thee great one
Master of TOG-fu.
Dr.Strangefate said:
I never even noticed a fedco.
V for Vendetta movie discussion
- Thread starter compound
- Start date
I never even noticed a fedco.
Dr.Strangefate
He Sees You When You're Sleeping. He Knows When Yo
thee great one said:
They changed it to FDC or something
thee great one
Master of TOG-fu.
Dr.Strangefate said:
I thought it was something generic like the channel was. I thought it fit.
iceman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,030
ok. so i haven't read every comment, but it seems the general review of the movie was good. so, i suppose it's time for me to make some enemies.
V for Vendetta is a good action movie. The acting is good, the cinematography is decent, and the general direction is good, as well.
However, I would not put any more weight in the film than that. The movie tried to be as deep as the book, but in the end, most of the things they added took away from the story by being exactly the opposite of what occured in the book. First, the cosmetic: (SPOILER ALERT)
- V's charred skin. Why wear a full body costume if we are going to see that you are burnt all over. In the book, it is made sure that we have no idea who V is. In the movie, we still don't. But we do know who V is not. Gordon, Evey's father, any one previously seen in the movie. Now, everyone assumes that V is not these people in the book, but the point is that V really could be those people, but we would not know.
- Evey's character. Don't get me wrong, good acting from Portman. But she was directed to act the wrong way. Evey, in the novel, is not a strong person. She, more or less, follows V relatively blindley after he saves her. Mainly because she is a child. And Evey is not SCARED in the movie. Ever. I thought that was the main feature of Evey in the book. This is a girl who grows from a scared little girl to someone conquering fear and becoming V. In the movie she is a strong woman who survives these things, but in being inherently strong, her actions have less meaning. Also, she does not become as much as she is in the book by being V.
- Sutler (Susan). Way too Hitler-like. In the book, he was a multi-dimensional, if still evil, figure. In the book he is just a face, one that is wayyyy too close to Hitler.
- Finch. It's good they understood how important Finch was. I even kind of liked that he was the one to be the next V-candidate. However, one crucial part of his character was missing. In the book, he acknowledges what his government did, and for the most part accepts it as being necessary. None of these secrecy malarky -- Finch is the head of the Nose, he knows what happened, and he thought it was needed. Even when he learns to understand V, he still kills him. In the movie, he simply let's V succeed. Something tells me in the book he would not have done so so easily.
- V's head looked too big. And they didn't establish him as having near super-human speed and strength. At times he seemed a little too cheery, though I suppose that was simply how I was reading him in the book.
- "America's War" references to the Middle East were kinda silly.
These were all small. Trivial sins. I can still forgive, and accept the movie as a good (maybe great) movie, if watered down from the book. The following were mortal sins, and probably the reason Moore wouldn't put his name on the film:
- In the movie, V is a hero. And he is quite human. He loves Evey! He thinks about quitting his mission! If the book V saw this, he'd spin in his Viking grave. In the book, V is utterly merciless, and at times he seems quite mad. There are moments when Evey, and the reader, think (for the right reasons) that V does not truly believe in all his political mumbo-jumbo, that it is just a facade for him to get revenge. In the book, he ****s with Evey more than once, not just with the concentration camp. He is not a good guy.
This basically kills the best thing about the book. The moral ambiguity. In the book, V fights for anarchy! The brutal riots in the streets is his dream accomplished! From this, he does not know if peace will rise up, but he is happy that they have the chance. But seeing the riots, we don't know if he is right. People are dead. Probably innocent people.
What adds to this is the fact that while V is too good, the government is wayyyy too bad. Was it not enough that they put minorities and gays into death camps? They also had to fabricate the disaster against the country! Again, lack of moral ambiguity. In a real world situation, if the world was wiped out, many of your countrymen die, and there is general havoc, a conservative (Norsefire) party would probably come into power to gain control. Thats what made Norsefire, or at least people in Norsefire like Finch, relatively sympathetic. The concentration camps were awful, but those were some of the higher ups idea, and England probably would not have prevailed without them. At least in their heads. Through having the party fabricate the whole thing, they are easily far more wretched than V, no matter how many men V kills. V kills for freedom. Relatively admirable. Book Norsefire kills for order. Not quite admirable, but kind of understandable. Movie Norsefire kills their own people for power, and the oppurtunity to kill minorties. Worse than the Nazis.
