# V for Vendetta



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 23, 2005)

I was incredibly cynical about this film when I heard about it having just watched the trailer I can't say my opinion has changed much...

Official site


----------



## Sunspots (Jul 23, 2005)

Hmmm... The trailer seems to be more 'action' than 'ideas', but then I guess they've got to sell the thing.

Regardless of whether it's actually going to be any good though, reality would appear to be edging closer and closer to _V For Vendetta_'s landscape, and in the current climate I really think Warner Bros are going to have quite a difficult job promoting this film (-even if they manage to play the 'contraversial' card).

Scheduled to be released to coincide with Guy Fawkes night...


----------



## poului (Jul 23, 2005)

*stery45ytrh6h6h*

Never judge a film by its trailer, some of the greatest films have positively cringeworthy trailers.


----------



## maya (Jul 23, 2005)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> I was incredibly cynical about this film when I heard about it having just watched the trailer I can't say my opinion has changed much...
> 
> Official site


alan moore didn't want anything to do with the film, iirc-
can't say i'm excited about this


----------



## Balbi (Jul 23, 2005)

when moore takes his name off it, it'll tank. look at league of extraordinary gentlemen.


----------



## maya (Jul 23, 2005)

TheLostProphet said:
			
		

> when moore takes his name off it, it'll tank. look at league of extraordinary gentlemen.


he's refused to have anything more to do with the film industry, afaik-
he got so pissed off by how they treated his stories,
i.e. selling out big time and only caring for the commercial appeal,
re-writing the scripts ad infinitum into cheesy rubbish, etc...


----------



## Balbi (Jul 23, 2005)

fucking wachwoski cunts


----------



## Azrael (Jul 24, 2005)

Much joy as I'd take from carping -- and I would, I've got a miniscule tolerance level for misfire mogules and bloated trilogies -- got to admit it doesn't look that bad. Overplayed action, bombastic score, glowering villians, check, but looks like they've preseved the central premise of the comic. "Ideas are bullet proof" ain't Alan Moore, but keeps his basic intention. If it gets half the depth of the comic over along with all the Matrix-esque gubbins it's worth making.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 25, 2005)

Looks like its started: link


----------



## shoddysolutions (Jul 25, 2005)

Arrrrgh it'll sink faster than a new glossy women's magazine.

Comic adaptations are never a good idea.

*shakes head sadly*

On the other hand, natalie portman shaving her hair was a delightful move


----------



## poului (Jul 25, 2005)

shoddysolutions said:
			
		

> On the other hand, natalie portman shaving her hair was a delightful move




I thought it was a joke when I first heard about that.


----------



## N2Oboy (Jul 25, 2005)

Azrael said:
			
		

> Much joy as I'd take from carping -- and I would, I've got a miniscule tolerance level for misfire mogules and bloated trilogies -- got to admit it doesn't look that bad. Overplayed action, bombastic score, glowering villians, check, but looks like they've preseved the central premise of the comic. "Ideas are bullet proof" ain't Alan Moore, but keeps his basic intention. If it gets half the depth of the comic over along with all the Matrix-esque gubbins it's worth making.



If Rich Johnston's script review is right, then a lot of Moore's central themes have been cut.
  Bugger.
I'll probably go and see it anyway though.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 25, 2005)

It won't feel like going to see a film, more of identifying a body of a loved one


----------



## Azrael (Jul 25, 2005)

N2Oboy said:
			
		

> If Rich Johnston's script review is right, then a lot of Moore's central themes have been cut.
> Bugger.
> I'll probably go and see it anyway though.


Yeah, but scripts go through loads of drafts, and all those reviews are unconfirmed. Read a review that said the "V symbol" reminiscent of the Anarchist "A" was gone, but it's in the trailer. Will wait and see if they've gutted it, though I admit the idea of a studio making a two hour advert for Anarchy is a tad unlikely.


----------



## bushphobia (Aug 2, 2005)

*oh deary dear...*




			
				Azrael said:
			
		

> Yeah, but scripts go through loads of drafts, and all those reviews are unconfirmed. Read a review that said the "V symbol" reminiscent of the Anarchist "A" was gone, but it's in the trailer. Will wait and see if they've gutted it, though I admit the idea of a studio making a two hour advert for Anarchy is a tad unlikely.



