I didn't like Sin City at all, which surprised me. I just totally didn't get that movie, and didn't even watch the last half hour, something very uncommon for me with movies.
I've also watched The Phantom Menace. I will happily admit I was wrong there, Natalie did not save that movie one bit. I had managed to completely block out the mind numbing stupidity of having Anakin destroy the droid control ship, thus winning the war, BY ACCIDENT. So horrible.
I think tonight is Match Point night. Opinions on this?
Edit: For extra fun, try to guess which movie these quotes are from:
"QUI-GON TOLD ME TO STAY IN THIS COCKPIT, SO THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA DO"
"WHAT DOES THIS BUTTON DO"
"I'LL TRY SPINNING, THAT'S A GOOD TRICK"
"THIS IS TENSE"
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Fabian wrote:
I didn't like Sin City at all, which surprised me. I just totally didn't get that movie, and didn't even watch the last half hour, something very uncommon for me with movies.
I told you that you wouldn't like it. It's a pretty terrible movie. They basically took a lot of shaky and poorly supported storylines, threw them together, and then coated it all with violence and visual effects. If you look past the gore and the 'HAY GUYZ TARANTINO WORKED ON THIS' crap, you'll realise that the whole movie was meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator of most people.
I told you that you wouldn't like it. It's a pretty terrible movie. They basically took a lot of shaky and poorly supported storylines, threw them together, and then coated it all with violence and visual effects.
You either are not talking about the movie Sin City or you are rather ignorant.
I assume you know that Sin City is a comic book series by the acclaimed artist named Frank Miller. The comics are really dark in content and use a rather unique drawing style (well, unique for a best-selling comic) and many consider them classics.
The movie is a pretty accurate recreation of the comic series. In fact, they used the comics directly as storyboards (instead of drawing their own, as is usual in movies). They tried to closely match the comics in both contents and visuals (although the visuals are really difficult to match due to the unique style used in the comics).
Your post shows just pure ignorance. They did not "take a lot of shaky and poorly supported storylines and threw them together", they did not "coat them with violence and visual effects". They just replicated more or less faithfully Miller's comics.
You might not like the comics themselves, and if you want to blame the comics for having "shaky storylines" then you are entitled to your opinion, but blaming the movie for it shows just ignorance.
Get your facts straight first, blame the movie then.
What, you expect everyone to ramble off a complete history of everything just to explain why they like or dislike it? Just because the movie was based on something else doesn't mean someone can't hate it for what it is.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Warp: I know Sin City is based off of a graphic novel. For anyone that isn't a fan of them, though, the movie was very poorly made. I never said that Sin City was a terrible series, I said that it failed as a movie.
The plot of the movie, although based on the plot of the comics, is so ill-informing and so poorly integrated with the other stories that, for the most part, it seems like the directors just took their favorite plots from the middle of the series and converted them straight to video.
So no, because I think that the video equivalent of a mediocre graphic novel was poorly made does not show ignorance. Thanks for assuming, though.
Edit: For extra fun, try to guess which movie these quotes are from:
Your Mario Fabian-Barrio-Dumptruck? I'm sure it's pretty tense, you spin a lot (that's a good trick), there's lots of buttons on your keyboard, and Qui-gon is still a jedi, right?
What, you expect everyone to ramble off a complete history of everything just to explain why they like or dislike it? Just because the movie was based on something else doesn't mean someone can't hate it for what it is.
This might be the first time in the history of the world that I've agreed with something Bag has written. Yay.
Warp: I know Sin City is based off of a graphic novel. For anyone that isn't a fan of them, though, the movie was very poorly made. I never said that Sin City was a terrible series, I said that it failed as a movie.
You talk as if there was something in the comics that help explain the whole plot and which was not included in the movie. Care to specify exactly what is it?
I have read the comics and while some scenes were certainly shortened (for the sake of keeping the movie under 2 hours) I didn't see anything important missing.
Sure, when reading the comics you can do it at your own pace, and sometimes there are lengthier textboxes, but I didn't see any relevant difference between the movie and the comics.
You talk as if they had made the movie different from the comics, took only a small part of the story in the comics and stitched them together without too much thought, added something of their own (you specifically mentioned "violence and visual effects") thus creating something different. However, as far as I could tell the movie was a quite faithful replication of the comics. Nothing was added (especially not "violence and visual effects" not appearing in the original comic), a few things were shortened, but everything relevant was there.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Damnit. I just wrote this really long winded response about how the translation from comic to movie was something something.