The end result is V watered down. The book was a thought producer. This is thoroughly digested.
- The peaceful ending. HOW DIFFERENT FROM ANARCHIST RIOTS CAN YOU GET?! It's as if the Wachowski bro's were like -
"Eh! Mario! Whysa there gotta be riots! V'sa gooda guy!"
"Yousa right, Luigi! Let's maka the ending perfectly peaceful and hopeful!"
"Okie-dokie!"
(Excuse me for thinking of the Mario Bros whenever I hear those guys name)
Any understanding of the book would have led to these 2 facts not happening. And if you're going to make a movie of a reveled, deep book, don't get the points it makes wrong.
So. If you want to look at V as a disposable action movie, go ahead. It works. It's good, great even! 8.5/10!
If you want to look at V as something thought provoking, something that will still be spoken about in 20 years, something that will stand the test of time for a long long time, something that requires more than one reading to understand, not just politely asks for one for entertainment, something that is literary ART, then stick to the book.
now, i'd feel i would not be doing a service to the movie if i didn't commend the change in gordon's character. so that was good. yakety sax was great.
V for Vendetta is a good action movie. The acting is good, the cinematography is decent, and the general direction is good, as well.
However, I would not put any more weight in the film than that. The movie tried to be as deep as the book, but in the end, most of the things they added took away from the story by being exactly the opposite of what occured in the book. First, the cosmetic: (SPOILER ALERT)
- V's charred skin. Why wear a full body costume if we are going to see that you are burnt all over. In the book, it is made sure that we have no idea who V is. In the movie, we still don't. But we do know who V is not. Gordon, Evey's father, any one previously seen in the movie. Now, everyone assumes that V is not these people in the book, but the point is that V really could be those people, but we would not know.
- Evey's character. Don't get me wrong, good acting from Portman. But she was directed to act the wrong way. Evey, in the novel, is not a strong person. She, more or less, follows V relatively blindley after he saves her. Mainly because she is a child. And Evey is not SCARED in the movie. Ever. I thought that was the main feature of Evey in the book. This is a girl who grows from a scared little girl to someone conquering fear and becoming V. In the movie she is a strong woman who survives these things, but in being inherently strong, her actions have less meaning. Also, she does not become as much as she is in the book by being V.
- Sutler (Susan). Way too Hitler-like. In the book, he was a multi-dimensional, if still evil, figure. In the book he is just a face, one that is wayyyy too close to Hitler.
- Finch. It's good they understood how important Finch was. I even kind of liked that he was the one to be the next V-candidate. However, one crucial part of his character was missing. In the book, he acknowledges what his government did, and for the most part accepts it as being necessary. None of these secrecy malarky -- Finch is the head of the Nose, he knows what happened, and he thought it was needed. Even when he learns to understand V, he still kills him. In the movie, he simply let's V succeed. Something tells me in the book he would not have done so so easily.
- V's head looked too big. And they didn't establish him as having near super-human speed and strength. At times he seemed a little too cheery, though I suppose that was simply how I was reading him in the book.
- "America's War" references to the Middle East were kinda silly.
These were all small. Trivial sins. I can still forgive, and accept the movie as a good (maybe great) movie, if watered down from the book. The following were mortal sins, and probably the reason Moore wouldn't put his name on the film:
- In the movie, V is a hero. And he is quite human. He loves Evey! He thinks about quitting his mission! If the book V saw this, he'd spin in his Viking grave. In the book, V is utterly merciless, and at times he seems quite mad. There are moments when Evey, and the reader, think (for the right reasons) that V does not truly believe in all his political mumbo-jumbo, that it is just a facade for him to get revenge. In the book, he ****s with Evey more than once, not just with the concentration camp. He is not a good guy.
