Talk:Sin City (film)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Sin City (film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Question about HMV's recent R2 Recut and Extended Steelbook release
How many mins is the Extended version supposed to be? I added the minutes of the 4 stories together on Disc 2 and it came to 2hr 15 mins. Theatrical release on Disc 1 is 119 mins. Is this correct? As copies of the original release were sent back as they weren't the full extended release and most of the Special Features were not on the discs. So is the R2 release missing 12 mins? This is the release I'm talking about http://www.hmv.co.uk/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;-1;-1;-1&sku=722523 Skylined79 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylined79 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Question about R1 Recut & Extended
Anyone tell me how you access the Extended 2hr 27 min version? Is it an Easter Egg or something? I am talking about the 2 disc version with the graphic novel. Thanks to anyone that can help me out.
The recut version has sepearated all the story lines into a non-intergrated group of films with extensions within each episode. You need to watch each separately. This was later edited and intersperced into the theatrical version. LIJPatrol edwpat
Failed GA
There is a lot of content here, but this article is really nowhere close to good article status. May I suggest that you place this article up for peer review?
Here are the reasons why I voted no. (Numbers listed after each of the points represent the GA criteria).
1) The Lead section sprawls and contains information that is not talked about in the rest of the article. Condense it and make sure when you write it again, that it is only based on the content of the article. (1)
2) The plot is long and difficult to read. Never seen the film myself, but it looks like it's organized into acts. Maybe you could add some dividers into the plot to make it more readable? (1)
3) There are no inline citations, only imbedded links. Even then, there are many points in the article that lack any citation what so ever. (2)
4) The DVD section is too much, as it looks like someone just copied the back of the box. Summarize and comment only on the major points. (1)
5) The trivia section should be shrunk. Relocate each of the points to other parts of the article that you think they belong in. If you can't find a home for that point, then you want to consider deleting it. (1)
6) Reaction section seems awfully small for such a highly praised film. Maybe you should get into more detail as to why people like this film for. (3)
By themselves, none of these points are that serious, but added together you have a different story. Believe it or not, these changes are easy to make. Most of the content is here, but it's just not organized properly. I hope this helps.--P-Chan 08:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- How is the plot listing too long? It's nothing compared to that ridiculous one we have for The Shining, and it's hardly difficult to read. --Nqnpipnr
- Yes The Shining is not very good either. You should always always compare to the Feature Articles as opposed to the regular articles. Feature articles will have gone through the entire community in terms of evaluation and are meant to be the best of Wikipedia. Does this help to clarify things?--P-Chan 22:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The plot is now considerably shorter and much easier to read. And the DVD section could be deleted. --Nqnpipnr
Soundtrack
The soundtrack is now its own individual page. --Nqnpipnr
Information Overload
I removed some information, only to have it returned so I come to this page to explain the removal of 1) the long list of actors appearing in the film and 2) the list of taglines for the film.
First, the list of actors is too extensive and exceeds that of other filmic pages. It isn't necessary or particularly informative to include every single actor involved in the production. I included the main characters as listed on the Sin City website.
