The Shrine

The commercials look interesting, based on a comic i presume? May be worth a late night nothing to do kinda movie.

Past thread on it:
viewtopic.php?t=8667

it's the best comic adaptation I have ever seen. got a pre-screening today and was blown away. It's how a comic movie should be made. You know what they used to storyboard it, the actual comic. It follows it dead on and is mindblowing with how good it is with every act. Mickey Rourke truly stole the show as well. And Rodriguez made the right move in adapting the 3 best sin city books as well as doing the smartest thing any comic movie has ever done and actually bringing on the writer as a co-director. Fucking amazing movie. Gives me hope in Batman Begins which is also based on Frank Millers Batman :Year one story which was fantastic and once again for batman begins miller played a huge role in saying how it would go. Go see Sin City. it's violent, filled with hot chicks, violence, amazing visuals, violence, great acting, and more violence...

I want to see Sin City. Maybe I'll read it first. I have it on my PC. Just haven't had time.

But if you say it's good, I can believe it.

I was reading some interviews with Miller and he was saying how they would set up shots to look exactly like the freaking comic. Awesome.

See, this is why I'm terrified! I don't want to go and see an exact replica of the comic on the big screen! I want a movie!

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:See, this is why I'm terrified! I don't want to go and see an exact replica of the comic on the big screen! I want a movie!

Well, just because the scenes are set up to match the comic doesn't mean you're simply getting the comic in video form. Just turning it into a movie adds a whole other layer to the story (if it's down well, and I'm hearing from sources that it is).

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:See, this is why I'm terrified! I don't want to go and see an exact replica of the comic on the big screen! I want a movie!

Fuck off! People like you ruined Batman!

Derithian wrote:It's how a comic movie should be made. You know what they used to storyboard it, the actual comic.

<rant>Gee, they should have been doing that all along. Fucking asshole directors think they know what they are doing! Lemme give you a piece of advice: If you are doing a book-to-movie, comic-to-movie, video-game-to-movie, my-life-to-movie, VR-to-movie, Tom-Selleck's-buttcrack-to-movie conversion, YOU DON'T NEED A FUCKING SCREENWRITER!!! You take the source material, give it to the actors/actresses, and those are their fucking lines! If the book starts out as a dark and stormy night, you put in a fucking dark and stormy night!

Time edits and possibly changing out-of-date elements, yeah, but don't do a goddamn story "based" on the material. Obviously, the person with the source material is smarter and BETTER than you, the director, because you're the fucking asshole copying off of him. You can't just change shit on the fly. The author spent years trying to figure out if changes are going to work, and you think you can fucking change some element in 5 minutes, just because you don't like it?!?

So, yeah, hopefully I'll really like this movie because they did things right, but common-fucking-sense would have solved these problems 20-30 years ago.</rant>

Fuck you, Sine! You've got no idea! Do you want another Dick Tracy? I fucking care about this work, I'm <i>invested</i> in it! Don't tell me I fucking ruined Batman!

But you think Peter Jackson ruined Lord of the Rings, huh?

Slavishly observe source text and you end up with, at best, the first two Harry Potter films - banal and mind-bogglingly tedious. At worst you get Dick Tracy. I WILL NOT HAVE SIN CITY TURNED INTO ANOTHER DICK TRACY.

No sensible person goes to the movies to see a book or a comic. You go to see a movie. I would rather Rodriguez piss all over the source text and produce a great film, than adore it and produce Daredevil (which, by the way, was made by a great fan of Miller's work on the series).

Look at the best comic-book movies: X-Men, Spider-man, Hellboy. These are movies <i>first</i>. Great, they've got history, people dig the comics, people are invested in the comics. But movies are not comics!

Fuck it, I don't know why I'm even arguing about this, you think comic book movies don't need a screenwriter? Have you read these comics? Have you read them aloud? You're fucking crazy!

Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I was trying to be, errr, Jason Lee-ish, for lack of a better term. I guess that didn't translate well.