Hello all.
Just watched the trailer, sans soundtrack, and i can't say that i am suprised. Much. I can't think of one Alan Moore comic that has been well adapted to the screen. So far, without exception, they have all been incredibly shite.
League of extraordinary gentlemen was just a bastard abortion given unnatural life. lol.
From Hell was dismal in extremis.
This looked too stylish. 
The comic was all urban tones, eighties distopian social dawrinism gone down the rabbit hole.
It kind of all reminded me of bland bbc film sets, if any of you know what i mean.
This film doesn't have any of that.
It has glitz.
But, what would any of us realy expect?

Still, i hold my opinion until i have one to have.
(Yeah i'm gonna see the film. Leave me alone. You all went and watched fantastic four, did'nt ya? lol)

Bushphobia.

Because we all should.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 2, 2005)

LOL! Very true and welcome to the boards!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 17, 2005)

I read the other day that this has been pushed back to next March because of the recent London bombings...


----------



## Sunspots (Sep 17, 2005)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> I read the other day that this has been pushed back to next March because of the recent London bombings...



As I expected/predicted...


----------



## RavensClaw (Oct 17, 2005)

such a shame that its gonna suck more that a thai hooker, god forbid thy fuck up watchman...


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 17, 2005)

RavensClaw said:
			
		

> such a shame that its gonna suck more that a thai hooker, god forbid thy fuck up watchman...




Watchmen's been dropped. Allegories for current events aren't much in vogue, it would appear.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 17, 2005)

jer said:
			
		

> Watchmen's been dropped. Allegories for current events aren't much in vogue, it would appear.


Watchmen is hardly current though, is it?  The whole story is pretty contingent on the existence of two opposing, nuclear superpowers.


----------



## polo (Oct 17, 2005)

Such a pity, I read V when it came out in Warrior.  

These days they don't do dystopia like they oughta!


----------



## RavensClaw (Oct 17, 2005)

they dropped wachman? thank god for that! have to say tho sin city was good stuff tho


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 17, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Watchmen is hardly current though, is it?  The whole story is pretty contingent on the existence of two opposing, nuclear superpowers.



Yeah but that could easily be rejigged to be a clash of civilisations thing...


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 18, 2005)

RavensClaw said:
			
		

> they dropped wachman? thank god for that! have to say tho sin city was good stuff tho


But Sin City was always more style than substance. Far, far easier to adapt than Moore's stuff.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 18, 2005)

I didn't much rate the comic strip when I read it, although to be fair I read it long after _Watchmen_ which is a far more substantial and mature piece of work.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 18, 2005)

V for Vendetta or Sin City?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 18, 2005)

The one of the title.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 18, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I didn't much rate the comic strip when I read it, although to be fair I read it long after _Watchmen_ which is a far more substantial and mature piece of work.


_Watchmen_ is certainly the more considered and original of the two, but _V for Vendetta_ is, IMO, much more fun to read


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 15, 2005)

The second trailer is up here. Must say it looks quite a bit better now, roll on March!


----------



## mwgdrwg (Dec 15, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> _Watchmen_ is certainly the more considered and original of the two, but _V for Vendetta_ is, IMO, much more fun to read



Both are classics...I also enjoyed reading V a little more.


----------



## silentNate (Dec 15, 2005)

Trailers look good- unfortunately I've seen the script and this V ain't nothing like Alan Moores book...
For a start its meant to be set after England lost the 2nd world war - the script I saw suggested that Evie doesn't 'turn' terrorist and that V is part of a network of 'terrorists'  

Obviously I can't be sure it was the script they are using 

Still gonna see it mind you


----------



## Balbi (Dec 15, 2005)

You wot?

Lost WW2? Balls. It's the event of the 1982 election being won by Labour and nuclear missiles being removed from Britain - the nuclear war that happens doesn't affect us and it carries on from there. Moores admitted a lack of knowledge about the outcome of a nuclear exchange.

 it's gonna blow


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 15, 2005)

@ 'Nate: You got a link to that script!?


----------



## silentNate (Dec 15, 2005)

Nope can't find original link...

But check here 

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=2193


----------



## In Bloom (Dec 16, 2005)

*vomits*


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 16, 2005)

silentNate said:
			
		

> Nope can't find original link...
> 
> But check here
> 
> http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=2193



Cheers for that!


