Originally Posted by OG-
I absolutely hate it when people discredit art because they think it was created with the simple intention of shock. Why can't horror be art? Just because it isn't hanging behind bulletproof glass in a musem doesn't mean that it isn't "art on the artsy scale". Also, calling Sin City art isn't taking part of the cop-out arguement that "everything is art". I see more artistic talent on display in any frame of Sin City than I do in countless works of art that you'd lump into "art on the artsy scale" hanging on the wall of the Hirschhorn.
Just to let this be clear, the people who worked on Sin City's art style are amazing creators, and the vision was brilliant. I am not faulting them in any way or shape, nor Miller's decision to use it in his graphic novel.
That being said, there is nothing behind sin city but death. Not telling of an event that happened that contained death, but creating a new story about death.
No, I do not find existentialist death is inevitable trite, artsy. I have have and never will, just as you will never consider any picture hanging ont he Hirsclhorn art compared to Sin City. It is just my taste, and forgive me if I don't follow the norm if I don't like how death is portrayed.
Sin City is not real art. It doesn't fit my taste, and I acknowledge the existence of existentialism and portraits of death and ghastly imagery, but I don't like it nor find pleasure or value in it besides it's shock value.
That is my opinion the subject, so there is no way you can stand on a leg by forcing me to acknowledge Sin City's plunderifous abundance of art that makes Leonardo Da Vinci cry. I simply do not care and do not find any point in it all. I've already accepted death is inevitable, and it's oftentimes not a pleasant experience, and I've also come to grips with "I hate everything" attitude I held for most of my early teenage years.
To some, Sin City may be art, but in my humble opinion, it is shock trash. Some might be able to draw their entire lives from Sin City, but I think it is shock trash with no entertainment value.
If that doesn't fit into your 411 then you can either deal with it or drop the subject.
Originally Posted by OG-
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It takes just as much artistry to paint a dead body as it does to paint a portrait of Jesus. Just because it was done on celluloid and not a canvas, don't toss it out as pure schlock.
Sin City is on the same level as
The Triumph of Death, the medium is just different.
The work behind it requires as much talent, the story behind it is what matters. I'm not an art snob, I hate art snobs, and I especially hate the F'tard security at art galleries who won't let you come within 2 miles of an abstract of pig innards. I just find that some artists manage to convey an emotion or event with such precise attention to the subject that it hits you.
I'm not denying the value of death works, especially abstract death works, that oftentimes try to parrallel dieing with hideousness. But, as I've said before, that isn't my cup of tea, the points that they try to get across I've already grown from, and therefore, usually, the lump of them are shock trash to me.
And several famous painters have just made pretty pictures, I'm not an art snob either way. In fact, I have a woeful lack of knowledge on the subject.
As far as Christ is concerned I'm not asserting that every picture of Christ is art as opposed to pretty pictures. I imagine several paintings of Him were merely to start a young artist off on a lucrative career. Like I said, i'm not an art snob.
While we are on this, however, is that the main difference behind Passion and Sin City was that one actually happened, as did Glory, Hotel Ruwanda, and a large number of other historical events. These have violence that show what violence was there, and it is not fiction as Sin City.
I guess that's why I hate Sin City, because it was so out of touch with reality, the scenes of violence were so preposterous they disturbed me, and I'm no Roger Ebert sellout asshead, if I get disturbed by something that has no value to me in the context of myself or in the context of history or some major point, then I find it worthless, possibly amusing, but generally worthless. Evil Dead films that everyone loves I suppose would fit that description. But Sin City had no entertianment value whatsoever to me, so I find it worthless.
Originally Posted by OG-
Maybe we just grew up reading different biology text books or my body is an anatomical anamoly, but there is so much in Sin City that I never for a second considered could happen in reality...
And as for the most violence in movie history? Please. You give it far too much credit. Give it a full color pallete and switch it from digital to video and the violence on display wouldn't hold a candle to The Passion of the Christ, which isn't even playing on the same level as Ichi The Killer.
.
Lets not go into biology professors, that profession is one in which I would like to murder all members of. I've taken 5 semesters of it in high school, 2 regular, 1 online, and 2 christian. I think I passed 4 of the semesters, and I only required 2 semesters of it.
