Why did this bomb so bad?

Don't know about some of those labels you're throwing about, but he is a right wing piece of *bleep* so statistically speaking you're probably correct.

Cause it is bloody awful.

For me it's casting. How can a movie with Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Lady Gaga be taken seriously.
I quite liked the first movie, they should of left it at that though rather then doing this unnecessary sequel.

Took too long to come out and no Clive.

A lot of the reasons being presented here are quite shallow, and obviously not the true reason. (It's definitely not because it was in B&W, for example. And no, it didn't bomb because it was "bad"- a movie's quality generally has little to do with it's grosses- plenty of wonderful films flop and plenty of terrible films prosper. Plus, it wasn't that bad.)

I think the real issue is that they waited 9 years. Because it caused a lot of problems-

1- The novelty of the first film wore off as many other movies began utilizing similar concepts in terms of style and storytelling in the ensuing years. As a result, the concept of a Sin City sequel just didn't have that special appeal anymore for many people. It's a sequel that needed to happen within 2-4 years of the first film to maintain some relevance and appeal based on the concept and style... not nearly a decade later. Even Frank Miller himself is somewhat responsible through his connection to films like the two 300 movies, The Spirit, etc. which all did similar things in terms of style.

2- Hype died down and people stopped following the progress of the film. And it could be argued that the more casual movie-going audience just didn't care (or remember) anymore. (Especially as audiences age, tastes change, new films come along that are just as unique in their own way, etc.) I remember back in 2006-2009, I was always asked by my friends about the progress of the Sin City sequel (since I'm the sort-of "movie guy" in our group, and am usually the one who goes out of his way to research films, progress, etc.), but after that, the questions died down because people stopped caring and grew tired of waiting. When the trailer for this film came out, my best friend exclaimed "Holy crap! They actually made it! I haven't even thought about this movie in like four years, because they took too long. Nobody's going to see it."

3- 9 years is an awkward amount of time for a sequel like this... especially one that hinges on tone and style. It's too long to have the same feeling of "freshness" and that "I need to see that!" factor for general audiences. (As I said, 2-4 years between movies would have been perfect for this type of sequel.) Yet it's also too soon for ideas like nostalgia to really kick-in.


However, I will also comment that I believe the film was always destined to not perform as well as the original. The first film was so fresh and unique at the time, and I never really saw a sequel having quite that same appeal the second time around.

And FURTHERMORE, this is my signature! SERIOUSLY! Did you think I was still talking about my point?

The average person who watches films is a mark and sheep. "Let's be cops" had a bigger opening weekend. People don't wan't substance, they want dick and fart jokes.

I guess nobody wanted to see it.

Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing.

People are making too many assumptions that the quality of the film had ANYTHING to do with it bombing. Remember -- it tanked opening weekend, before anyone had really seen it.

Sure, reviews weren't great, and the trailer wasn't super duper impressive...but that's hardly stopped other movies from raking in tons of cash.

So everyone that says "it tanked because it sucked", I think, is wrong. It tanked before it had even been out 3 days -- even if it had been great, and word of mouth was positive, it still probably wouldn't have recuperated.

No, the main reason it bombed is simple -- overall mainstream disinterest. It had been too long since the first, and everything about the original that made it such a hit back then...well, it's passe now. The "colour sticking out of black and white" visuals that looked so wicked in 2004? We can do that now on our freakin' phones. Everything shot on a green screen? We're sick of it. Violence and boobies? We get that on most TV shows for God sakes.

It's moment in the sun had passed about 8 years ago, sadly. 2006, this would've been a big hit. Now, everyone that was a fan of Sin City is no longer in college, jerking off every day to pictures of Jessica Alba. We all grew up, but the movie didn't.

And THAT is why it bombed.