----------



## akirajoel (Dec 16, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> *vomits*



Oh dear.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 16, 2005)

Yeah that don't look good, man it takes some talent to make a film look good in a trailer it seems.


----------



## silentNate (Dec 16, 2005)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> Yeah that don't look good, man it takes some talent to make a film look good in a trailer it seems.


 _>waves cup of coffee under KE's nose and waits fore him to wake up<_ 

Trailers look brilliant but as I learnt as a child, these are usually the best bits


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 16, 2005)

LOL! Yeah I know but sometimes you can gain an idea about a film (especially the dialogue) from them...


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Dec 18, 2005)

The trailer did look fantastic, and I think it quoted from the original Moore text. But all i could see as the film credits flashed by were references to the wachowski brothers INCLUDING 'Written by the Wachowski brothers'     

Based on them and the matrix 2 & 3 I dont hold much hope. But the trailer was good.

and then there is this rather scary story... not sure if it makes a difference


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 18, 2005)

silentNate said:
			
		

> Trailers look good- unfortunately I've seen the script and this V ain't nothing like Alan Moores book...
> For a start its meant to be set after England lost the 2nd world war - the script I saw suggested that Evie doesn't 'turn' terrorist and that V is part of a network of 'terrorists'
> 
> Obviously I can't be sure it was the script they are using
> ...



I've seen bits of it too and it sounds terrible. I think they have compleatly missed the point. Why are moores comics always fucked when turned into film?
Did anyone ever see the Halo Jones musical? I bet that was ace.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 11, 2006)

*Not long till this is released...*

And yet another trailer...


----------



## akirajoel (Jan 11, 2006)

No way has there ever been a Halo Jones musical. No way.

Next you'll be telling me there's a DR and Quinch saturday morning cartoon or a Big Numbers tv series.


Speaking of V. Has anyone seen the really cool poster for it? Really nice design - slanted with big ben and loads of people with V masks in the background. Looks proper wicked.


Once more: Film will be shit thou.


----------



## october_lost (Jan 11, 2006)

Some details

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 11, 2006)

october_lost said:
			
		

> Some details
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/


Am I the only one who is deeply, deeply worried by the fact that there is a character credited as "V Follower V110?" 

I'd been hoping against hope that all the script reviews mentioning a secret network of "V"s, all dressed up as Guy Fawkes were some kind of sick, cruel joke


----------



## Balbi (Jan 11, 2006)

Oh look, it's shit, what a suprise - FUCK OFF


----------



## Random One (Mar 13, 2006)

*Kid Eternity posting*

It's out Friday, still aint expecting much but gonna go watch it none the less...


----------



## rich! (Mar 13, 2006)

akirajoel said:
			
		

> Next you'll be telling me there's a DR and Quinch saturday morning cartoon or a Big Numbers tv series.



Or, indeed, the rest of the Big Numbers comic.


----------



## In Bloom (Mar 13, 2006)

I'll probably end up going to watch it, just to see if it really is as shit as it looks, but I doubt I'll get to the end without having to be forcibly removed from the theatre.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 13, 2006)

rich! said:
			
		

> Or, indeed, the rest of the Big Numbers comic.



Wouldn't that be grand!?


----------



## In Bloom (Mar 13, 2006)

Heh, even Johnathan Ross is tearing into this, that's gotta hurt


----------



## poului (Mar 20, 2006)

*drtcersdfw4esf4*

Just seen it.


Absolutely fucking *terrible.*


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 20, 2006)

hehehe, you should see the thread they've got about this 'pro-terrorist propaganda' on Free republic. 

They're taking it as a personal attack on Bush.

A couple of people who've evidently read the comic are saying, 'um but ..'


----------



## Belzub (Mar 20, 2006)

The denizens of IMDB seem to like it: "An amazing feat of Cinema", "Utterly Spectacular!", "a work of monumental genius". I haven't seen it yet but I'm guessing they suffer from taste-deficiency.


----------



## In Bloom (Mar 20, 2006)

Anybody know if this is up on bittorrent yet?  I'm fucked if I'm paying to watch it


----------



## Reno (Mar 20, 2006)

Saw it last week. I haven't read the comic and understand that it is a very watered down adaptation, but taken on it's own I found it reasonably entertaining and a lot more loopy than your average Hollywood blockbuster. As a film it is certainly much better than previous travesties like _From Hell _ and _The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen_.