Secondly, the listing of taglines for specific characters is completely obtuse and a significant waste of page. If someone can find the "Sin City" poster that lists the main tagline regarding the back alleys of Sin City, that would seem to be a good place to put it. --TheGrza 18:12, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
- It does not exceed that of other film articles, and it is perfectly acceptable considering it's an all-star cast. Xezbeth 14:22, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. User:TheGrza seems to be deleting valid content from the article. --Viriditas | Talk 00:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you can look to other articles on film, especially where it's an all-star cast, something like Ocean's 11, where the cast is explained in someway as the story or characters are explained, instead of simply listing off most of the cast. I think we should include the entire cast and crew, the craft-service people, the whole she-bang, whatever, but it doesn't make sense for the articles and it is a gigantic waste of space. If you know the backstories of these characters, or know the story itself and where these characters fit it, I would think that would be perfectly acceptable for this article. The list, however, is not. --TheGrza 21:51, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Waste of space? The article as it stands is tiny, removing any information that people are interested in is ridiculous. Xezbeth 21:52, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Knock it off. If you are going to include all the characters, use a paragraph and explain them. Is this some sort of Elijah Woods fetish or something?--TheGrza 21:56, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- No, this is making the article consistent with other film articles. Now stop trolling. Xezbeth 22:00, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
As I suggest to you earlier, your version of the article is NOT consistent with other articles, because it lists an obscene amount of characters. It also provides no information about those characters other then their names. If you find it so difficult to write out the information regarding the characters and the film whose page you are editing, please refrain from doing so solely to satify your ego and create an edit war. I do not have access to the information regarding these characters and the storyline of the picture, so I cannot include the information myself. Perhaps someone who is informed about these characters, instead of you and I, should write a section explaining them and then all will be well. As for you, please stop with this nonsense and quit reverting articles that don't need it. When the discussion is completed on this page or another page, then the edits should be made. --TheGrza 22:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- It is a cast list. People ideally use cast lists to see what notable actors are in a film, and who plays who. What exactly is the point of removing half of them for no reason other than you thinking that it's "excessive". I'm not going to break the 3RR, but I'm sure someone else will re-add it in time. Xezbeth 22:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
If I wanted to, I could write a cast list in paragraph form that explains every single character and their role in the story, as I have read the comics, but I have no intention of doing so for now, as there are more then enough spoilers in the normal promotional material for the movie (certain character's professions, and Stahl being listed as Junior/Yellow Bastard). As the movie is coming out in a short time, there is no reason why we shouldn't have a larger cast list for now, which can be trimmed down after the movie is released if necessary. Also, where on earth did you hear that The Big Fat Kill is not part of this movie? Aziraphale Jasra 00:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Viriditas for entering a conversation two weeks late because of a disagreement we're having now.--TheGrza 03:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
HiDef
It says Sin City was shot using HiDef cameras, but does anyone know which camera type was used? Sony 24p, Panasonic, what? I would really like to know. As well, should we consider ading a section for the camera? I hear George Lucas uses the Sony 24p, it might make a good addition to The Wikipedia.
Anyone have any experience with this camera? My HD experience rests entirely on HDV, which I would imagine is nowhere near the same...
- Sin City was shot mainly with the Sony HDC-950. --Fallout boy 02:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
SimCity Disambig
CoolCaesar added a disambiguation notice to explain that Sin City and SimCity were two different things, as per a discussion on the SimCity page. I thought that because this is a different page, the discussion for this notice should be here. I for one find it completely asinine and without merit. There is a distinct difference between this and the example cited by CoolCaesar on the steganography and stenography because those are somewhat obtuse technical terms which are actually related, while these are two distinct pieces of art, confused only by the blind, deaf and manical. --TheGrza 20:53, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Both asinine and meritless. Interesting word choices. m-w.com:
- asinine: marked by inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment
- Oddly enough, it was based on confusing two very close letters: "m" and "n". For someone not into movies or computer games (yes, there are people like that that also are NOT blind, deaf, and manical), it's probable.
- Redirects are used for misspellings (WP:R) and since both articles exist, a notice at the top is the next best action. Strangely enough, I find your rationale asinine as well as that you were not *BOTHERED* to mention this at Talk:SimCity. Cburnett 22:42, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Toward your comment: I used asinine to mean that this disambiguation notice has the characterics of an ass. I understand the confusion, but I don't find it relevant. These are completely unrelated topics and obviously so. If I was to be looking for the film and happened to misspell the article name, I would find out immediately that I was in the wrong place. Disambiguation is so that there isn't confusion, i.e. if I wanted Sin City the movie and got Sin City the comic book. Finally, I was not *BOTHERED* to mention this on the SimCity page because those who are familier with that page and with their own use of it had a discussion, and found that they were confused. That page may very well need the disambig, even though I find it unreasonable on that page. --TheGrza 23:05, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- "characteristics of an ass" means "asinine"? Wow. If there's anyone confused here, it's you. Regardless, it's 3-to-1 to keep the notice. Cburnett 23:19, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Where's the three? Only CBurnett has voted against the removal. As toward asinine...
Asinine, as·i·nine adj.
1. Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior. 2. Of, relating to, or resembling an ass.
--TheGrza 23:28, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- 3 people: Coolcaeser, Will2k, and myself. Cburnett 23:36, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, actually, while we're slinging around epithets, I should point out that user TheGrza made a technical error by claiming that stenography and steganography are related. They are not, except in the very general sense that they are both methods of communication. Stenography is the art of writing fast, steganography is the art of concealing a message by giving the appearance of no message (that is, hiding in plain sight). Both SimCity and Sin City are similar only in the weak sense that they are both popular entertainment franchises. But the point is that they are both forms of entertainment and as Cburnett pointed out, they could be easily confused by people not familiar with movies, comic books, or computer games.
- In fact, the majority of people in the world are not familiar with the majority of computer games, movies (there are way too many "blockbusters" each year for most people to watch every single one), or comic books, as they are too busy trying to make a living, make babies, and deal with all the other important tasks in life.
- I have seen intelligent people confuse franchises that are much harder to mix up, such as mixing up SimCity with Dungeons and Dragons, or Civilization with Monopoly. My position is that people searching outside of their area of specialization are bound to make silly errors, and Wikipedia should be flexible enough to help them find where they are going. --Coolcaesar 23:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was slinging no epithets, I was arguing about the disambig notice, nothing else. Thanks to everyone else for getting personal, though, good form. Toward the "flexibility" of Wikipedia to accomodate everyone, perhaps we shouldn't be designing this for those without the barest precepts of knowledge of the article, because they are probably the least likely to search it out or find any interest in it. --TheGrza 03:56, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
DGA controversy
According to every interview I've heard from Rodriguez or Miller (including the NPR clip linked in the article), the controversy had nothing to do with Miller's experience or membership in the guild and everything to do with the issue of what consistuted a "team" of directors. Unless someone can cite some kind of evidence, I think we should not speculate further about the DGA's motives. --feitclub 07:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
First of its kind?
It says in the article that the audience reaction track on the DVD is the first of its kind. i remember the same thing being done on the Freddy Got Fingered DVD tho, should that be edited out?
(to be fair that acted more as a laughter track than "shocks and gasps" track, but i had top point it out)
Rodriguez/Rodríguez
Okay, so I didn't know his name was spelled Rodriguez in the credits and on IMDb. I figured since it's spelled Rodríguez in the article about the director, that's the correct spelling. If Rodriguez is correct, that article should be renamed, as should the category of films directed by him. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 08:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It's Rodriguez, without the accent. --Nqnpipnr 19 May 2006 (UTC)
DVD bloopers?
I keep seeing reference to 2-disc version including bloopers but they're nowhere to be found on the one I bought a few days ago. Is this perhaps an easter egg? 23skidoo 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
My 2-disc version doesn't seem to have bloopers either. Very sad. -jhhays
- There are a couple of outtakes visible in the "15 minute Film School" and "Long Take" segments but I was under the impression the bloopers would be a separate feature. I wouldn't put it past Rodriguez to hide them in an easter egg, but thus far I haven't been able to find it. 23skidoo 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Crazy 88s
- The swords used by Devon Aoki in this film are the same ones used by Uma Thurman in Kill Bill.
Imdb.com says the swords are the ones the crazy 88s used. Some one double check this. (--original comment by 71.145.215.87 made in the Trivia section of the article and moved to talk)
Yes, this is confirmed in the special features of the extended DVD. -jhhays
"DLP projector"
- The movie was color corrected digitally with the use of a DLP Cinema projector ...
Err... What? Color correction with a DLP projector? Someone please elaborate on this. --Mx2000 23:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Gif of Alba dancing
Please stop removing this without discussion. It directly shows what is explained in the differences from comics paragraph which describes how Alba's dance differs from the comic. Staxringold 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You've got to be shitting me. It's about three frames. It shows nothing! It's more annoying than useful. I haven't read the comics, so I can't figure out how it demonstrates the differences, so if I'm missing something than there's clearly a problem with its intent. --Bacteria 00:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
IMO a better option would be to take a single still frame from the dance scene and put it side-by-side with an image from the graphic novel. Since the graphic novel is a still medium, we can't compare the dance styles or anything -- just the mode of dress (or lack thereof) and Nancy's appearance in the two mediums. I support the removal of the Gif as unnecessary (it perhaps could find a home on the Jessica Alba page, but a side-by-side comparison might be OK. 23skidoo 01:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, Bacteria, I was just trying to help, please maintain WP:CIVIL. Beyond that, the side-by-side makes more sense but I don't have the graphic novel to take a still from. If someone has it, there are plenty of stills of Alba's dance out there. Staxringold 01:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That gif is nothing more than cheesecake. Since there's no example of the comic book, it serves little purpose than ogling. 209.64.200.73 01:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Citation needed
The introduction to this page states: It is speculated Rodriguez also used the short film to convince the actors he wanted to appear in the film, and reportedly most were quite impressed. The short film was eventually used as the opening of the finished film.
