Sin City - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

04/19/2005 09:49:20 AM · #1

Has anyone seen the filmography in Sin City? Selective desaturation to the point that the movie at times almost apeared to be animated.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

04/19/2005 10:28:26 AM · #2

I'm out of the loop these days for some reason but I heard great things.

bod

04/19/2005 10:32:11 AM · #3

I've seen a small clip - reminded me of the Max Payne computer games and looked very "cool". Is it on general release over there now?

neophyte

Nikon D810

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/19/2005 10:34:35 AM · #4

wish I could get my two hours back. I thought it was terrible. The desat was the best part.

cpurser

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/19/2005 10:54:08 AM · #5

I saw a special on it. The whole thing was filmed in the guy's garage, on a green screen set. Filming only took something like 4 weeks, and only cost around $40 mil. I may be wrong about the details, but you get the gist.

-Chad

Edit: typos

Message edited by author 2005-04-19 11:44:01.

04/19/2005 11:22:44 AM · #6

They tried to do an Oliver Stone-esque blend of traditional film/animation/special effect a la Natural Born Killers, but missed the mark in my opinion. They noted a 'Special Guest Director' - Quentin Tarantino - which I assume was not much more than QT getting a fee so they could cash in on his name. Of course...IMO QT should stick to writing and leaving directing to those who are good at it. Like Oliver Stone.

I didn't hate it, but it left me wishing they had done a lot more with it. Extreme Gore and violence doesn't guarantee it'll be a cult classic (just watch Kill Bill part I for proof of that)

P-ebert

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

04/19/2005 01:04:01 PM · #7

I went for the filmography. I wanted to seee how they did it. I thought that part of it was great. Other aspects of the movie were quite appealing as well. Some parts made little sense. It could have been better. We can't expect everthing with a QT lable on it to be another Pulp Fiction.

I liked the parts with the little Ninja girl.

As far as Kill Bill 1, I think it was much better then part 2. I thought both left much to be desired, but the fight scenes in part 1 with Go Go and O Ren were awesome.

RulerZigzag

Nikon D750

04/19/2005 01:17:55 PM · #8

Sin City is groundbreaking. I did see it, loved the middle story with Mickey Rourke. Director Robert Rodriguez is one of only a handful of current directors who shoot movies in Digital. Quentin Tarantino is trying to learn how to shoot in Digital, that is why he guest directed that scene in Sin City. He decided to visit his good friend Rodriguez on the set so he could play with his digital toys. I read all of this on IMDB, and there are only 2 other directors right now who shoot in digital, I can't beleive it especially in this day and age where Digital Photography reigns over film.

04/19/2005 01:19:04 PM · #9

Originally posted by nsbca7:

huh. I didn't like Pulp Fiction much, either :) LOVED Natural Born Killers, and it came out around the same time as PF, so maybe I went in with too high expectations or something.

you're right about the little ninja girl. she scared me. her facial expressions were what made her character. That and she could kick some serious ass.

I was the opposite on the Kill Bills. I thought the first one was trying too hard to be all Quentin Tarantino-y, while second one came closer, albeit more subtly.

I wonder how much current frame of mind has to do with our take on movies/viewing photos etc?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

04/19/2005 01:28:37 PM · #10

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

this is actually the only one ever shot in 4:4:4 RGB. Agreed the technology is groundbreaking, but the writing/directing...meh. middle of the road, but bonus points for leaning towards the quirky. [P likes quirky]

RulerZigzag

Nikon D750

04/19/2005 01:29:22 PM · #11

PEDRO: "I wonder how much current frame of mind has to do with our take on movies/viewing photos etc"?

good point. I wonder the same. There are some movies that I disliked sometimes because of a certain mood I was in or frame of mind. Then with some movies, after a second viewing, I realize my criticism of the movie or photos changes sometimes.

moodville

Nikon D100

04/19/2005 01:35:58 PM · #12

Some of the selective desat was good mostly because it was subtle. Sometimes I thought I understood why certain things had color and others did not but then the same thing in another part of the scene didnt consistently follow the coloring so it just left me feeling like it was pointless for the most part.

Overall the movie bored me so I probably didnt appreciate the effects as much as I should. Pointless and extreme violence just doesnt do it for me.

Sky Captain is another recent movie that has similar techniques and I did enjoy that one.

mrmojo

Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z2

04/19/2005 01:51:48 PM · #13

I can't see how anyone didnt like that movie. The cinematography is absolutely superb (nothing new for Rodriguez). If you have ever picked up one of Frank Millers books you would see it matches almost to a T. Alot of this has to do with the fact that Frank Miller co-directed, so that meens he was on location everyday, unlike how most producers and writers are. This is great because Miller is an exceptional storyteller and that is something Rodriguez seriously lacks.

