17, 2005, 12:11:36 AM
It's the kind of movie Harry Knowles will rave about loving in a week or two but not end up anywhere on his Best of the Year list.
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22103
I almost fell off the toilet laughing at that.
and the rave, for anyone who missed it. http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=19700
you can call me Nostradamus.
Quote from: kurtzsparrow on January 01, 2006, 01:43:06 PMI almost fell off the toilet laughing at that.
You read xixax on the crapper?
Quote from: MacGuffin on January 01, 2006, 09:05:48 PM
Quote from: kurtzsparrow on January 01, 2006, 01:43:06 PMI almost fell off the toilet laughing at that.
You read xixax on the crapper?
:oops:
Yes... yes, I do.
I'm doing it again right now.
xixax.com - suitable bathroom reading material
Banner that.
Xixax - It also doubles as TP
just went through some of the extras on the disc.
Steve Buscemi turned down playing that Yellow Bastard. he would've been awesome.
Quote from: modage on January 07, 2006, 09:27:01 PM
just went through some of the extras on the disc.
Steve Buscemi turned down playing that Yellow Bastard. he would've been awesome.
but little nicky was fab :kiss: