Talk:Sin City (film)
Information Overload
I removed some information, only to have it returned so I come to this page to explain the removal of 1) the long list of actors appearing in the film and 2) the list of taglines for the film.
First, the list of actors is too extensive and exceeds that of other filmic pages. It isn't necessary or particularly informative to include every single actor involved in the production. I included the main characters as listed on the Sin City website.
Secondly, the listing of taglines for specific characters is completely obtuse and a significant waste of page. If someone can find the "Sin City" poster that lists the main tagline regarding the back alleys of Sin City, that would seem to be a good place to put it. --TheGrza 18:12, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
- It does not exceed that of other film articles, and it is perfectly acceptable considering it's an all-star cast. Xezbeth 14:22, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. User:TheGrza seems to be deleting valid content from the article. --Viriditas | Talk 00:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you can look to other articles on film, especially where it's an all-star cast, something like Ocean's 11, where the cast is explained in someway as the story or characters are explained, instead of simply listing off most of the cast. I think we should include the entire cast and crew, the craft-service people, the whole she-bang, whatever, but it doesn't make sense for the articles and it is a gigantic waste of space. If you know the backstories of these characters, or know the story itself and where these characters fit it, I would think that would be perfectly acceptable for this article. The list, however, is not. --TheGrza 21:51, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Waste of space? The article as it stands is tiny, removing any information that people are interested in is ridiculous. Xezbeth 21:52, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Knock it off. If you are going to include all the characters, use a paragraph and explain them. Is this some sort of Elijah Woods fetish or something?--TheGrza 21:56, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- No, this is making the article consistent with other film articles. Now stop trolling. Xezbeth 22:00, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
As I suggest to you earlier, your version of the article is NOT consistent with other articles, because it lists an obscene amount of characters. It also provides no information about those characters other then their names. If you find it so difficult to write out the information regarding the characters and the film whose page you are editing, please refrain from doing so solely to satify your ego and create an edit war. I do not have access to the information regarding these characters and the storyline of the picture, so I cannot include the information myself. Perhaps someone who is informed about these characters, instead of you and I, should write a section explaining them and then all will be well. As for you, please stop with this nonsense and quit reverting articles that don't need it. When the discussion is completed on this page or another page, then the edits should be made. --TheGrza 22:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- It is a cast list. People ideally use cast lists to see what notable actors are in a film, and who plays who. What exactly is the point of removing half of them for no reason other than you thinking that it's "excessive". I'm not going to break the 3RR, but I'm sure someone else will re-add it in time. Xezbeth 22:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
If I wanted to, I could write a cast list in paragraph form that explains every single character and their role in the story, as I have read the comics, but I have no intention of doing so for now, as there are more then enough spoilers in the normal promotional material for the movie (certain character's professions, and Stahl being listed as Junior/Yellow Bastard). As the movie is coming out in a short time, there is no reason why we shouldn't have a larger cast list for now, which can be trimmed down after the movie is released if necessary. Also, where on earth did you hear that The Big Fat Kill is not part of this movie? Aziraphale Jasra 00:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Viriditas for entering a conversation two weeks late because of a disagreement we're having now.--TheGrza 03:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
HiDef
It says Sin City was shot using HiDef cameras, but does anyone know which camera type was used? Sony 24p, Panasonic, what? I would really like to know. As well, should we consider ading a section for the camera? I hear George Lucas uses the Sony 24p, it might make a good addition to The Wikipedia.
Anyone have any experience with this camera? My HD experience rests entirely on HDV, which I would imagine is nowhere near the same...
Infobox Problem
When I hit "edit," there's a "Music" credit listed which I just corrected. But when I view the article the information isn't there. Why not? --Feitclub 18:30, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- See Template talk:Infobox Movie#Music/Score. Cburnett 18:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Guest Director Tarantino
I'd like to have more information regarding the section of the film that was Guest Directed by Quentin Tarantino --Toric 03:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Who's stopping you from adding stuff? ;) -- Switcher
Film noir
Why did User:TheGrza remove this category? I have added it back in. --Viriditas | Talk 00:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Added back in. TheGrza's literal interpretation of what is or is not considered a film noir is not supported. "Film noir is not only a thing of the past but an enduring cinematic phenomenon."[1][2] --Viriditas | Talk 03:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please see page List of films noir and note the difference between Neo-Noir and Film Noir. Also, note under which heading Sin City falls. If the category was Neo-Noir, I wouldn't have changed it.--TheGrza 03:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- The only difference that I recognize is that Sin City was not made during the classic period. What other differences are there? The hypercritical distinction between neo-noir and film noir in this case is marked only by the date of release. However, film noir is not only a period or a movement, but a style and genre. This argument is far from over. --Viriditas | Talk 04:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)