Talk:Sin City (film)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Booker, M. Keith (2007). "Sin City". May Contain Graphic Material: Comic Books, Graphic Novels, and Film. Praeger. ISBN 0275993868.

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assessment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now done the assessment, the article still needs more references (there are some requests made on the article and other sources needed) so I've left it on C for now. (Emperor (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Salesmen

Maybe at the end of the film the salesmen was going to offer becky to kill her before the others got to her? 202.169.181.208 (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot Summary

I've added this movie to my to do list of plot summaries to clean up, but I do like the way the summary is broken into subsections for this particular flick. Unless there are any objections, when I get to it, I'll keep that same basic structure. Millahnna (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I beat up the summary but my DVD ate it before I could finish re-watching the movie. So I did the best I could from memory on Yellow Bastard Part 2 and the Epilogue. I'll go back at those sections when I get a new copy this week, if no one beats me to it. I had to delete several explanatory sentences that relied on the DVD commentary exclusively; this makes me wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate to add some details in another section. I don't know if there's precedent for that with other films where the mechanics of the plot are explained similarly (Wikipedily speaking that is). I'm just throwing it out there for discussion. Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sequel info removed?

Why was the information about Sin City 2 removed? The editor claims it was speculation, yet major people involved (Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller) have spoke of it's existence, if only potentially. It had citations for it's sources, and I don't see how it's not notable. Just because it's taking time doesn't mean it's not happening. - JasonTerminator 03:58 4 March 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonTerminator (talk • contribs) 11:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's no reliable source saying that the film is being developed, it falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Also, any sources cited have to be reliable. That means that there needs to be an appropriate and notable source for the claims made. And still, many of the sources cited were clearly outdated on the subject. Friginator (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, it is possible to report verifiable discussion about such a topic. We should clean up the section to talk about what filmmakers have tried to do since the first film, but we can avoid wording that says there is a sequel in active development. We can't just remove the section as if nothing happened after the film was released. We should at least make the section look something similar to Shantaram (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 17:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but why are we keeping the rumors about the Weinstein Company losing the rights, if that rumor is disproved in the same section? Why are we listing rumors and speculation from years ago? It says in the section that "Production on the film has been delayed, mostly due to Rodriguez's involvement with a scheduled remake of Barbarella." That's from 2007. Why are we including it? There's absolutely no verifiable info indicating that a sequel is being developed at all. Most of the sources are from unreliable sites like MTV News or Bloody Disgusting. There's no relevant info as to the production of a sequel in the section at all. Friginator (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that all of it is valid to have. We may need to hack at it, but we shouldn't toss out the whole section. WP:CRYSTAL says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." We have the filmmakers talking about it, so we should be able to have at least a paragraph about what they intended. Let me see if I can clean up the section a little bit. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I overwrote you, but I wanted to take a new approach to the sub-topic instead of just removing the passages. Let me know what you think. I figured that the October 2010 news would be the most pertinent. If nothing pans out, we can update accordingly. Wikipedia is dynamic, after all. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine. The section looks a lot better now. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

External links

The "External links" section is not a link farm. Here are some links that should be incorporated in the article body if the source is reliable. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Roger Ebert's original review of Sin City
• Frank Miller`s Sin city & 300 & Spirit – Database articles, images and other files about Frank Millers and his comics adaptation.
• An extensive interview with Miller and Rodriguez (59:39 minutes, click "Extended Audio")
• The spoilers alternate DVD commentary of Sin City
• Peter Sanderson's indepth analysis of the film
• IGN UK interview with Frank Miller

Plot summary length

The word count of the plot summary is currently 1,183, far above the 700 word maximum. This film is not so complex that it requires such a long summary. It needs to be pruned. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. I've just watched this film, and I can't see anything which could be removed from the summary without harming the reader's understanding of the plot. MOS:film states that

Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.

This seems to fall squarely within the exception, in that, like Pulp Fiction, it consists of a number of separate, interwoven story-lines. Havelock Jones (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Film classification?

