Talk:Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

message: Country: United States and Ukraine. Is this true?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.218.96.244 (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ukraine?

message: Once the film is actually released, a lot of the page is going to be deleted in order to more closely resemble the previous film's page. All of this gossip is getting the ax come next year. -- Nqnpipnr
:I recommend moving it to an archive, instead, so as to preserve the information compiled esp. as regards preproduction development rumors versus realized production. ThuranX 16:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair Warning to Everyone

message: There's some buzz floating around that it might not be realeased until 2007 .  If you consider that Rodriguez is working on Grindhouse right now, will he be able to finish SC2 in time for an '06 release?  And not to mention all this hooplah about Angelina Jolie playing Ava and being pregnent.  ONEder Boy 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007?

message: The BBC website seems to have removed the September release date for Sin City 2. I went through all the months and it does not seem to be there at all. This seems to mean we have no release date reported for this movie anywhere, unless I'm missing something obvious. --DreamsReign 01:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release 

message: *
*
:Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for use 

message: There are no sources for genre, I had them removed. I don't think they should be applied for films that haven't been released yet. I don't necessarily disagree with them, but I do think they need to be cited before the film comes out, or at least kept simple and minimal. Currently there a descriptor of three genres in the lead, which needs to be simplified. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a few days with no discussion so I will remove the information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: Possibly being retitled to "Sin City: A Dame to Die For"
Sources:
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a529392/sin-city-sequel-retitled-a-dame-to-die-for.html
http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3263474/afm-13-market-artwork-for-sin-city-a-dame-to-kill-for/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.17.75 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sin City: A Dame to DIE For? 

message: The title was changed to 'Frank Miller's Sin City: A Dame to Kill for" - request to change the wiki article title? Source: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/02/25/sin-city-sequel-is-now-officially-frank-millers-sin-city-a-dame-to-kill-for Morganglick (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change 

message: Is there a reason why her name should not be listed in these places? She is the title character of the film, after all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:81A1:EB00:1452:5195:6875:6CD5 (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eva Green's Name Removed from "Newcomers to the series" list and the "Starring" List on the right side panel. 

message: the original title of this movie is "Frank Miller's Sin City: A Dame to Kill for"
Djwarid (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2014 

message: As this film contains multiple narratives (like the previous film), this should be described as an anthology film in the opening paragraph.
PatTheMoron (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film's genre 

message: The lead section states "The film opened to mixed critical reviews and debuted at #8 at the box office, making it a bomb". Does this make it a bomb?  I see it hasn't performed well in the States and has just opened in the UK (I saw it last night - can I get my money back...). As it's only been out a short time, is it too soon to call it a bomb? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wait a while. It's only been out for a short time. If it closes its run without breaking even then we can reconsider. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saw this in the press earlier, and it caught my attention, so I've got a few links for you.  Variety explicitly called it a bomb and misfire.  The Hollywood Reporter also called it a bomb.  And the Los Angeles Times also said that it "utterly bombed".  All that said, I think maybe it's a bit early.  Reliable sources seem a bit quick to jump the gun, but there's a definitely consensus that it's a bomb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with all that its too early to tell. However, saying that the film severely underperformed in its debut is totally justified though. Sock (tock talk) 02:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks everyone. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm a bit late to this but I hate the blop/bomb terminology even when it is entirely applicable. We should be focusing on facts rather than hyperbole. If something tanked and lost a lot of money, then it shouldn't be too difficult to pin down the projected loss and just report that. Betty Logan (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box office bomb? 

message: I've seen a bit of debate over this in the article history, so this seems like a good place to start a discussion. I think the term "sequel" to describe this film is entirely inaccurate, as it takes place before, during, and after. I would suggest that we echo the wording found at 300: Rise of an Empire and just refer to the film as a "follow-up" to Sin City. Thoughts? Sock (tock talk) 16:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  That makes sense.  Dream Focus 01:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah I also agree, that does make more sense. STATic message me! 18:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've made the change for now, noting that disagreements should be raised here. Thanks! Sock (tock talk) 19:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sequel" etc. 

message: Anyone have an idea on how to deal with this IP that is trying to add a review to promote his website? Koala15 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try reporting it for edit warring and/or requesting that the page be protected. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Yeah i did. Thanks. Koala15 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If they come back, then discuss the notability of said review here. I guess they're promoting their blog, or something similar. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non notable review 

message: "The movie received mixed reviews, with critics praising the acting, visuals and writing, but it lacks of updates and was a box office flop..."
"Lacks of updates"? I'd fix that if I knew what it meant. – AndyFielding (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd typo