As I consider one to be as pointless an excersise as the other. If you are any way familiar with the sourch material, then the new version is a waste of time. Van Sant was crucified for his shot-by-shot remake of Psycho, and yet Rodriguez was lauded for his version of Millers work? What gives? When I heard Rodriguez was staying faithfull to the source, I was delighted, but when I saw the movie for the first time… I was utterly bored. I know the comics inside out, and as such was speaking the dialogue in sync with the actors at times. Basically the graphic novels were used as storyboards. I can’t imagine what it would have been like for someone who didnt know the g.n.'s… And yet people had the same problems with Psycho, and it was buried because of it. Am I the only one who see’s a huge double standard here?
Don’t get me wrong, Rodriguez created an incredible looking world, its just a pity that he told such well known tales in it. I would have loved if just one story out of the three told was an all-new tale. Perhaps in the sequel?
I think there are some important differences. First, Hitchcock wasn’t Van Sant’s co-director; copying someone else’s work isn’t the same as one guy doing the same story twice because it took him 20 years to get the financing to move it from a cheap medium to an expensive one. Second, the change in medium is itself more substantial than changing from b&w to color. And finally and most importantly, IMO, 98% of Van Sant’s prospective audience for his Psycho had already seen the original, definitive version. Had even 2% of the Sin City film’s audience read the comics? I doubt it. So even if the film didn’t add anything for you and the other few thousand people who knew the source material, the vast majority of the movie audience saw something they’d never seen before. (And how!) So in that way the film could be a success even if you didn’t like it – because nothing ever pleases everybody, even every-rational-body.
As for the sequel – don’t get your hopes up; it’s going to be additional close retellings of the comics.
Comic movies get blasted for not being strict adaptations… and they get blasted for being strict adaptations… Hmmm
I think you are comparing apples to rotten oranges in a dumpster.
I have to say, it’s refreshing for a comic book fan to dislike a movie because it didn’t deviate from the original. It does strike me as a bit odd, though. Did you want Rodriguez to write new dialogue? Change the endings? Rewrite the characters? What’s the point (as many a fanboy has asked after a disappointing movie adaption) of making a comic book into a movie if you’re going to change everything about the comic book in the process?
I also think you’re over-stating things when you refer to Sin City as “well-known tales.” The vast majority of the audience had likely never even heard of the comic before they saw the movie. I’m a pretty big comic fan, and a big fan of The Dark Knight Returns, but I’d never actually read any of the Sin City books before. Still haven’t, for that matter, although there’s one included in the DVD set of the movie I got for Christmas, so that’ll change soon enough.
Honestly, just seeing the comics move and talk was new enough for me. That’s a huge change right there.
There’s a big difference between adapting a story, even if the plot and dialogue is largely unchanged, from one medium to another, and remaking something in the same medium wihout changing it.
I refuse to believe it’s an actual rant. Bubastis just has to be either trying to start a debate/discussion or one of those guys that HAS to take a viewpoint opposite of everyone else’s on every subject just to feel special.
It’s just too ridiculous to be a real rant. Can’t wrap my head around it.
You don’t have to try to imagine, because I’ll tell you: it was great. I just got the special edition DVD, which includes one of the graphic novels (“The Hard Goodbye”) and now I can see that Rodriguez and Frank Miller did a near-perfect job of bringing Miller’s hyper-noir comic book world to life on the screen. I guess that Miller could have written an original story just for the movie . . . of course, they’d want to storyboard it, so I guess he’d just do it as a graphic novel . . . and then it would be a shame not to publish it . . . .
I knew of the comic & graphic novels, but they really didn’t appeal to me. A friend insisted I watch the movie.
I ended up buying the recut version. I was impressed by the story and very impressed by the look of the movie. Hell, I even enjoyed Bruce Willis (who usually does well in strange roles).
According to interviews and articles I have read, the 2nd movie will indeed have new stories in it. I wouldn’t be surprised if Miller releases them in graphic novel form around the same time, though.
You can’t use a graphic novel for storyboarding – a page of a graphic novel is a totally static composition.
A storyboard includes indications of camera movements. Yes, many shots referenced microcompositions that were present in print, but making them work in the context of a film took art.
Psycho was movie remake of an existing movie - which made it seem kind of pointless.
Sin City was a movie very closely based on its source material, which was a comic book. That doesn’t seem any more valid a reason to condemn it than saying the movie The Lion in Winter was too closely based on its source material, which was a play.
I can’t even think of any other movie I’ve ever seen that looked even remotely close to Sin City. For cinematography and art direction, this movie stands alone. It’s the kind of movie I would recommend to anyone with interest in unique styles of cinematography, animation, CGI, narrative organization, modern noir, make-up effects and costuming
I’ve never read/heard any arguments from anyone to validate the Psycho remake. It’s nothing more than an exercise in big-budget directorial onanism. Van Sant even claimed he made it because his target audience would be too dumb to ever want to watch the original since it was in black and white. Great mission statement for a remake! :rolleyes:
And given your lame “well known tales” assertion about “Sin City”, I can guarantee that if you polled any random assortment of people on the street, at least 90% of them would have probably have seen at least one version of Psycho, (the majority probably having seen the original), and way less than 10% would even have any familiarity with the “Sin City” graphic novel, and I’m talking about people who know of it, while those who have read it would probably be less than 5% of those people polled.
I don’t post here to feel special, pal. I just like to express my opinion. I’m sorry my opinion isnt always the same as everyone elses. I used to think that everyone was entitled to their own opinion… perhaps I was mistaken.
The point I tried to get across was that a shot-for-shot remake is pointless if you are familiar with the source. And if you sre not familiar woth the comics, why not just buy them? To me, its pretty much the same difference. Would people have been as impressed if any of the Harry Potter books or Narnia had copied the text word for word? Does the material not have to undergo some change on its way to the screen? ADAPTED for film, right?
So, comic sales slide, movie box office increases. Would it kill people to read once in a while?
And, while I am working up a lynch mob, Millers dialogue, which on paper seemed so cool? When you hear it coming out of an actors mouth, IT JUST SOUNDS CORNY!!!