I can't see where the film rating or classification is. I could read the plot to discover what it should be, but that would be a spoiler. Since we give sections on "Box office", "Reception", etc. I think the film classification should be equally as obvious. Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aarghdvaark: Per MOS:FILM, we don't report that, as it would take up too much space to list every country's film classification. You can find that information on the IMDB or AllMovie. In the the US, it was rated R. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sin City (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090802132059/http://www.film-finder.com:80/Review.asp?ID=46173 to http://www.film-finder.com/Review.asp?ID=46173

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced information

Article has been tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Digital backlot

=== Digital backlot === This is one of the first films along with Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Casshern, and Immortel (Ad Vitam) to be shot primarily on a digital backlot. The film employed the Sony HDC-950 high-definition digital camera, having the actors work in front of a green screen, that allowed for the artificial backgrounds (as well as some major foreground elements, such as cars) to be added later during the post-production stage. Three sets were constructed by hand: Kadie's Bar, where all of the major characters make an appearance at least once and also the only location in which all objects are in color. Shellie's apartment. The front door and kitchen are real, while bathroom and corridors are artificial. The hospital corridor in the epilogue. Although the first shot of walking feet was done on green screen, the corridor in the next shot is real. The background becomes artificial again when the interior of the elevator is shown. While the use of a green screen is standard for special effects filming, the use of high-definition digital cameras is quite noteworthy in this film's production. The combination of these two techniques made Sin City at the time (along with Sky Captain, which was produced the same way) one of the few fully digital, live-action films (since then, digital has grown in popularity). This technique also means that the whole film was initially shot in full color, and was converted to black-and-white. Colorization is used on certain subjects in a scene, such as Devon Aoki's red-and-blue clothing; Alexis Bledel's blue eyes and red blood; Michael Clarke Duncan's golden eye; Rutger Hauer's green eyes; Jaime King's red dress and blonde hair; Clive Owen's red Converse shoes and Cadillac; Mickey Rourke's red blood and orange prescription pill container; Marley Shelton's green eyes, red dress, and red lips; Nick Stahl's yellow face and body; and Elijah Wood's white glasses. Much of the blood in the film also has a striking glow to it. The film was color-corrected digitally and, as in film noir tradition, treated for heightened contrast so as to more clearly separate blacks and whites. This was done not only to give a more film-noir look, but also to make it appear more like the original comic. This technique was used again on another Frank Miller adaptation, 300, which was shot on film.

Home media

== Home media == "Sin City" was released on VHS and DVD on August 16, 2005. The single-disc edition was released with four different slipcovers to choose from and featured a "behind-the-scenes" documentary. Then, on December 13, 2005, the special edition DVD was released, known as the "recut, unrated, extended" edition. On October 21, 2008, a Blu-ray edition, which is region free, was released by Alliance in Canada. On January 29, 2009 a United States Blu-ray release was confirmed for April 23, 2009. It is a 2-disc edition featuring both the film's "theatrical" and "recut, unrated, extended" versions. The special edition was a two-disc set, featuring both the 124-minute theatrical release, along with the 142-minute "recut, unrated, extended" edition (this edition restored edited and deleted scenes that were missing from the theatrical edition). Bonus material included an audio commentary with director Rodriguez and Miller, a commentary with Rodriguez and Tarantino, and a third commentary featuring the recorded audience reaction at the Austin, Texas Premiere. Also included were various "behind-the-scenes" documentaries and features, as well as a pocket-sized version of the graphic novel The Hard Goodbye. Shortly after, the same DVD/book package was released in a limited edition giftbox with a set of Sin City playing cards and a small stack of Sin City poker chips not available anywhere else. The initial Region 2 release only featured a 7-minute featurette on the film. HMV stores had limited quantities of the four slipcases. Amazon.co.uk released another limited edition which housed the film, and the three books it is based on, in a hard case. In October 2007, the "recut, unrated, extended" edition was finally released in the United Kingdom. Although it does not feature the reproduction of "The Hard Goodbye" book, it does come in Steelbook packaging. This version of the film was initially exclusive to HMV stores, but is now available at most retailers in the United Kingdom.

Proof of concept

=== Proof of concept === After his negative personal experience working in Hollywood on RoboCop 2 and 3, Miller was reluctant to release the film rights to his comic books, fearing a similar result. Rodriguez, a long-time fan of the graphic novels, was eager to adapt Sin City for the screen. His plan was to make a fully faithful adaptation, follow the source material closely, and make a "translation, not an adaptation". In hopes of convincing Miller to give the project his blessing, Rodriguez shot a "proof of concept" adaptation of the Sin City story "The Customer Is Always Right" (starring Josh Hartnett and Marley Shelton). Rodriguez flew Miller into Austin to be present at this test shooting, and Miller was very happy with the results. This footage was later used as the opening scene for the completed project, and, according to Rodriguez in the DVD extras, to recruit Bruce Willis and others to the project.