Too CGI-ish!

[Lobster Charlie]

Doesn't look like Frank Miller's comics to me. Frank Miller is anything but overtly-CG, shiny, and slick. His comics are grimey, rough around the edges, and ugly.

That's why, in my opinion, Sin City, and from what it looks like so far, 300, are failures at translating Frank Miller's art into live action.

 

[Nivek]

Doesn't look like Frank Miller's comics to me. Frank Miller is anything but overtly-CG, shiny, and slick. His comics are grimey, rough around the edges, and ugly.

That's why, in my opinion, Sin City, and from what it looks like so far, 300, are failures at translating Frank Miller's art into live action.

Too bad Miller being directly involved in Sin City kinda deflates that arguement. If he thought it didn't look like his art, he actually had a say.

 

[Agentsands77]

Too bad Miller being directly involved in Sin City kinda deflates that arguement. If he thought it didn't look like his art, he actually had a say.

It doesn't really deflate the argument at all. So what if Miller gave it his okay? This isn't a "whatever Miller says goes" sort of argument.

 

[Lobster Charlie]

It doesn't really deflate the argument at all. So what if Miller gave it his okay? This isn't a "whatever Miller says goes" sort of argument.

Exactly.

I mean, George Lucas personally directed the three prequels, but that doesn't make them good Star Wars films.

And don't forget, Nivek, Stan Lee rubber-stamped most of those garbage comic book films and adaptations from 20+ years ago. Does that make the original Punisher or Fantastic Four films any good?

 

[Nivek]

Um, he's the creator, writer and artist, and owner. I'm not talking about birthing a character in a work for hire and moving on creator like Stan, I mean he creates everything. No one else draws Sin City. It stops and ends at Frank Freaking Miller. And unlike Stan, Frank was the co-director, which means he literally had at the very least 50% say in any shot filmed for Sin City. So, guess what, it really was "whatever Miller says goes". At least in Sin City's instance.

As far as the Lucas thing goes, thats a matter of personal opinion, since I support the guys opinion as an creative artist. Not saying he's a great artist and I find no flaw in his work, but they are his characters, it is his universe, so once again the buck begins and ends with George Lucas, no different than Frank.

I think I understand their opinion since I create stuff that doesn't translate through other hands as well. But I think it's pretty ignorant to re-translate the artists interpretation to fit your view. When it comes to their creations, they KNOW them better than anyone.

 

[Agentsands77]

When it comes to their creations, they KNOW them better than anyone.

Only in the sense in ownership. Not in the sense that their choices are above criticism or complaint.

 

[Nivek]

You may not approve, but you show your critism not buying the product they produce. It's their characters. They come from their head. And if they dont do it, you wont see it.

All I am saying in a nutshell is if you dont like how Miller translated his own work, and it seems very un-Frank Miller, take it up with the man himself. Hell, I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.

 

[Agentsands77]

All I am saying in a nutshell is if you dont like how Miller translated his own work, and it seems very un-Frank Miller, take it up with the man himself. Hell, I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.

I never said it's un-Frank Miller. I said it doesn't feel the same way his artwork does (aside from a few moments when the film actually looks like it's done with pen-and-ink, rather than just appearing to be mediocre CGI).

 

[Tojo]

I agree to an extent Agent. Varley's art in 300 was very gritty and 'sinewy', and 300 looks extremely polished.

As for it being too CGI'y, well this is the point of the film. It isn't meant to look real. I don't like it, but this is what they wanted so nothing i can do.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Doesn't look like Frank Miller's comics to me. Frank Miller is anything but overtly-CG, shiny, and slick. His comics are grimey, rough around the edges, and ugly.

That's why, in my opinion, Sin City, and from what it looks like so far, 300, are failures at translating Frank Miller's art into live action.

Then good thing Frank Miller completely disagrees, and seeing as it's his work, it'd be his opinion that counts on whether it looks like his comics or not.

As for the guy who made the "whatever Miller says goes" comment about Sin City, that is EXACTLY what it was. Rob Rod went to Frank Miller before making any changes and asked him what to do with everything, creatively. What you saw in Sin City was exactly what Miller wanted. Notice whenever you see credits for Sin City, Miller's directing credit is first and foremost before RR's.

So basically, you just don't like Miller's directing and film style, but just his comics.

 

[Demigod00]

I believe that is the general point of the imagery, its art, it should not be looked upon as real or fake because it is intentionally surreal.

 

[Tojo]

exactly demigod. I don't see how someone can fail to understand this. It's a pretty damn simple concept to grasp.

 

[Lobster Charlie]

Nobody is failing to understand anything. We're just voicing our distaste for what they've presented.

It's a pretty damned simple concept to grasp.

 

[Lobster Charlie]

Then good thing Frank Miller completely disagrees, and seeing as it's his work, it'd be his opinion that counts on whether it looks like his comics or not.