This basically kills the best thing about the book. The moral ambiguity. In the book, V fights for anarchy! The brutal riots in the streets is his dream accomplished! From this, he does not know if peace will rise up, but he is happy that they have the chance. But seeing the riots, we don't know if he is right. People are dead. Probably innocent people.
What adds to this is the fact that while V is too good, the government is wayyyy too bad. Was it not enough that they put minorities and gays into death camps? They also had to fabricate the disaster against the country! Again, lack of moral ambiguity. In a real world situation, if the world was wiped out, many of your countrymen die, and there is general havoc, a conservative (Norsefire) party would probably come into power to gain control. Thats what made Norsefire, or at least people in Norsefire like Finch, relatively sympathetic. The concentration camps were awful, but those were some of the higher ups idea, and England probably would not have prevailed without them. At least in their heads. Through having the party fabricate the whole thing, they are easily far more wretched than V, no matter how many men V kills. V kills for freedom. Relatively admirable. Book Norsefire kills for order. Not quite admirable, but kind of understandable. Movie Norsefire kills their own people for power, and the oppurtunity to kill minorties. Worse than the Nazis.
The end result is V watered down. The book was a thought producer. This is thoroughly digested.
- The peaceful ending. HOW DIFFERENT FROM ANARCHIST RIOTS CAN YOU GET?! It's as if the Wachowski bro's were like -
"Eh! Mario! Whysa there gotta be riots! V'sa gooda guy!"
"Yousa right, Luigi! Let's maka the ending perfectly peaceful and hopeful!"
"Okie-dokie!"
(Excuse me for thinking of the Mario Bros whenever I hear those guys name)
Any understanding of the book would have led to these 2 facts not happening. And if you're going to make a movie of a reveled, deep book, don't get the points it makes wrong.
So. If you want to look at V as a disposable action movie, go ahead. It works. It's good, great even! 8.5/10!
If you want to look at V as something thought provoking, something that will still be spoken about in 20 years, something that will stand the test of time for a long long time, something that requires more than one reading to understand, not just politely asks for one for entertainment, something that is literary ART, then stick to the book.
now, i'd feel i would not be doing a service to the movie if i didn't commend the change in gordon's character. so that was good. yakety sax was great.
The movie keeps the spirit of defiance of the comic. And stand on its own as a fairly good and thought provoking movie. The reaction of most of those who never read the comic is conclusive in that regard.
I think the writer of IGN who said that you should see this as a movie inspired by the comics is correct.
Remember that the comic was in response to Thatcher's brand of conservatism while the movie was created in the context of Bush's conservatism. In that perspective it is normal that certain changes occurred.
Hum, we could never assume Gordon was V, comics or movie. See, Gordon gets killed in the comics and taken away Guantanamo style in the movie... can't be V, now can he?
V of the movie could be Evey's father or anybody who disappeared in the early years of the internment camps, just like V of the comics. The burned body of 'movie V' occurs during his escape. If anything, Movie V could be black or Muslim which is unlikely of comic V because we see the back of his head in a scene and he seems white.
True, there is a change in Evey. She is more educated and stronger than comic Evey... But I don't get how interpret her as inherently strong. "I wish I wasn't afraid all the time. But I am." She is the every(wo)man. She isn't strong or brilliant. But she's not weak and ignorant. She's just an ordinary person who isn't blind to the problems of the world but doesn't have the courage to act on it. But V motivates her to go beyond herself and act along with the rest of the population. In the movie, she is the individual metaphor for the whole nation.
The comics showed that an idea can transform a person and then that a person can perhaps transform a nation but that was left in doubt.
The movie doesn't have 6 hours to tell a tale, and given the current political context, they decided to focus on the later part of the equation (and with a more definitive conclusion). Defendable choice.
Understandable choice. The movie would have needed an additional half an hour to flesh out the dictator. As is, for all we know, Susan is very complex character in private but we only see his public persona. Hitler and Stalin were exactly like that, by the way. There wasn't a lot of nuance to their public persona but they were hardly straightforward monster when they stepped of the tribune.
Susan has virtually no public presence in the book. The reader sees a lot of him, but he is withdrawn behind Fate as far as most of the public is concerned.
Without a lot more time to the movie, that option wasn't very practical.
It is far from clear the "comic Finch" accept Norsefire as necessary. He isn't a party member and obviously not a big supporter of Norsefire.
He's just doing his job because he is good at it. Because what else is he going to do? Not once in the comics does he feel it is imperative that V be stopped until V kills Delia (who was Finch's on and off lover). And then he reads her journal and then the doubt return.
But he continues the hunt. Because he is a hunter and the hunt defines him and he can't stop no more than V can.
There's a bit of that in Movie Finch too, though it's not as strong. But at the heart of the character is that the hunter of V should be sympathetic to the reader. Comic Finch is sympathetic because we can see who is over the series. In the movie, with the amount of screen time he had, it wouldn't have been as readily apparent that Finch is a good guy doing a bad job if he just doggedly followed order. So I can see why they wrote him like that for the movie.
Are you kidding? You think they didn't establish V as being superhuman in speed and strength?
I just... I can't really answer to that. Did you really see the movie?! What about V's last fight? He looked human to you?!?
If anything it is clearer in the movie than in the comics that what happened at Larkhill made V superhuman.
And yes, I think you read him too serious in the book. He has to be very expressive during several speeches. For example, did you read him as talking in a serious and grim tone while he is monologuing to the statue of Justice just before blowing the old Bailey in the comic?
V has a severe mischievous streak to him as several of his replies show.
In the comics, for all of V's ruthlessness, his wounded humanity shines through in several moments. Such as when he is alone in a theatre watching Valerie Page's movie and cries (presumably). Or when he saves the poor guy that the police officers were forcing to walk around the building on the ledge. Or that fact that the one cop who crossed his path that he didn't kill was the guy who opened the door and saluted him as a show of support while he was fleeing a theatre. Or the fact that he was fleeing the police in the first place because he had stolen some more artefacts for his Valerie Shrine, an act absolutely irrelevant to his Vendetta.
You don't have this in the movie. You have no time for this. You need a more direct approach to show the humanity of the character and contrast it with the extremism of his methods. It is true that some ambiguity is lost in the process but it had to be done.
As the IGN article said, a movie focusing on an inexpressive psychopath revolutionary would have been a hard sell. Especially since V isn't a monster in comic. If you think he was, I dare say you are wrong.
If V of the movie hadn't showed this humanity by doing these things you deplore, he would have come off as a pure psychopath focused solely on his Vendetta. He isn't in the comic.
Hmmm, the Government in the movie isn't much worse than in the comics really. The Dictator seems more bossy, but that's about it.
The only thing added is that the movie government created an epidemics to assist in taking power. Did you know the Nazis burned the Reichstag and blamed the communists early in their rise to powers? Worked like a charm.
As far as we know, the comic Norsefire didn't. But really, that's exactly the kind of things fascist governments have done throughout the 20th century and I can easily imagine comic Norsefire having done it.
That Saint-mary incident in the movie doesn't make the Norsefire government worse. It makes them par for the course for a fascist (or totalitarian) government. Well, okay, 100 000s death might qualify them for a birdie.
Still a drop in the bucket compared to the number of people Stalin sent to die in the gulags while securing power.
I think the writer of IGN who said that you should see this as a movie inspired by the comics is correct.
Remember that the comic was in response to Thatcher's brand of conservatism while the movie was created in the context of Bush's conservatism. In that perspective it is normal that certain changes occurred.
iceman said:
Hum, we could never assume Gordon was V, comics or movie. See, Gordon gets killed in the comics and taken away Guantanamo style in the movie... can't be V, now can he?