This is followed by citation needed. I'm not sure how to properly cite it, but the information above can be confirmed in the Behind the Scenes special features segment on the Sin City DVD. Vocaro 03:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Find the exact name of the relevant documentary and then add the following:
<ref>''Name of Special Feature''. ''Sin City'' DVD.</ref>
The Singing Badger 14:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware a page even existed for any of the documentaries... Nqnpipnr 23:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
change hookers to prostitutes
I don't believe the word hooker is befitting an encyclopedic article. Does anyone have a problem with this? Dummies102 23:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you, although the film does refer to them as "hookers", we are not quoting the script and therefore should use the more appropriate term. Martin Hinks 11:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Max Payne
I wonder if the part that it is "interesting" that some style aspects are the same as the video game "Max Payne" should be removed - this seems to simply be due to both borrowing from the noir style; we could name nearly any Sam Spade or Mike Hammer story and have the same meaning. I think unless someone has some specific moment shared between the two, it is meaningless.
Agreed, hardboiled narration is a staple of noir, not something that Max Payne invented!
Renominated
I've renominated the article, now that there are citations in the necessary areas. Are there any other suggestions? Nqnpipnr 12:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Trivia
Yes, examine the "trivia". Delete what's really trivia. Move or at the very least retitle what isn't really trivia. -- Hoary 14:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just removed some really unnecessary things, such as the following: The titles were spoken, Shelton and Hartnett's scene was the first filmed (That's repetition), and that the taglines were quotes from the comics. Those really were pointless. Nqnpipnr 02:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
And there's the trivial elsewhere.
While certain kinds and degrees of difference between a movie and its source can be remarkable, the mere fact that this or that set of differences exists is entirely normal and unremarkable. Look at the listed differences from the comic book. The first difference, for example, looks egregiously trivial to me. (Indeed, the fact that they're listed rather than worked into coherent paragraphs brings a strong whiff of trivia.) -- Hoary 04:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Read below. Nqnpipnr 14:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Deletion for "Differences from Comics" Section
Does anyone else think we should axe that section entirely? As a user above stated, it's irrelevant information. Nqnpipnr 14:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Who, me? Not quite irrelevant; rather, relevant but mostly trivial. I'd have thought the important bits could be edited down to a single, substantive and coherent paragraph. Or sentence. -- Hoary 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Ho-hum article, awful movie (?)
What is this article, really? You have material about the deals involved in making the movie. You have a long synopsis. And then you have lists. To me, this doesn't look at all like a good article on a movie. It's more like a trivia-buff's companion to a movie.
That's really a pity, because there's interesting material here. Consider: Only three sets were built for the movie: the interior of Kadie's Bar, Shellie's apartment and the hospital in the epilogue. There's something here about economy (of means as well as cash) that looks as if it's worth saying.
I haven't read the source. I haven't watched the movie. I don't want to watch the movie, because I get the impression that it's a mere special-effects / "style" jamboree; in particular, the big-hair extravaganza "Jessica Alba as Nancy Callahan in a promotional poster for Sin City" suggests to me that this is a movie for thirteen-year-olds; whereas I like to think that I'm an adult. Ebert seems to suggest that I'm right: This isn't an adaptation of a comic book, it's like a comic book brought to life and pumped with steroids. It contains characters who occupy stories, but to describe the characters and summarize the stories would be like replacing the weather with a weather map. / The movie is not about narrative but about style.
Sounds terrible! But does this initial description of Ebert's miss something? -- Hoary 01:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, you failed to notice the last sentence of Ebert's review, which praises the film as brilliant. But I'm not here because I love Sin City; I'm here because I'm trying to improve the article.
