Why isn't Sin City treated like more of a classic?

[Horatio_Hellpop]

I liked the movie more than the comic, but that’s pretty faint praise. IIRC, Sin City was Miller’s first big project not to be edited by Denny O’Neil. I never would have guessed that O’Neil was the only thing making Miller’s writing as palatable as it was for so long, but that is my reluctant conclusion.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Gerald_II

Take Watchmen for example. Zach Snyder had many of the characters or scenes look just like their comic book counterparts, making the film look almost like a comic book. But what works in the comic book medium might not work for the screen. For example, Moore and Gibbons portray Rorschach as tall and speaking in an inhuman or very strange voice according to the world balloon styling. In the film Rorschach is shorter than his peers and it’s obvious he’s just trying to put on a tough voice. So there’s not as much surprise when we find out he’s a short little guy.

Comic-book Rorscach is never depicted as tall - he’s occasionally described as little. His voice is described as a monotone.

The tallest character in the story is Doctor Manhattan, even disregarding super powered size changes.

[Miller]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I think you’d agree that there is a category of fiction called Young Adult fiction, often abbreviated as YA. It follows then that there must be a category of “adult fiction” and thus “adult novels”. The thing is, the singular “adult” is, in our culture and vernacular, silent, unspoken.

I think you’re missing Gerald’s point. There’s YA novels, and there’s non-YA novels, but they’re both still novels. Likewise, there are graphic novels for kids, and there are graphic novels for adults, but they’re still both graphic novels. The idea that “graphic novels are comics for grown ups” is basically a vestigial marketing gimmick left over from the '90s. These days, it doesn’t mean much besides, “comic book held together with something slightly more durable than staples.”