As for the guy who made the "whatever Miller says goes" comment about Sin City, that is EXACTLY what it was. Rob Rod went to Frank Miller before making any changes and asked him what to do with everything, creatively. What you saw in Sin City was exactly what Miller wanted. Notice whenever you see credits for Sin City, Miller's directing credit is first and foremost before RR's.

So basically, you just don't like Miller's directing and film style, but just his comics.

Correct. Frank Miller has a lot to learn about filmmaking, as does Robert Rodriguez, in my opinion. Just because someone can draw a comic, doesn't mean they can translate their comic perfectly to film. To me, it's not a matter of whether the creator is satisfied with the end product---that's fine, its theirs, they can feel however they want about it. But I don't like being told its a perfect translation, because I can point out several reasons why it is not.

I don't find Sin City to be as good a translation as it could've been, and I know plenty of Sin City (comic) fans that agree with me.

But, of course, to each their own.

 

[Agentsands77]

As for the guy who made the "whatever Miller says goes" comment about Sin City, that is EXACTLY what it was.

My comment referred not to the artistic process, but rather what I feel about it. Just because Frank Miller put his seal of approval on something doesn't mean a damn to me. George Lucas put his approval on the prequels, and they're terrible.

So basically, you just don't like Miller's directing and film style, but just his comics.

Well, I actually don't really care for either, but as an observer, I can note the difference between his artwork and what it looks like when transferred to the screen.

Frank Miller has a lot to learn about filmmaking, as does Robert Rodriguez, in my opinion. Just because someone can draw a comic, doesn't mean they can translate their comic perfectly to film. To me, it's not a matter of whether the creator is satisfied with the end product---that's fine, its theirs, they can feel however they want about it. But I don't like being told its a perfect translation, because I can point out several reasons why it is not.

I don't find Sin City to be as good a translation as it could've been, and I know plenty of Sin City (comic) fans that agree with me.

Well said.

 

[Kasady]

No it's not too CGI-ish. Like it was said befor they used the blue screen to get the style they wanted, a more artistic stlye that they could never get filming on location.

My comment referred not to the artistic process, but rather what I feel about it. Just because Frank Miller put his seal of approval on something doesn't mean a damn to me. George Lucas put his approval on the prequels, and they're terrible.

If your not talking about the artistic process, then you can't really compare George Lucas' Star Wars prequels with the Sin City Movie. Sin City is the same stories as the books. While the Star Wars prequels are new stories you just don't like. Now artisticly speaking you could compare the fact you don't like blue or green screen being used in film making. I'm guessing that you wanted muppets in them like the originals lol.

as an observer, I can note the difference between his artwork and what it looks like when transferred to the screen.

Wow! You can tell the difference between something drawn and a live actor. Simply amazing!

I don't find Sin City to be as good a translation as it could've been, and I know plenty of Sin City (comic) fans that agree with me.

This is the best translation any fan could ask for useing live actors. The only way for it to be any closer is for it to be animated.

I believe that is the general point of the imagery, its art, it should not be looked upon as real or fake because it is intentionally surreal.

Exactly

 

[Mr. Socko]

What's a better translation?

 

[Agentsands77]

If your not talking about the artistic process, then you can't really compare George Lucas' Star Wars prequels with the Sin City Movie. Sin City is the same stories as the books. While the Star Wars prequels are new stories you just don't like. Now artisticly speaking you could compare the fact you don't like blue or green screen being used in film making. I'm guessing that you wanted muppets in them like the originals lol.

You totally ignore my point. My point is that just because a creator okays something doesn't make it good. Frank Miller is fallible, and just because he gives the SIN CITY movie his stamp of approval doesn't make it a good film, or even a good translation of his graphic novels.

This is the best translation any fan could ask for useing live actors. The only way for it to be any closer is for it to be animated.

Not true. It could have been a lot closer had the CGI been a lot better than it was. Face it, SIN CITY was relying on cheap CGI. Had the look been more minimalistic, like it was in a few scenes (Hartigan leaving prison, for example), it would be closer to Miller's graphic novel. Nevermind that the film also showcases some truly terrible performances.

 

[Nivek]

You totally ignore my point. My point is that just because a creator okays something doesn't make it good. Frank Miller is fallible, and just because he gives the SIN CITY movie his stamp of approval doesn't make it a good film, or even a good translation of his graphic novels.

He didn't just give it a stamp of approval, HE MADE IT HIMSELF. Sorry you dont like it live action or think it was a good film, but ALOT of Sin City fans did.

Not true. It could have been a lot closer had the CGI been a lot better than it was. Face it, SIN CITY was relying on cheap CGI. Had the look been more minimalistic, like it was in a few scenes (Hartigan leaving prison, for example), it would be closer to Miller's graphic novel. Nevermind that the film also showcases some truly terrible performances.