Also Rodriguez and Terentino are very good friends and have there hands in all of each others projects (havent you ever noticed that they never both work on films at the same time). This has been going on for quite awhile ie: Desperado, Dusk till Dawn 1 and 2. One of the other reasons I heard Terentino actually shot some of it was because he has become very good in coreographing fight scenes. Rumor is he did the fight scene with Benecio Del Toro.

Also the statement about Rodriguez being the only mainstream director using digital isnt entirely true. He is the only one I know of using a Canon XL2, But Lucas shot episodes 1,2,3 all on digital, and that is why he was able to convert episode 1 to imax format (first full feature film on imax). Same things goes with whoever shot Spiderman. The main difference though is that they both used a very expensive high def digital camera and Rodriguez is still using his guirrella-style moviemaking that he learned in college (El Meriachi).

mrmojo

Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z2

04/19/2005 01:56:15 PM · #14

p.S. am I the only one at dp challenge that likes selective desat. and over saturation. To me its a way to increase the focal point, and I get tons of negative comments on it when I do it (ie: abandonend buildings challenge that goes up tonight 19 comments on it)

Also the selective desaturation is seen in frank Millers books, and every spot of color had a purpose. Read his books or watch the film again, you'll see it if you pay attention to it

04/19/2005 03:40:26 PM · #15

Originally posted by mrmojo:

Also the statement about Rodriguez being the only mainstream director using digital isnt entirely true. He is the only one I know of using a Canon XL2, But Lucas shot episodes 1,2,3 all on digital, and that is why he was able to convert episode 1 to imax format (first full feature film on imax). Same things goes with whoever shot Spiderman. The main difference though is that they both used a very expensive high def digital camera and Rodriguez is still using his guirrella-style moviemaking that he learned in college (El Meriachi).

Lucas hasn't produced anything in dual link (4:4:4 RGB) yet. Episode II was shot in 4:2:2. Apparently Episode III uses 4:4:4.

I heard that Lucas would have spent $700,000 on raw film cost alone for Episode II; instead he spent $15,000 on Hard Drives. Sounds a little like us digital camera geeks, don't it? :)

04/19/2005 03:43:59 PM · #16

Well, I'm definatly going to watch it again when it comes out on DVD. There was some pretty cool stuff that I would like to see over.

04/19/2005 04:06:09 PM · #17

Any idea why they chose Bruce Willis to play a senior citizen? He not a very convincing actor under the best circumstances, but seemed a real stretch here. Ironically one of the few movies I liked him in was Pulp Fiction :)

"who's motorcycle is this?"
"It's a chopper baby."

"who's chopper is this?"
"Zed's."

"Who's Zed?"
"Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead."

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/19/2005 04:32:33 PM · #18

Originally posted by Pedro:

At the beginning when he said he was almost 60 I saw that as believable, but after an 8 year stint in the local prison he would have been closer to 70. That part I found a stretch.

How old is Bruce Willis? He has to be in his mid 50s.

I also liked Willis in Last Man Standing and there was another movie where they threw him of the back of a tug boat with concrete on his feet that I thought he was good in. I can't remember the name of that one. Oh, and Fifth Element was great.

nico_blue

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/19/2005 05:04:03 PM · #19

I really want to see this movie!

RulerZigzag

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

04/19/2005 05:05:19 PM · #20

Originally posted by mrmojo:

I stated above that Rodriguez is one of only a handful of directors that shoot in digital, not that he was the only one. Micheal Mann is another, and George Lucas never used film.

totaldis

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/19/2005 05:07:10 PM · #21

it's good, go see it.

also

vote for pedro

04/19/2005 05:51:51 PM · #22

Pedro offers you his protection.

Alecia

Canon EOS-10D

04/19/2005 07:01:45 PM · #23

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

...and George Lucas never used film.

actually, although lucas was a massive innovator and set the bar in the world of visual effects and digital imagery in film, he didn't truly start shooting digital until 'star wars episode II', which is actually the first full-length film to be shot entirely in digital, using a professional level camera--a 24 fps (film standard), panavision modified sony hdw-f900. episode I only has a couple of scenes shot with digital, although it was the first film to be recorded in dolby digital surround sound.

as far as other directors shooting digital--don't forget spike lee, who, 2 years before lucas shot episode II, shook up the industry by shooting the majority of 'bamboozled' with not only digital, but a small prosumer level mini-dv--the sony vx-1000. his vision was interesting because he then chose to film the television scenes (commercials, etc.) on super 16, to give it the exact opposite effect of how we normally expect to see television imagery in movies. the combination of these factors made a unique presentation when finally blown up on 35mm.

another great one is lars von trier's "dancer in the dark." the non-musical parts of that movie were shot handheld by lars himself--not unlike like steven soderbergh in "full-frontal." this film is also shot hand-held by the director on a prosumer mini-dv, the canon xl1.

interesting stuff. i have yet to see sin city, but i am excited about the cinematography...and i'm also stoked that mickey rourke is making a comeback. :)

Message edited by author 2005-04-19 19:07:12.