You complained that we have material about the "deals," a long synopsis, and lists. What is so bad about that? The synopsis is the outline of the movie, as we have done with almost every movie article on this website. The synopsis details three stories, by the way, so a longer length than usual is expected. I'll rename it if it's throwing people off. The lists are relevant because, like above, we have those on every page. Exactly what do you suggest we do? I'm considering looking at this article and then Blade Runner (A featured article) and then seeing what the differences are. But to say the article is sub-par is a little ridiculous. Nqnpipnr 16:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I did read the whole of Ebert's review. This praises the movie and points out that it's worthwhile for reasons that I think this WP article hardly goes into. Further, while I have various books on my shelf that are akin to (opinionated) encyclopedias of film, none of them has articles in which lists play a large part. Indeed, they don't play a major part in the WP article on Blade Runner -- which, aside from tabloidy stuff about some "curse", seems pretty good. I'd look into intelligently written reviews (such as Ebert's) of this movie, and get more ideas from there. -- Hoary 03:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The lists aren't all the article is, though. I'd say they take up between 10 and 25% of it. And even then, if it's an issue, I'm sure we can work around it. Look, you have a decent point. For example, the "differences" section could probably be removed, for reasons stated above, and then moved into the "Release" section in its reshaped form. Would things like that improve it? I think they would, and I'll get on to that tomorrow, if it sounds okay with everyone else. Nqnpipnr 04:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I vote for re-nomination. It's not a perfect article, and could still use some organizing, but overall, it's pretty good. Re: the special effects and whether it's marketed to 13 year olds, I'm not sure there's too many movies that don't fit that description (unfortunately). But overall, SC is a movie that's clearly aimed at adult audiences, at least those who like Film noir and maybe liked comics at an earlier age. One thing that it seems might improve the article would be greater attention to the themes that unite the various stories. In the process, that might make the article read a bit tighter, and could incorporate a lot of the interpretive aspects of the film (in part because we're never really told, precisely, what that theme is). As for whether one can really judge the merits of this article without bothering to rent the DVD first, I leave that for others to decide. I say good job to all who wrote the article. C d h 23:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
what, no bad criticism?
Im amazed here. In order to make this a good article, there must be bad criticism towards the movie, not only the good criticism. As it is, the article is far from being considered "good", is too RAH RAH RAH.
GA Failed
Its not cited, and also please add {{GAnominee}} when listed for nom.
New Edits
I added some negative buzz to the Reaction bit, and the "Differences from Comics" has been cut. What I've done instead is take the bottom paragraph and added it to the overhead section, mainly because that paragraph sums the whole thing up; the individual changes are too minor be to listed on their own.Nqnpipnr 14:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Infobox
Please stop expanding on the Infobox. We have all the necessary stats, and now someone keeps adding in trivial things, such as an All Movie Guide link, a Sensemaya link, more Writing credits, and so on. This is not what we have on pages for other movies; it's fine the way it is right now. Nqnpipnr 13:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
How is more information is a bad thing? Tiger Trek 20:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It isn't. However, you've added in too much. The Infobox has never listed the incidental music or the production company. Look at other Infoboxes to see what is needed; what you've added is too much. Please compare to other examples before doing something like that; the other information can be found at IMDb, which--ta-da-- is listed. And the All Movie Guide link isn't regularly used, either. Nqnpipnr 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Its part of the infobox and i see no reason why i cant use it. Tiger Trek 21:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't do it because it goes against what we've done on EVERY OTHER Infobox. To add in all that information would be absurd. Nqnpipnr 23:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't the trailer song "Cells" isn't mentioned in the article?--67.183.90.36 05:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's very relevant. Incidental music like that really isn't as big a priority as the score, and I haven't seen any other pages list a song featured in the trailer (A good example would be the use of the Batman Begins score in the V for Vendetta trailer). It could be useful here, since it was used in practically every advertisement for the film, but I'm not sure. Nqnpipnr 02:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"Making of the Movie" as a Reference?