No, I didn't think Peter Jackson ruined LotR, but some of his changes irked me, and many were unneccesary. And you quote Daredevil, a perfect example of what I'm talking about: somebody that didn't honor the source material and got proper fucked doing it.

As far as stuff like X-Men/Spiderman, you're talking about close to 30 years worth of material. Like I said, time edits are acceptable, as long as you get it to seem together well. But, Sin City, as far as I know, wasn't a long series. It was supposed to be a end-to-end story. You can probably do most of the movie by just reading the comic.

Sorry for flying off the handle, but I really do care about the work :).

The movie is covering three full series of Sin City - the first run, the Big Fat Kill, and That Yellow Bastard (I don't think they're covering a Dame to Kill For, and it's probably for the best that they don't). The comics jump around time-wise - you can't just tell the three stories end-to-end, because they intersect in weird ways and places. And which of the stories do you make central? It makes the most sense to pay the most attention to Marv's story from the original series, but a chunk of That Yellow Bastard happens twenty years before it - do you open the movie with Hartigan, thirty years in the past? How do you go back to Marv and Dwight without confusing people?

It's going to be really hard for them to tie these stories together and make a great film out of them, and it's going to be a million times more difficult if they feel compelled to match the comic panel-for-panel. I worry because it looks like they might be trying to do just that.

SineSwiper wrote:<rant>Gee, they should have been doing that all along. Fucking asshole directors think they know what they are doing! Lemme give you a piece of advice: If you are doing a book-to-movie, comic-to-movie, video-game-to-movie, my-life-to-movie, VR-to-movie, Tom-Selleck's-buttcrack-to-movie conversion, YOU DON'T NEED A FUCKING SCREENWRITER!!! You take the source material, give it to the actors/actresses, and those are their fucking lines! If the book starts out as a dark and stormy night, you put in a fucking dark and stormy night!

Time edits and possibly changing out-of-date elements, yeah, but don't do a goddamn story "based" on the material. Obviously, the person with the source material is smarter and BETTER than you, the director, because you're the fucking asshole copying off of him. You can't just change shit on the fly. The author spent years trying to figure out if changes are going to work, and you think you can fucking change some element in 5 minutes, just because you don't like it?!?

I disagree with most of that. Movies are not comics. Movies are not books. Movies are not plays. Adapting another work to a movie is not just doing that work in movie form. The medium is different and often requires character and plot changes to make the movie work on its own. Different mediums have different requirements and expectations. Dialouge that works in a comic might not work in a movie. Timing of the plot might hinder the pace of the movie.

Further, the people working on the movie are creative people, too. They don't want to simply make something that is a copy of something else. They, invetibabley, will want to influence the movie creatively in some way. I don't see this as a bad thing, and I think it's easy to do it while at the same time honoring the source material. Batman, for example, is easily reckognizable as a Tim Burton movie, and also contains a very Keaton-ish Michael Keeton performance. ("You wanna get nuts?! Let's get nuts!" God, I love that scene.) And if you don't let the people working the movie have some creative license, then you're not going to be able to attract or keep the most talented screenwriters, directors, producers and actors. They'll leave for a job that let's them actually use their talents.

Sineswiper wrote:Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I was trying to be, errr, Jason Lee-ish, for lack of a better term. I guess that didn't translate well.

You do this a lot. It never works. Not doing it is, I think, a good idea.

Just a friendly tip.

Well andrew and everyone else....take it from someone who has seen it and was pretty skeptical. It's fascinating and it is extremely stylistic. Oh hell yes it is. it's sin city. if it wasn't that would piss me off. The thing about it though is that it flows amazingly well. great narration and the acting is fantastic for being another green screen movie. I felt Sky Captain was ruined by this because it was acted in like noone knew where anything was or what the hell they were supposed to be doing. Sin City on the other hand is....wait for it.....wait for it.....'marv'elously well done......oh got that was a fucking horrible pun. Sin City is one of my favorite all time comins and the fact that they did it justice makes me happy. and the fact that they can tell 3 stories all from different times and have it flow is even better. It was defidefinitely something that impressed me and I am one that really is hard to impress with movie adaptations of my favorite comics.