V of the movie could be Evey's father or anybody who disappeared in the early years of the internment camps, just like V of the comics. The burned body of 'movie V' occurs during his escape. If anything, Movie V could be black or Muslim which is unlikely of comic V because we see the back of his head in a scene and he seems white.
True, there is a change in Evey. She is more educated and stronger than comic Evey... But I don't get how interpret her as inherently strong. "I wish I wasn't afraid all the time. But I am." She is the every(wo)man. She isn't strong or brilliant. But she's not weak and ignorant. She's just an ordinary person who isn't blind to the problems of the world but doesn't have the courage to act on it. But V motivates her to go beyond herself and act along with the rest of the population. In the movie, she is the individual metaphor for the whole nation.
The comics showed that an idea can transform a person and then that a person can perhaps transform a nation but that was left in doubt.
The movie doesn't have 6 hours to tell a tale, and given the current political context, they decided to focus on the later part of the equation (and with a more definitive conclusion). Defendable choice.
Understandable choice. The movie would have needed an additional half an hour to flesh out the dictator. As is, for all we know, Susan is very complex character in private but we only see his public persona. Hitler and Stalin were exactly like that, by the way. There wasn't a lot of nuance to their public persona but they were hardly straightforward monster when they stepped of the tribune.
Susan has virtually no public presence in the book. The reader sees a lot of him, but he is withdrawn behind Fate as far as most of the public is concerned.
Without a lot more time to the movie, that option wasn't very practical.
It is far from clear the "comic Finch" accept Norsefire as necessary. He isn't a party member and obviously not a big supporter of Norsefire.
He's just doing his job because he is good at it. Because what else is he going to do? Not once in the comics does he feel it is imperative that V be stopped until V kills Delia (who was Finch's on and off lover). And then he reads her journal and then the doubt return.
But he continues the hunt. Because he is a hunter and the hunt defines him and he can't stop no more than V can.
There's a bit of that in Movie Finch too, though it's not as strong. But at the heart of the character is that the hunter of V should be sympathetic to the reader. Comic Finch is sympathetic because we can see who is over the series. In the movie, with the amount of screen time he had, it wouldn't have been as readily apparent that Finch is a good guy doing a bad job if he just doggedly followed order. So I can see why they wrote him like that for the movie.
Are you kidding? You think they didn't establish V as being superhuman in speed and strength?
I just... I can't really answer to that. Did you really see the movie?! What about V's last fight? He looked human to you?!?
If anything it is clearer in the movie than in the comics that what happened at Larkhill made V superhuman.
And yes, I think you read him too serious in the book. He has to be very expressive during several speeches. For example, did you read him as talking in a serious and grim tone while he is monologuing to the statue of Justice just before blowing the old Bailey in the comic?
V has a severe mischievous streak to him as several of his replies show.
In the comics, for all of V's ruthlessness, his wounded humanity shines through in several moments. Such as when he is alone in a theatre watching Valerie Page's movie and cries (presumably). Or when he saves the poor guy that the police officers were forcing to walk around the building on the ledge. Or that fact that the one cop who crossed his path that he didn't kill was the guy who opened the door and saluted him as a show of support while he was fleeing a theatre. Or the fact that he was fleeing the police in the first place because he had stolen some more artefacts for his Valerie Shrine, an act absolutely irrelevant to his Vendetta.
You don't have this in the movie. You have no time for this. You need a more direct approach to show the humanity of the character and contrast it with the extremism of his methods. It is true that some ambiguity is lost in the process but it had to be done.
As the IGN article said, a movie focusing on an inexpressive psychopath revolutionary would have been a hard sell. Especially since V isn't a monster in comic. If you think he was, I dare say you are wrong.
If V of the movie hadn't showed this humanity by doing these things you deplore, he would have come off as a pure psychopath focused solely on his Vendetta. He isn't in the comic.
Hmmm, the Government in the movie isn't much worse than in the comics really. The Dictator seems more bossy, but that's about it.