I was wondering about citing the "Making of the Movie" book as a reference for the article. I've started reading it and the information is very interesting and could really improve the article. Is it against the rules to use it as a cite? Nqnpipnr 02:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Chapter designations
The discussion archives for this article seem to be unavailable (or maybe there isn't any...) so I can't find out anything on this topic: I'm wondering why the 1st part of "Yellow Bastard" is being categorized with "Customer"? They're separate stories, just happens that Bastard is split into 2 parts at the beginning & end. On the "Uncut" DVD edition the stories are in 4 separate chapters that play all the way thru. I'm proposing that we fix this. Tommyt 15:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Region 2 Special Edition
From the article:
- The Region 2 & Region 4 Special Edition DVD has been released since 16 November 2006.
Er, I can't find anything more than the standard single-disc Region 2 edition on Amazon, Play and DVD.co.uk, so it certainly wasn't released here that recently. Or is the article suggesting that the SE was released on Region 4 (Australia), but was dual-encoded for Region 2? If so, that should be clarified. --Nick RTalk 14:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Kevin a werewolf?
The plot summary describes Kevin as a "homicidal, cannibalistic werewolf". This can't be right, can it? I don't remember that from either the film or the graphic novel.
- Not so - not a werewolf - Gay, yes (Elijah Wood's frst gay role) - and pursued by a pedophile, but no werewolf here. I'll correct. edwpat
- First gay role? Is Kevin gay? Jane
Doubtful. He was very religious, and being gay would most likely go against his beliefs. Also, neither the film nor the comic make any reference to his being gay, so that's out the window. 65.175.155.71 00:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is Elijah Wood's first gay film role (he has done gay skits on Saturday Night Live). The Rutger Hower role depicts a pedophile, with Kevin the object of his affection. The original Miller graphic novel is more poignet on Kevin's sexuality. Not the best ole model for gay screen portrayal, but gay nonetheless, of the most misogenous variety. edwpat
There is no reference in the graphic novel to Cardinal Roark being a pedophile, nor any reference to Kevin's sexuality. These things could be interpreted as such, but it is never explicity stated. Nqnpipnr 14:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
No? It's subtext, both in the graphic novel and the film. See pages 191-192 The Hard Goodbye. I'm not the only one who gets this subtext EJW did, and caught it perfectly, as did Hauer. I'm lookin' at the pages as I type - a priest listening to the confession of a young boy and who envies him his divine relationship. Besides the eating disorder, you can't get any less St. Sebastian than this. And as a Gay man, I object to the subtext that Kevin is Gay. Why must we always be Silence of the Lamb flacks. Still, it comes across - and Elwood plays it that way. Of course, the werewolf thing is qustionable. No where does he change into a werewolf. Of course, his next silent (muted) role in Paris Je T'aime he does quite nicely as a vampire (and that one has heavy heterosexual subtext, especially the full blown blood heart that blossoms around his cracked skull) edwpat
- I agree that there is subtext in the graphic novel as well as in the film that Roark is attracted to Kevin, but I think the "Elijah Wood plays [gay] perfectly" assertion is a bit over the top, to say the least. There isn't one scene of Roark and Kevin together, unless you count the part with Kevin's dismembered head, which Roark kisses. Nqnpipnr is correct; nothing about Kevin's sexuality is explicitly stated, so attempts to categorize Kevin as gay is merely an interpretation. I would also argue that Elijah Wood's sexuality on/off screen has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so perhaps that should remain on his article and not this one. But I've seen your song and dance before, edwpat, and I'm not about to begin a dialogue that will ultimately end up with me becoming victim to the "Lij Police" (ugh!). Just wanted to bring some reality to the table. 139.62.223.7 16:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your patronage. My song and dance has been seen on my Elijah Website by 800,000 visitors last year - so thanks for the endorsement. http://www.dancaster.com/ejw But for the record, as anyone who knows and reads me, Elijah's sexuality is his own business (and none of mine, unless he's doing me). The Gay subtext in Sin City is there. Elijah is yet to get a good gay film role. His gay skits on SNL were stereotypical, but I'm sure if the project warrants it and the vision is lofty enough, LIJ will undertake it. edwpat aka LIJPolice (some one has to look out for what he doesn't give a flying frack about). BTW, you can only be a victim if you run into Miss Chatty, who brings reality to the table like Jupiter bringer jollity.