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS ALL OPINION.
Basically, I think Sin City was a mediocre comic/graphic novel. By bringing it to the big screen, it brought with it a slightly intrusive artistic style and a sort of flamboyant gore to it all. I remember when I first saw it, and everyone who was with me asked 'what was the point of all that blood and gore?', to which I responded "It's like that in the books, so I guess it had to be like that in the movies to apease the fanboys." Like I said, some things don't translate well from picture/text to movies, especially when it's meant for the general public.
The movie is composed of three plot lines that are tangential at best (the cop and the mayor's son, that big guy and the hooker, and the cops vs the hooker town, or something along these lines). You'll notice that most movies that have three plotlines either have them interweave a lot or have them end at the same place. This movie had a lot of disjointed, anticlimactic endings to the scenarios.
The problem with Sin City is that is lacked.... well, it lacked a lot. When I ask any of my few friends who did like it why they like it, they simple say something like "what's not to like? you have swords and boobs and violence." Obviously, my friends that liked Sin City aren't the smartest or classiest chaps in the world. Not to say that all Sin City fans are like my friend, but you get the idea.
So, instead of attacking me for not liking Sin City, why don't you tell me why I should like it?
Guys, even though I thought this Sin City debate was a bit stupid at first, I've changed my mind. I think discussions about the movies is a good thing, and especially this one, since it's made me understand there wasn't anything I just didn't get regarding this movie (this was my initial reaction), it just wasn't for me.
So, instead of attacking me for not liking Sin City, why don't you tell me why I should like it?
I didn't object to you not liking the movie/comic. I objected to your comment that sounded like the movie was either not based on anything or had radically changed the original story, making it a lot worse. You blamed the movie for a weak storyline and excess of violence even though the movie is not really the one to blame.
I disagree. Screenwriters and directors are in no way bound in any significant capacity by their source material. Look at Pirates of the Caribbean. As far as I know that was based on a ride at Disney World, but the movie was quite a rollicking tale. The fact that Sin City so closely followed the content (and limitations) of its source medium speaks only of the screenwriter's and the director's limited imagination and lack of ability. Sin City was a terrible movie, and the creators of said movie are surely the ones to blame.
The fact that Sin City so closely followed the content (and limitations) of its source medium speaks only of the screenwriter's and the director's limited imagination and lack of ability.
Or maybe it speaks for the creators' desire to preserve the feeling of the original work and make the movie familiar to people who were already familiar with the comic?
Personally I think the part with Mickey Rourke was very good, I didn't really care for the rest.
The fact that Sin City so closely followed the content (and limitations) of its source medium speaks only of the screenwriter's and the director's limited imagination and lack of ability. Sin City was a terrible movie, and the creators of said movie are surely the ones to blame.
You are contradicting yourself. You are saying that the movie was bad because it followed so closely the original comic books, because the makers of the movie didn't have enough "imagination" to create something new, something better. But wouldn't that mean that the original comic books were bad, then?
Look at Pirates of the Caribbean. As far as I know that was based on a ride at Disney World, but the movie was quite a rollicking tale.
And now I hear they're changing the ride to be more like the movies. Huh? Is this some kind of Pokemon Yellow thing? I also heard that the original ride was based on a book. So, yeah, the string of "based on"s just keeps on going.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
You are contradicting yourself. You are saying that the movie was bad because it followed so closely the original comic books, because the makers of the movie didn't have enough "imagination" to create something new, something better. But wouldn't that mean that the original comic books were bad, then?
Perhaps the original comic book wasn't suited for a movie in its original form and needed a massive rewrite?
For a more in your face example, how many video games do you know made good movies?
Personally, I liked Sin City. But then again, I have no taste.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
I don't see how I'm contradicting myself, Warp. I disagree with your assertion that the movie is not to blame for itself sucking. The reason I disagree is because the quality of the source material is irrelevant. Media differ, and it is the job of the screenwriter and the director (among others) to make an entertaining movie. In my opinion, they failed miserably, and it's not the fault of whoever wrote the comic books. It's entirely the fault of the people that created the movie.