The only thing added is that the movie government created an epidemics to assist in taking power. Did you know the Nazis burned the Reichstag and blamed the communists early in their rise to powers? Worked like a charm.
As far as we know, the comic Norsefire didn't. But really, that's exactly the kind of things fascist governments have done throughout the 20th century and I can easily imagine comic Norsefire having done it.
That Saint-mary incident in the movie doesn't make the Norsefire government worse. It makes them par for the course for a fascist (or totalitarian) government. Well, okay, 100 000s death might qualify them for a birdie.
Still a drop in the bucket compared to the number of people Stalin sent to die in the gulags while securing power.
Last edited:
Dr.Strangefate
He Sees You When You're Sleeping. He Knows When Yo
Yeah... Regardless of all that, I'm with Iceman.
V For Vendetta is an enjoyable movie at best, a lot of fun, but without much of the heart of the original.
On the other hand, the comic is a literary masterpiece, and will stand the test of time as a period piece, while this will become one of many other films that will disapear in the next decade or so.
Dont get me wrong, I loved the movie.
I just don't think ANYONE can argue its as good as the comic.
On a lighter note, V took 1st place at the Box Office this weekend.
V For Vendetta is an enjoyable movie at best, a lot of fun, but without much of the heart of the original.
On the other hand, the comic is a literary masterpiece, and will stand the test of time as a period piece, while this will become one of many other films that will disapear in the next decade or so.
Dont get me wrong, I loved the movie.
I just don't think ANYONE can argue its as good as the comic.
On a lighter note, V took 1st place at the Box Office this weekend.
E.Vi.L. said:
Well said and I agree on all points, although like I said I can understand Alan Moore getting pissed that they changed it.
Although I do wonder how much of it is that and how much of it is just all of the frustration with DC/Warner coming to a head.
Planet-man
Well-Known Member
Can anyone find the transcript of V's introductory scene where he gives the alliterative speech with all the V-words?
ProjectX2
Don't expect me to take you with me when I go to s
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2004
- Messages
- 25,007
Planet-man said:
It's been posted in this thread.
iceman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,030
E.V.i.L.
I'm horrible at quoting, so i'm just gonna respond with paragraphs. Like America used to.
Um... shut up about the Gordon thing. I'm right and you're wrong, despite physics and natural law. Still, I think what it is important that V is never really seen. I think thats why Moore makes the point of having him described as ugly as well as beautiful by the same person.
You're right, Evey is a defendable choice of change in the movie. I just don't think it was as good as the book. I think she could have changed from very weak to strong in the movie's span. Granted, there might be a twinge of bitterness that all movie women have to be strong-willed today, but I really believe it was an unnecessary change of the character.
I stand by my decision on Susan. Even if you were to not flesh out the character, then leave him unfleshed out, not artificially fleshed out by saying that he's Hitler.
As to V's flightiness: Yeah, I admit I might read him too serious in the comic. It is still odd to see him playfighting with a suit of armor (and even acting as if he is losing). I think that got me more than some of his ramblings. Because the latter at least shows his adeptness with language. The former really only shows a love of farce which is shown less in the book.
As to V's super-humaness: In the comic he runs faster than people can react. He closes like 50 meters to stab the bishop's 2 guards before than can get their pistols out, then keeps that speed and shimmies up the side of the building. It's implied that he stabs his first two victims with his fingers. Beyond art-wise, he is described as being absurdly fast a few times, if i recall. In the movie, he just seems to simply have kung-fu skills and an absurdly good reaction time. Taking out those soldiers was nice and all, but seriously, how much do we see that in movies? They were all close, they were all stunned, Creedy was trying to load a bloody revolver, add a little bit of movie absurdity, and Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, Arnold, or anyone else would have taken those guys out. V never does anything absurd in the movie, in my mind.
I can see how they wrote about Finch. That wasn't a major grievance. I think its more apparent because the government in my mind is so much worse.
