Sin City 2 getting delayed....
 

Well, that sucks.:ohwell:

That's interesting, could you provide a direct link to that source?

Aww I wonder who Jolie will play. I don't know the stories so I have no idea who the characters are. This is downer news, but atleast their making a sequel.

You know, Sin City is a movie that doesn't need a sequel. Sure, I'll go and see it when they do it, but I don't think it's necessary. It sort of takes the "unique"-thing off the first part. What a shame...

You know, you're like the atom bomb. Everybodie's laughing, having a good time, then you show up and BOOM! Everything's dead.

I do my best. Maybe I should do TMB a favour and go to Japan, my great grandparents had some fun in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you know. Maybe I can go and have fun in Tokyo this time.

So what am I supposed to say? "Everyone thinks it's a good idea, so I think it's a good idea as well, despite the fact that I didn't like it a second ago"?

Hmm... You know, this is not as much of a killjoy post as it may seem. I can see the logic in it.

And hey, you wouldn't call yourself Anarky if you didn't post anything that would cause a little shake up with us and make us look at things a different way. And I mean that as a compliment. :D

Don't take it personally there, General. I saw an opportunity to fit in an ATHF quote and couldn't pass it down.

Amen to that

I've seen parts of Sin City, and even from what I have seen, it doesn't need a seqal. Here that Hollywood? It doesn't need a seqal. Why Hollywood has suddenly decided that every movie nowdays needs a remake or a seqal, I will never know :roll:

Thanks a bunch, cqb! :)

Anarky... what's wrong with that sequel being made? That movie is supposed to cover further volumes of Frank Miller's comic. I bet it was planned even before part one was produced, it's not that "Hey, Sin City was a blockbuster, let's do the sequel to earn even more cash"-attitude.

Maybe, but you see, the movie has such a unique feeling to it and the story was told, so a new movie can only spoil the "unique"-thing and tell us a different story, which would be entirely fine, if the characters from the first movie weren't that "lovable". I mean, who didn't like Marv? Or the Nazi-hookers?

Besides, seeing them again would be sort of like drinking cold coffee. It basically is the same drink, but there's a huge difference in taste.

Rodrigues has said from the get-go that he wanted to keep making Sin City movies until all (or most) of the stories had been adapted.

I don't think the uniqueness of the first film has anything to do with this. The only reason for the black and white with the sparse coloring was to mkae a faithful adaptation of the comic. It wasn't to be "groundbreaking", "revolutionary" , or "unique." It was to make a faithful adaptation of the comics.

Saying this movie doesn't need a sequel is like saying X-men didn't need a sequel. Or SPider-Man didn't need a sequel.

My thoughts exactly! You totally hit the nail on the head there. I'm glad they're making a sequel. I've read a couple of the Sin City graphic novel's and they're awesome. Dwight is totally bad ass.

I think of all movies, Sin City needs sequels the most. All of the stories in Sin City interconnect in some way, and they are kind of even one large story, but different parts are told with different characters. Rodriguez wanted to tell the whole story, and it was just too much information for one movie.