I'm not really worried about it not being stylish - it looks to have style coming out of its ears. I'm worried about it being <i>good</i>. But I'm glad you dug it, it gives me hope.

Kupek wrote:I disagree with most of that. Movies are not comics. Movies are not books. Movies are not plays. Adapting another work to a movie is not just doing that work in movie form. The medium is different and often requires character and plot changes to make the movie work on its own. Different mediums have different requirements and expectations. Dialouge that works in a comic might not work in a movie. Timing of the plot might hinder the pace of the movie.

This method of using the comic as the storyboard already works. Manga to anime translations are set like this all the time. Granted, you have a lot more time/history with manga/anime series than a two-hour movie, but you can still take parts of the origins, merge it with a good story arc in the series, modernize it a little bit (if it's a really old series), and merge it together. Or if it's a fantasy town, like Sin City or Gotham City, forget all of that and just start telling the story from the beginning. If you're doing that, there's no need to modernize it, and the fact that there's more good material in there means that people will crave sequels.

Kupek wrote:Further, the people working on the movie are creative people, too. They don't want to simply make something that is a copy of something else. They, invetibabley, will want to influence the movie creatively in some way. I don't see this as a bad thing, and I think it's easy to do it while at the same time honoring the source material. Batman, for example, is easily reckognizable as a Tim Burton movie, and also contains a very Keaton-ish Michael Keeton performance. ("You wanna get nuts?! Let's get nuts!" God, I love that scene.) And if you don't let the people working the movie have some creative license, then you're not going to be able to attract or keep the most talented screenwriters, directors, producers and actors. They'll leave for a job that let's them actually use their talents.

The problem with using storywriters and "creative people" is that, for the most part, they are inferior to the people who created the material in the first place. Otherwise, they would be creating books and comics. People like you and me can create a movie script. It takes years for somebody to create a book or comic book series. Think about what is happening: You're taking the entire history and years worth of creativity into a 2- or 3-hour movie.

A screenwriter that spent even 6 months or so on a script can't compare to that. On top of that, his work has a better chance of getting fucked up by directors and other screenwriters that all have a different idea of what the original screenwriter's vision was. With a book or comic, it's right there in front of you, either with vivid descriptions or in full color. Trying to change the material, especially to make it "appealing for most audiences", only makes it bad for everybody.

Off the top of your head, what are the best movies you've seen? Of those, how many were based off a book or other source material? The movie industry is actually starting to understand this, because more and more movies are being produced which are based off of books/comics/etc. Here, let's just compare the Top movies (via IMDb):