I really thought this material should have remained and was ON TOPIC. That's the last time I'll follow someone else's lead. edwpat aka LIJPolice
Is Dwight a maniac?
Jackie Boy talks to him several times after being killed. First I thought that Jackie Boy might be some sort of revivable figure because many characters in the movie have some abnormal capabilities. Additionally Jackie Boy was called Iron Jack by papers. Sounds like someone can hardly be killed. But later I realize that Dwight might be the only person saw Jackie talking. Usually someone sees this kind of hallucination when he's crazy. So is Dwight? I only watched the movie. Anyone knows more can help? --Mato Rei 08:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
In the book it's specified that this is dwights imagination. he's not technically crazy, just having a high tension moment
- Yeah, Dwight is pretty crazy. He refers to a monster inside of him. He's been messed around a lot over the years. A Dame to Kill For explains a lot. Which should be in Sin City 2. Rekija (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
relevance?
"The passions generated among moviegoers, both for and against the movie, were illustrated by an incident in Australia. A male cinema patron in Bathurst bit the tip off another man's nose, following an argument about Sin City. The two men, who were not known to each other, began arguing after a screening on July 17, 2005. The man's nose was restored by surgery and police were said to be searching for his attacker."
does this really need to be included? I got attacked in a bar over an argument about shoes once, its not important enough to be included in the article on shoes. It doesn't illustrate peoples passion about shoes, it illustrates that drunk guys get in fights about stupid shit.
- I agree. While I can't check the source, is it really that notable? It felt very out of place when I was reading it. Rekija (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Removed as part of my critical reception overhaul.Koncorde (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Box office
The section on box office doesn't seem to fit NPOV.
the film ended its North American run with a gross of $74.1 million, far surpassing its $40 million production budget
Doesn't a film have to make back somewhere around twice its Negative cost to be profitable? If true, then Sin City actually lost money in domestic distribution. Anybody able to help? --Chancemichaels 21:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels
Sin City a Western?
The article earlier said that Sin City is a "western with some elements of neo-noir." It does not even remotely qualify as a western. It is neither set in the west (Basin City is near Seattle, which I have never thought of as a setting for a western, even if it is in the Northwest) nor does it take place very far in the past. There are no cowboys or horses or two-shot derringers or anything. However, it definitely seems like a noir film of some kind, with elements of a comic book film in the vein of Spider Man or X-Men.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.86.207 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Read Western (genre) to see how the elements of the western genre are borrowed by many non-western films. See the section "Influences on and of the Western". —Viriditas | Talk 03:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Trivia section removed
I have removed the Trivia section. Here are the trivia notes and my rationale behind their removal. Overall, none of them had citations and many of them are clearly wrong. -- Mike Blackney 04:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- The opening scene, in which Hartigan is shot by his parter, Bob, features Hartigan being shot by Bob's revolver a total of eight times. Most revolvers only carry six bullets.
- Many revolvers carry eight bullets. Type "eight bullet revolver" into Google and see for yourself.
- Four people lose their hands in the film: Junior, Lucille, Jackie Boy, and Kevin (who loses both hands as well as both legs).
- Interesting, but trivial.
- In Tarantino's scene, where Dwight took Jackie in the car after he is already dead, Jackie was not originally supposed to talk. They originally just had Clive Owen say the dialogue out loud to get timing and decide to just do the scene like that. That is also the same way that Tim Roth came to doing the same thing in Reservoir Dogs during the "commode story".
- In the graphic novel that this scene is based on, The Big Fat Kill, Jackie spoke exactly as he does in the film.
- Gail calls Dwight Lancelot during "The Big Fat Kill". Clive Owen starred in the 2004 film King Arthur, the King Arthur story being the origin of Lancelot.
- Clive Owen played Arthur, not Lancelot so this is incidental.
- The scene in which Hartigan is at the Roark farm plays a homage to Willis's other film Die Hard, where he uses the line "Thanks for the advice".
- The line "Good advice" was in the graphic novel That Yellow Bastard, so this is incidental.
- The movie is shot almost entirely in black-and-white, with splashes of color here and there, such as a red dress, blood or an entirely yellow evil character. In Becky's case, it was her eyes that kept their color, as director Robert Rodriguez claimed that he found Alexis Bledel's eyes to be "so amazing I had to keep them blue in the picture."