Didn't like the way it looked though. As it wasn't shot in London you get no sense that it really takes place there. Some of the street scenes looked like they were shot on an old _Dr Who _ set.


----------



## Sunspots (Mar 20, 2006)

I saw it at the weekend, and it was better than I'd expected.

I realise Alan Moore has disowned this filmed version of _V For Vendetta_ (and Hollywood in general).  But is that maybe more because he's personally moved on a long way from what he did over twenty years ago (-and so, what he'd envision now would be very different), rather than it being a case of the film not being faithful to the original comic?


----------



## poului (Mar 20, 2006)

*wer32qar32*

Well, I've never even laid eyes on the graphic novels and I'm not a pro "war on terror" neo-con and I still found it a complete load of bollocks.


Sums up just how cluelessly full of the shit the so-called "left" are en masse. Anthony Quinn's review of the film in the Independent was (for once) spot on - if only I'd read it before seeing the fucking film.


----------



## Sunspots (Mar 20, 2006)

poului said:
			
		

> Anthony Quinn's review of the film in the Independent was (for once) spot on



Have you got a link to it please?  The only review I've read in The Independent is by Nicholas Barber (-who's equally unimpressed by it!).


----------



## Greebozz (Mar 20, 2006)

poului said:
			
		

> Well, I've never even laid eyes on the graphic novels and I'm not a pro "war on terror" neo-con and I still found it a complete load of bollocks.
> 
> 
> Sums up just how cluelessly full of the shit the so-called "left" are en masse. Anthony Quinn's review of the film in the Independent was (for once) spot on - if only I'd read it before seeing the fucking film.




I agree.  I don't like the message of the film as it has been reported by reviewers,  The moral being that totalitarian (Implication being that our democracy is one)  governments need to take notices of the "people" or they will be punished by being blown to bits.  

In other words you did not take much notice of our anti war demo so were are on the side of those that want to blow London to bits, so you better watch out people.  And if this film inspires any suicide bomber to think they are a hero if they murder some random British people, thats all the better.


----------



## poului (Mar 20, 2006)

Sunspots said:
			
		

> Have you got a link to it please?  The only review I've read in The Independent is by Nicholas Barber (-who's equally unimpressed by it!).




here, 

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film/reviews/article351682.ece


----------



## treefrog (Mar 20, 2006)

I saw it with Dante at the weekend and found it quite entertaining. I've read V once and that was years ago, so I wasn't weighted down with expectation. Some parts were genuinely quite moving (Stephen Fry's character's monologue about his sexuality for example) and some of it was a bit "eh?" but on the whole very enjoyable.


----------



## poului (Mar 20, 2006)

treefrog said:
			
		

> Some parts were genuinely quite moving (Stephen Fry's character's monologue about his sexuality for example) .





No, not moving - shite.




Bloody liberal


----------



## Balbi (Mar 20, 2006)

Graphic Novel = Alan Moore = Good

Film = Wachowski Cunts = Bad

the message of the graphic novel is dead good, because it's not an attack on the modern situation - it's a fantasy what if type thing.

can't believe the 'lefty' v 'righty' type stuff on the net about it

get over yerselves, it's a fucking thumping good read

shit film though


----------



## Leica (Mar 20, 2006)

I liked some aspects of the film, mostly details that have to do with V, such as V watching the Count of Monte Cristo, putting on his gloves and cooking an egg. He is an updated image of a superhero like Batman, with a touch of Count Dracula.

I also can't help thinking how great it would be to be abducted by a subversive man in black and taken to his underground hiding place full of books and paintings, to be awoken by a jukebox playing 'cry me a river' and the man himself in full suit, making coffee and an egg in a basket and then showing me his favourite films...


----------



## Balbi (Mar 20, 2006)

Serious 'cry me a river?' <-- like seriously?

It's meant to be 'dancing in the street'


----------



## Leica (Mar 20, 2006)

TheLostProphet said:
			
		

>


As much as I like Dancing in the Street I don't think it would be right in that particular scene... she's waking up gently   

It is strange but V only actually exists through Evey, very rarely is he seen on his own. It's like they are alter egos of each other.