The only way it could've been closer was CG rotoscoping the whole thing. But I doubt anything could live up to these "high cinematic exspectations" you have, given what your saying. Once again though, this sounds more about your outlook and opinion than fact and widespread fan opinion. Alot more people liked it than didn't, at least 85% of Sin City fans from general opinion. So Miller did please almost everyone with his Translation, just not a couple people who think they can do Frank Millers Sin City better than Frank Miller himself.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Haha, cheap CG is Rob Rod's trademark.

 

[Agentsands77]

He didn't just give it a stamp of approval, HE MADE IT HIMSELF. Sorry you dont like it live action or think it was a good film, but ALOT of Sin City fans did.

Doesn't mean anything to me. A lot of V FOR VENDETTA fans loved the movie, but that film is hardly an accurate or respectful adaptation of the source material.

The only way it could've been closer was CG rotoscoping the whole thing.

Or getting the CGI to look like pen-and-ink, as they did a few shots here and there - get the detail really minimalistic. Make it look like a pen-and-ink drawing that has actors moving in it.

They didn't even really have to do that. There were plenty of lovely shots. They just had to do the cheap-looking material in a different way. And get some of the visual grit in there, please - I mean the comic swims in it. The movie doesn't really have it.

But I doubt anything could live up to these "high cinematic exspectations" you have, given what your saying.

I won't hide that I disliked the whole approach to SIN CITY - giving us straight translations, rather than bothering to adapt it for the medium of cinema, and stuffing the movie with generally poor performances and CGI, isn't really good work, IMO.

Once again though, this sounds more about your outlook and opinion than fact and widespread fan opinion.

So? I never claimed to speak for the people. And it's not fact. It's all opinion.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Speaking of Vendetta reminds me of how Lloyd gave his seal of approval but Moore said it was straigt up garbage that was nothing what he wrote.

From Wiki

Moore explicitly disassociated himself from the film due his lack of involvement in the writing or directing of the film, as well as due to a continuing series of disputes over film adaptations of his work.[4] He ended cooperation with his publisher, DC Comics, after its corporate parent, Warner Bros., failed to retract statements about Moore's supposed endorsement of the film. Moore said that the script contained plot holes[16] and that it ran contrary to the theme of his original work, which was to place two political extremes (fascism and anarchism) against one another. He argues his work had been recast as a story about "current American neo-conservatism vs. current American liberalism".[17] As per his wishes, Moore's name does not appear in the film's closing credits. Co-creator and illustrator David Lloyd supports the film adaptation, commenting that the script is very good and that Moore would only ever be truly happy with a complete book-to-screen adaptation.[15]

Apparently, Moore wanted the movie done ala Sin City or else he wouldn't have accepted it.

 

[Agentsands77]

Apparently, Moore wanted the movie done ala Sin City or else he wouldn't have accepted it.

I don't think anything Moore himself has said indicates that at all (yes, Lloyd thinks that would be the case with Moore - I've read the interview where he comments on that).

As personally stated, Moore's greatest problems with the film stem not from it failing to be 100% book/screen faithful, but that HUGE changes were made to his characters all-around, that the story was very modified, and, most importantly, the film doesn't mean the same thing as his graphic novel. He has every reason to be outraged.

 

[Nivek]

Too bad, V for Vendetta was a damn good movie. Besides, I dont think he would be happy with anything, even if he could do what Frank did on Sin City.

 

[Nivek]

Doesn't mean anything to me. A lot of V FOR VENDETTA fans loved the movie, but that film is hardly an accurate or respectful adaptation of the source material.

Given what was changed, it worked great as a movie, I loved it. however, I prefer it over Moores Graphic Novel because it was so slimmed down, and I thought the ending was alot better, but kept the same heart.

Or getting the CGI to look like pen-and-ink, as they did a few shots here and there - get the detail really minimalistic. Make it look like a pen-and-ink drawing that has actors moving in it.

Might as well make it animated then. And whats so innovative about that?

They didn't even really have to do that. There were plenty of lovely shots. They just had to do the cheap-looking material in a different way. And get some of the visual grit in there, please - I mean the comic swims in it. The movie doesn't really have it.

Well, concidering how minimalist the original art was, it sounds like your prajecting a bit here. Detail and framing wise, it was sharper and as edged as any frames from the comic.

I won't hide that I disliked the whole approach to SIN CITY - giving us straight translations, rather than bothering to adapt it for the medium of cinema, and stuffing the movie with generally poor performances and CGI, isn't really good work, IMO.

Hey, it sounds like a bad opinion, but it's yours none the less.

So? I never claimed to speak for the people. And it's not fact. It's all opinion.

Hey, I can respect that.