- This could well be incorporated into the body of the article, especially in a section discussing the film's coloring, but will want a citation. -- Mike Blackney 04:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
"Sin City" spoilers podcast
Is there a reason this is listed? It seems more like advertising than anything relavant. 68.253.177.100 (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:SinCityD.jpg
Image:SinCityD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
/Archive_1#c-BetacommandBot-2008-01-24T05:29:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:SinCityD.jpg){kind=link}
- Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Critical Reception
I'm sure there must be real 'critical' comments regarding the film, however some of the comments taken here are patently out of context and used for all the wrong reasons just to "slam" the movie.
- "Several critics were displeased, however, criticizing the film’s nihilism and graphic violence. William Arnold of the Seattle-Post Intelligencer slammed the film as "super-corrupt, super-violent, super-shadowy, and in every other way super-exaggerated."[1]
Arnold has about 15 other paragraphs of critique related to the film that have more relevance than this one, which is a description of the actual plot scenario as per:
- "The three segments transpire more or less in sequence (with some confusing overlapping) and all take place in Sin City: a super-corrupt, super-violent, super-shadowy, and in every other way super-exaggerated caricature of a '40s Hollywood film-noir world."
I'm slightly concerned at his self aggrandising posturing as the last bastion of morality:
- "I don't support these voices for a minute: I don't believe in censorship and I don't think movies motivate mass murder. But I do think that a film like this, especially one made by a major director under the flag of artistic integrity, adds something ugly to the air for which critics must hold it accountable.
- "Sitting through the thing, watching scene after scene in which I was being asked to be entertained by the spectacle of helpless people being tortured, I kept thinking of those clean-cut young American guards at Abu Ghraib. That is exactly the mentality Rodriguez is celebrating here. "Sin City" is their movie."
Well, a movie specifically for Abu Ghraib. Nice.
Then we get onto the Manohla Dargis "critical reception":
- "claimed that it is "hard to get pulled into the story on any level other than the visceral," writing the film off as Rodriguez's hermetic, "private experience" and a "bore.""
The problem here is that the first 'quote' refers to the cinematic structure.
- "At the same time, Mr. Miller and Mr. Rodriguez's commitment to absolute unreality and the absence of the human factor mean it's hard to get pulled into the story on any level other than the visceral. When stuff goes blam, you jump like someone who's landed on a whoopee cushion. But then you just sit there, wrap yourself in the dark and try not to fall asleep."
And the other lines refer to:
- "I bring up E.C. because "Sin City" has been made with such scrupulous care and obvious love for its genre influences that it's a shame the movie is kind of a bore."
and
- "He didn't just try to make his "Sin City" look like a graphic novel: he tried to replicate the private experience of reading one too, slowly turned page after slowly turned page. The problem is, this is his private experience, not ours."
So once again it's a critique of direction and the director. Then there's the A. O. Scott comment taken out of context;
- "Sin City offers sensation without feeling, death without grief, sin without guilt and, ultimately, novelty without surprise"
from
- "Mr. Rodriguez, for example, has rendered a gorgeous world of silvery shadows that updates the expressionist cinematography of postwar noir without expressing very much at all. His city, with its tough guys and femmes fatales, feels uninhabited, and the social anxiety and psychological unease of the old film noirs has been digitally broomed away. Instead, "Sin City" offers sensation without feeling, death without grief, sin without guilt and, ultimately, novelty without surprise. Something is missing - something human. Don't let the movies fool you: Roger Rabbit was guilty.
So so far all the critiques have pointed out a lack of "humanity" leads to a superficial experience. That you could cite. However the current assertions of "Several critics were displeased, however, criticizing the film’s nihilism and graphic violence" are seemingly easy attacks rather than genuine attempts to find valid critique within a response. I cannot find any cite for Leonard Maltins 1.5* review. The final news story about the bit off nose tip I'm going to reformat slightly also.--Koncorde (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Hartigan.jpg
Image:Hartigan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
/Archive_1#c-BetacommandBot-2008-02-13T23:24:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Hartigan.jpg){kind=link}
- Rationale corrected to include reference to this article.Johnmc (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)