----------



## Reno (Mar 20, 2006)

TheLostProphet said:
			
		

> It's meant to be 'dancing in the street'



That song has been for ever been ruined for me by the hideous Jagger/Bowie cover and the gruesome video that went with it.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 20, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Didn't like the way it looked though. As it wasn't shot in London you get no sense that it really takes place there. Some of the street scenes looked like they were shot on an old _Dr Who _ set.



Er, yes it was. Quite famously so.


----------



## Reno (Mar 20, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Er, yes it was. Quite famously so.



I haven't felt geeky enough about the film to read much about it, but if that's true it explains why it looks so shit.


----------



## Leica (Mar 20, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> the gruesome video that went with it.


Yet I find there is something amusing about seeing Jagger and Bowie doing a Martha & the Vandellas song.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 20, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> I haven't felt geeky enough about the film to read much about it, but if that's true it explains why it looks so shit.



I don't understand you. You say it looks shit because is was not shot in London, however it was shot largely in London to which you reply 'ah that is why it looks shit'????

I'm not a geek and not interested in the film and I think the origonal comic was shit anyway. I know because it was all over the news when they filmed the bits by parliment etc. They were lucky to get that in before 7 / 7


----------



## Reno (Mar 20, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> I don't understand you. You say it looks shit because is was not shot in London, however it was shot largely in London to which you reply 'ah that is why it looks shit'????
> 
> I'm not a geek and not interested in the film and I think the origonal comic was shit anyway. I know because it was all over the news when they filmed the bits by parliment etc. They were lucky to get that in before 7 / 7



I thought you were telling me that some of the film was utilising Dr Who sets.

They went to  London do some establishing shots, but most of it was shot in Berlin. If they had to shoot most of a big budget film on sets, then at least they should make them look better than wobbly Dr Who sets.


----------



## Reno (Mar 20, 2006)

Leica said:
			
		

> Yet I find there is something amusing about seeing Jagger and Bowie doing a Martha & the Vandellas song.



Especially as they both dance like they just shat their trousers.


----------



## Leica (Mar 20, 2006)

short and to the point


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 20, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> I thought you were telling me that some of the film was utilising Dr Who sets.
> 
> They went to  London do some establishing shots, but most of it was shot in Berlin. If they had to shoot most of a big budget film on sets, then at least make they should make them look better than wobbly Dr Who sets.



Ah I see where we went wrong. 

I read that there was quite a lot filmed in london and the rest was in Berlin. Could just be press hype. Not going to check so I will take your word for it, couldn't give a fuck about the W brothers after reloaded and revolutons, shittest deluded filmmakers films ever (I haven't seen battle field earth).


----------



## Barry Kade (Mar 20, 2006)

Well I just saw the film and thought it was fantastic! Of course it has political and artistic flaws, but its a mainstream movie. Generally though, was amazed to see such a political film. All the hard core Alan Moore fans might winge that it departs from their holy book, but I think the Warshawski brothers have done a good job updating it to deal with the 'War on Terror', Islamophobia, biowarfare and surveillance. Fairly Savvy and fun too. Great stuff! Go see!


----------



## tommers (Mar 21, 2006)

must admit that I agree with bazza.  just seen it at the pictures and thought it was really good.  in fact, I may want to watch it again to check I didn't miss anything.

I was expecting drivel but was very pleasantly surprised!


----------



## Leica (Mar 21, 2006)

Leica said:
			
		

> It is strange but V only actually exists through Evey, very rarely is he seen on his own. It's like they are alter egos of each other.



I've been thinking more about this and I may have a strong case for the idea that more than accomplices V and Evey are one and the same or alternative selves, two opposites that complement each other. Eve(y) is V backwards. V is present wherever Evey is. Like Superman, a superhero has two selves. She embodies the normal daily self of the superhero(ine) while he is the super self. She works at a television station, like Superman is a journalist. V shadows her. The film starts with two parallel sequences of Evey and V getting ready to go out. The imprisonment of Evey and her subsequent transformation is an acting out of what V went through. The scene where V comes out of the prison is superimposed on the scene of Eve coming out in the air. In the end she carries out his plan. When the final objective is completed V has ceased to exist as a superhero but continues to live on in Evey.


----------



## jrj2020 (Mar 21, 2006)

I thought i was brilliant. I have never read or seen the comic/book but i thought the plot was excellent. i liked the way it was set in britain and in the sort of society we may well be heading towards. I love politics though so that might be it...

anyway gets a great big thumbs up from me!