1. The Godfather (1972) book
2. The Shawshank Redemption (1994) short shory
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) book series
4. The Godfather: Part II (1974) book
5. Seven Samurai (1954) screenplay (written by the director)
6. Casablanca (1942) play
7. Schindler's List (1993) book
8. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) book
9. Citizen Kane (1941) loosely based on real events
10. Pulp Fiction (1994) screenplay (written by the director)
11. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) book series
12. Star Wars (1977) screenplay (written by the director)
13. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) book series
14. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) screenplay (written by the director)
15. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) screenplay (written by the director)
16. The Usual Suspects (1995) screenplay
17. Rear Window (1954) short story
18. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) book
19. City of God (2002) book
20. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) screenplay
21. 12 Angry Men (1957) screenplay
22. Psycho (1960) book
23. Memento (2000) short story
24. Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) screenplay
25. Amélie (2001) screenplay
26. Lawrence of Arabia (1962) writings of real events
27. Goodfellas (1990) book
28. The Silence of the Lambs (1991) book
29. Sunset Blvd. (1950) screenplay
30. North by Northwest (1959) screenplay
31. American Beauty (1999) screenplay
32. It's a Wonderful Life (1946) screenplay
33. Apocalypse Now (1979) book
34. The Matrix (1999) screenplay (written by the director)
35. Paths of Glory (1957) book
36. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) screenplay (written by the director)
37. Fight Club (1999) book
38. The Third Man (1949) screenplay
39. Spirited Away (2001) screenplay (written by the director)
40. Vertigo (1958) book
41. Singin' in the Rain (1952) screenplay
42. Double Indemnity (1944) book
43. Das Boot (1981) book
44. M (1931) screenplay (written by the director)
45. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) book
46. Rashômon (1950) short shories
47. Se7en (1995) screenplay
48. Taxi Driver (1976) screenplay
49. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) book
50. The Maltese Falcon (1941) book
51. All About Eve (1950) short shory
52. Requiem for a Dream (2000) book
53. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) screenplay (written by the director)
54. The Pianist (2002) book
55. Léon (1994) screenplay (written by the director)
56. Saving Private Ryan (1998) screenplay
57. Alien (1979) screenplay
58. L.A. Confidential (1997) book
59. Modern Times (1936) screenplay (written by the director)
60. American History X (1998) screenplay
61. Chinatown (1974) screenplay
62. Some Like It Hot (1959) screenplay
63. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) screenplay
64. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) book
65. The Wizard of Oz (1939) book
66. The Sting (1973) screenplay
67. The Manchurian Candidate (1962) book
68. On the Waterfront (1954) screenplay
69. Ran (1985) play
70. Life is Beautiful (1997) screenplay (written by the director)
71. Amadeus (1984) play based on real life events
72. Touch of Evil (1958) book
73. The Great Escape (1963) book
74. Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003) screenplay (written by the director)
75. City Lights (1931) screenplay (written by the director)
76. Raging Bull (1980) book
77. The Apartment (1960) screenplay (written by the director)
78. A Clockwork Orange (1971) book
79. The Shining (1980) book
80. Metropolis (1927) book
81. Reservoir Dogs (1992) screenplay (written by the director)
82. Jaws (1975) book
83. Aliens (1986) screenplay (written by the director)
84. Finding Nemo (2003) screenplay (written by the director)
85. High Noon (1952) screenplay
86. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) book
87. Annie Hall (1977) screenplay (written by the director)
88. Million Dollar Baby (2004) stories
89. Braveheart (1995) screenplay
90. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) book
91. Oldboy (2003) screenplay
92. Fargo (1996) screenplay (written by the director)
93. The Incredibles (2004) screenplay (written by the director)
94. Yojimbo (1961) screenplay (written by the director)
95. Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004) screenplay (written by the director)
96. The Princess Bride (1987) book
97. Blade Runner (1982) book
98. Before Sunset (2004) screenplay (written by the director)
99. The Sixth Sense (1999) screenplay (written by the director)
100. Donnie Darko (2001) screenplay (written by the director)

Given that, we get about a 50/50 split between source material and original screenplays. That's quite a bit, considering that these people that write the screenplays are designed to make good material with that goes directly onto the movie, and they are only matching up with the adaptations of books and stories. If you count the screenplays written by the director, who had probably had the idea for years and knows exactly in his mind what the movie is going to be about, that would put the source material at 75-80%. If you subtract the older movies is only on this list because of nostalga (and which tend to be not as good as modern movies), the percentage is even higher.

Therefore, every change that is made against the will of the source material gives it greater odds that the change was worse off than the original material. This is almost always the case, and it's been proven time and time again. The odds are 1 in 4 that the change will fail. Add more changes and it's like playing Russian Roulette on the whole movie.

Kupek wrote:You do this a lot. It never works. Not doing it is, I think, a good idea.

Funny, but I would think that people that I've know online for close to 10 years would trust me enough to know that when I cuss you out and end it with a sarcastic remark, I'm not angry at you. I don't use smileys too much because I haven't found one that represented sarcasm without totally destroying the tone of the whole sentence. It's hard to sound sarcastic when you have a big yellow smiling cutesy face at the end of it.

Fuck off! People like you ruined Batman!

See, it just doesn't look the same. Hell, it doesn't even work with the "mad" smileys:

Fuck you! :x