And I will always believe that comic V, despite all of his nobleness, is still much meaner and crueler than in the movie. Yeah, he didn't kill those two guys in the short, because they were innocent non-soldier/fingermen. But he rarely didn't kill those he was fighting against. In fact, I think that Finch was the only person he ever wounded. Everyone else? Dead. In the movie he punches, knocks out, and other wise doesn't kill a bunch of people who were gunning for him.
And yeah, the fact that movie Norsefire killed 100,000 people simply to get into office does make them worse than book Norsefire. If not qualitatively, as it is in my mind, then at least quantitatively! And yeah, they're not gonna be as bad as Stalin or Hitler were as people (I take back the worse than the Nazi's comment. It was wrong. Even before you mentioned the Reichstag incedent [good call]), but if a terrorist was fighting against these two governments, it wouldn't be interesting. They'd be a freedom fighter, except to government officials. V should be thought of as a terrorist by more than simply those he is striking against. He should be a polarizing figure, in my mind.
The movie wasn't bad. No. And I understand that changes had to be made due to time constraits. Still, most of the things you addressed were small. The absense of Anarchy, and of the ending riots, changes the entire mood of the film. It's like the alternate ending of Clerks. Dante is dead, life is meaningless. As compared to the day is over, life goes on despite crappy days. The change makes V go from something where you wonder if V was right (who knows how those riots will end up) to V being the greatest bloody hero in English history. Which is probably definitely not what Moore wanted him to be.
I'm horrible at quoting, so i'm just gonna respond with paragraphs. Like America used to.
Um... shut up about the Gordon thing. I'm right and you're wrong, despite physics and natural law.
Still, I think what it is important that V is never really seen. I think thats why Moore makes the point of having him described as ugly as well as beautiful by the same person. You're right, Evey is a defendable choice of change in the movie. I just don't think it was as good as the book. I think she could have changed from very weak to strong in the movie's span. Granted, there might be a twinge of bitterness that all movie women have to be strong-willed today, but I really believe it was an unnecessary change of the character.
I stand by my decision on Susan. Even if you were to not flesh out the character, then leave him unfleshed out, not artificially fleshed out by saying that he's Hitler.
As to V's flightiness: Yeah, I admit I might read him too serious in the comic. It is still odd to see him playfighting with a suit of armor (and even acting as if he is losing). I think that got me more than some of his ramblings. Because the latter at least shows his adeptness with language. The former really only shows a love of farce which is shown less in the book.
As to V's super-humaness: In the comic he runs faster than people can react. He closes like 50 meters to stab the bishop's 2 guards before than can get their pistols out, then keeps that speed and shimmies up the side of the building. It's implied that he stabs his first two victims with his fingers. Beyond art-wise, he is described as being absurdly fast a few times, if i recall. In the movie, he just seems to simply have kung-fu skills and an absurdly good reaction time. Taking out those soldiers was nice and all, but seriously, how much do we see that in movies? They were all close, they were all stunned, Creedy was trying to load a bloody revolver, add a little bit of movie absurdity, and Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, Arnold, or anyone else would have taken those guys out. V never does anything absurd in the movie, in my mind.
I can see how they wrote about Finch. That wasn't a major grievance. I think its more apparent because the government in my mind is so much worse.
And I will always believe that comic V, despite all of his nobleness, is still much meaner and crueler than in the movie. Yeah, he didn't kill those two guys in the short, because they were innocent non-soldier/fingermen. But he rarely didn't kill those he was fighting against. In fact, I think that Finch was the only person he ever wounded. Everyone else? Dead. In the movie he punches, knocks out, and other wise doesn't kill a bunch of people who were gunning for him.
And yeah, the fact that movie Norsefire killed 100,000 people simply to get into office does make them worse than book Norsefire. If not qualitatively, as it is in my mind, then at least quantitatively! And yeah, they're not gonna be as bad as Stalin or Hitler were as people (I take back the worse than the Nazi's comment. It was wrong. Even before you mentioned the Reichstag incedent [good call]), but if a terrorist was fighting against these two governments, it wouldn't be interesting. They'd be a freedom fighter, except to government officials. V should be thought of as a terrorist by more than simply those he is striking against. He should be a polarizing figure, in my mind.