Also, I believe physics would be a more important judge in determining what is possible with the human being.
That is all besides the point, however, and it was exactly that unrealistic violence that got to me, why must it be there.
Oh yea, and like I said, some violence is good, the crucification and torture were realistic because they had to be, they made you sympathesize and it hit your emotions. I did NOT get the same feeling when Bruce Willis ripped out Yellow Bastard's testicles, I just felt sick.
So, violence is determined upon context every time, and I found the violence in Passion not only neccessary, but applaudable to tell a historical event to us without shackles (Schindler's list as well). But something hyperbolic and disgusting the extreme is not acceptable by my standards unless it has a point, and I don't find anything in Sin City worthy of being deemed applicable to me.
Originally Posted by OG-
Let's not exageratte here. Sin City is violent, but it isn't the most violent movie ever and no matter what you change the color pallete too, it will still be cartoonish and unrealistic. The things people do to each other in that movie just aren't feasible in the real world, with real people.
See The Passion, which I'm sure you have, or Ichi for an example of what it really looks like to see someone mutilated realistically.
I'd really recommend a thorough examination of Pieter Bruegel's
The Triumph of Death, the parallels between the two works are huge. Death is everywhere, death is not subtle and death is not consolatory. It doesn't hold your hand and it will find you. Bruegel painted it over 400 years ago, Rodriguez and Miller just retold it.
Over the top violence doesn't bother you, well it does to me, and the fact that Sin City has nothing worthy of value to me as growth only shows how pointless the violence is.
I've never seen Ichi the Killer, but if it is another tale of existentialist over the top death, then I would probably hate it.
The Triumph of Death I have heard about, I used to be in the existentalist death scene in Las Vegas, which is an underground community for such, I found these to be disturbing images, and I stopped fooling myself that such could be good for me.
Now, here is the counter point. Maybe, quite possibly, Sin City's tale of death told you something that you never drew or though about before. Maybe the art style jumped in your head as original and bold and styling. Maybe the pieces that fell together filled your soul with exactly what you needed to further your existence on earth.
Please understand, an opinion contrary to mine is completely acceptable. I got some grief for what I thought would be obvious jokes about the horrible batmobile and **** tastic Jessica Alba. That was really more of a joke than anything, but keep in mind I do respect your points, I just don't apreciate something telling me how much art is in something I found to be utterly worthless.
But then again that is my opinion, now, if you had read my summary, I believe it clearly defined what I thought, I will repost it here:
My summary:
An overrated movie is one in which I may enjoy or not like, but consider given undue credit by the movie community. I would also like to point out that this is my personal opinion on the movies in question, and it does not represent fact. Merely an alternate viewpoint on something that is celebrated.
The original intent of this was to post what type of movies I was in to, what I looked for and didn't look for in movies, and I had hoped to give the community a personal opinion on which to judge my movie qualities by. I hope for impeccable, but I will settle for tasteless, anything to let my point across to people so they can understand a member's choices.
I believe that having an overrated list is more important than having a bad movie list, because bad movies, are almost always, incredibly bad. However, overrated movies contain qualities that people like and people hate, so if I were to post my view of overrated movies, you would understand better what I liked, and didn't like, in a light in which movies are always considered good.
Because, like I said, bad movies, are almost always, 100%, bad.
So no, Sin City is not art, by my standards. And you are not going to push the existentialist drove down my throat. But you can accept that is art, and grow from it and let me wallow in my ignorance if that is what you believe.
That's the thing about it, my overrated list tells what I like and do NOT like.
So, now that we have it clear about my tastes, we have hit a point known as the middle zone, where, if two people cannot be persuaded to change their paths, they must accept and move on. If you are offended by my comments about Sin City, just remember I was offended by your comments as well. It is an entirely offensive ordeal, much like the Boise St. Broncos.
You can post what you think, but I know what you think, you think that art is not limited to snobby tomfoolery such as Leonardo Da Vinci. That death itself is in fact art, and damned be the people who deny it's credit. (not egging you on, keep in mind)
Also, Sin City, to you, was something that you opened up from, and really enjoyed, either for the entertainment or ulterior point.
I completely 100% disagree.
But that's my taste, and hopefully it won't be a rotten fig newton when I die.
Reply to Topic
