Sin City

[Jeremy Blackman]

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.

[modage]

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.

[Ghostboy]

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

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.

[Ghostboy]

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.

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.

[Jeremy Blackman]

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.

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.

[B.C. Long]

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.

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.

[Myxo]

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..

[Chrisdarko]

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.

[matt35mm]

Wow.  It's kind of strange that no one has spoken in this thread for over a month.

[MacGuffin]

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.

[Redlum]

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.

[MacGuffin]

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.

[modage]

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!    how did he get a co-forum here anyway?