The movie wasn't bad. No. And I understand that changes had to be made due to time constraits. Still, most of the things you addressed were small. The absense of Anarchy, and of the ending riots, changes the entire mood of the film. It's like the alternate ending of Clerks. Dante is dead, life is meaningless. As compared to the day is over, life goes on despite crappy days. The change makes V go from something where you wonder if V was right (who knows how those riots will end up) to V being the greatest bloody hero in English history. Which is probably definitely not what Moore wanted him to be.
Dr.Strangefate
He Sees You When You're Sleeping. He Knows When Yo
V stands for Vendetta
Not Mercy.
Not Mercy.
iceman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,030
M was the man in room 1,000. After breaking loose, he immediately killed the higher ups, but only knocked out some soldiers. They got up and immediately shot him to death.
jtg3885
Banned
He reminds me of the Burger King...
jtg3885
Banned
So... seriously, doesn't he remind you of the Burger King? Maybe he's the Burger Prince? Anyone? Someone? No?
It could be...
It could be...
W for Whopper!
Last edited:
iceman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,030
E said:
whoah. calm down.
if you hadn't missed my oops face emoticon, you would've known that was simply me feigning stubborness about being wrong on the issue.
also, to say "keep out" of a forum for something as trivial as that is kind of overboard. but that's just me.
back on topic, the burger king thing is simply because V's head is too big in the movie. probably since making an accurate mask would require it to be bigger than it is seen in the book. so i guess its more like V has a small head, and only wears a mask to make his head seem normal size.
Planet-man
Well-Known Member
This is a pretty old post, but I thought I'd reply anyway.
I don't get how you can possibly call it "childish in delivery" before you've actually heard it delivered. And incidently, Weaving's delivery was perfect and I think the sceen really, really works.
W for Wrong. First of all, he isn't "depreciated and diminished" by Evey. She thinks he's nuts precisely because she's so overwhelmed by the incredible, complicated, larger-than-life monolouge. He's a archetypal liguistic genius and she, like yourself, can't begin to comprehend what he just said.
Let's say they made a movie about Albert Einstein's life. At the end of a scene where he just mathematically explained one of his most mind-boggling formulas to a regular person, would you honestly find a problem with them being befuddled and overwhelmed by it?
And by the way the speech actually does make sense whether you get it or not.
Bass said:
I don't get how you can possibly call it "childish in delivery" before you've actually heard it delivered. And incidently, Weaving's delivery was perfect and I think the sceen really, really works.
W for Wrong. First of all, he isn't "depreciated and diminished" by Evey. She thinks he's nuts precisely because she's so overwhelmed by the incredible, complicated, larger-than-life monolouge. He's a archetypal liguistic genius and she, like yourself, can't begin to comprehend what he just said.
Let's say they made a movie about Albert Einstein's life. At the end of a scene where he just mathematically explained one of his most mind-boggling formulas to a regular person, would you honestly find a problem with them being befuddled and overwhelmed by it?
And by the way the speech actually does make sense whether you get it or not.
I don't know about all that...
The V speech was a little overwhelming at first. Especially since I didn't know anything about the character or anything about the movie yet, and it was kind of muffly. It wasn't terribly corny or anything. I just think it lacked timing.
This movie was still really good. I know earlier I compared it to Sin City... now that the newness of the movie has worn off a little. I retract that statement. Because Sin City was the SH!T!!! and V was really good.
The V speech was a little overwhelming at first. Especially since I didn't know anything about the character or anything about the movie yet, and it was kind of muffly. It wasn't terribly corny or anything. I just think it lacked timing.
This movie was still really good. I know earlier I compared it to Sin City... now that the newness of the movie has worn off a little. I retract that statement. Because Sin City was the SH!T!!! and V was really good.
iceman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,030
Synch said:
fo' real.