----------



## Santino (Mar 22, 2006)

I thought it was good. It isn't a masterpiece, and it's not a new 1984 or anything, but it was an enjoyable couple of hours. I felt it was more a metaphor (or allegory, if you will) rather than a political tract.

From previews I thought they were going to turn V into much more of a superhero-type, but I think they kept him close enough to the original character.

I didn't like the almost-love story that they tried to crowbar in, I would have preferred the original is-he-her-father-or-not? plot.


----------



## akirajoel (Mar 23, 2006)

Saw it last night.

Not a great film by any strectch of the imagination.

V's death scene was kinda cool.

And the middle bit where - amongst other things - evey gets her hair cut and stuff were kinda cool.

Felt like the tried to shoehorn too much of the book in thou. Might have been better if they had just left some stuff out.

The whole look of the film was pretty poor too. Not very "cinematic." Felt more like a feature length BBC drama or something...

And "V" himself was all wrong. Way too talky. And ecentric when he should have engnmatic.

But. Yeah. Like. Whatever.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 26, 2006)

I loved it, thought it was good (apart from the annoying twat behind me who kept talking in french to his mate. wanker.) and the bit where the Houses of Parliament blew up was cool.

But that does not mean I want to blow things up or condone any bombings, ok?

Going to get the graphic novel to see what the orginal plot was.


----------



## Allan (Mar 26, 2006)

Alex B said:
			
		

> I would have preferred the original is-he-her-father-or-not? plot.



Which was done in about 2 frames! 

"V, are you my father"

"No, Evey. I'm not your father. Your father is dead."

End of.


----------



## Santino (Mar 26, 2006)

Allan said:
			
		

> Which was done in about 2 frames!
> 
> "V, are you my father"
> 
> ...


Yeah but no but yeah but I preferred the father-daughter flavour to their relationship rather than have V fall in love with her. Dirty old man.

Still liked it though.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 26, 2006)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Yeah but no but yeah but I preferred the father-daughter flavour to their relationship rather than have V fall in love with her. Dirty old man.
> 
> Still liked it though.



falling in love with natalie portman is a universal certainty, like death.


----------



## maya (Mar 26, 2006)

very lazy, black-and-white film adaptation...not surprised moore didn't want anything to do with it...  

oh, and natalie portman might be lovely, but being a child actress doesn't mean you can still act as an adult...she can't


----------



## maya (Mar 26, 2006)

maya said:
			
		

> very lazy, black-and-white film adaptation...not surprised moore didn't want anything to do with it...
> 
> oh, and natalie portman might be lovely, but being a child actress doesn't mean you can still act as an adult...she can't


(sorry natalie)  

*waits for i_hate_beckham to STEAM in and FURIOUSLY defend her actorly merits*


----------



## tastebud (Mar 26, 2006)

I really liked it.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Mar 26, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> falling in love with natalie portman is a universal certainty, like death.



Nope, she seems boring and pretentious to me.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 26, 2006)

ChrisFilter said:
			
		

> Nope, she seems boring and pretentious to me.



funny, intelligent, quiet and pretentious, whats not to like!

seriously any actress who buys her co stars books by Barthes, and stands at 5'1 is worthy of adulation.

oh, i lover her so.................

this pixie like muse who scorched my soul.


----------



## jæd (Mar 29, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> funny, intelligent, quiet and pretentious, whats not to like!



Her voice get a bit monotone half-way through.... The film doesn't really get going until about halfway through when she finally shuts up. Great bit hich "evil" homosexuals will identify with, espcially if they've ever been to countries where door locks are useful. Bit scary to see that in the UK... 

Plot is a bit sign-posted which makes some of the set pieces a bit obvious, though. Oh, and I which Hollywood would fucking realise that people in the fucking UK say "fuck" rather than "bollocks" a lot fucking more.


----------



## potential (Mar 29, 2006)

saw it yesterday.  thought it was great thoroughly enjoyed it...
i want one of those mask's


----------



## poului (Mar 29, 2006)

*7jk89ul0i0i*

Natalie Portman is more than capable of turning in a good performance these days (Closer, for instance) but in this film she, like everyone else in it, doesn't even appear to be trying.


A sloppy, unfocused effort, all round.


----------



## hotvans (Mar 29, 2006)

this film is mostly shit

liked the ideas but not the production

and natalie portman can't do a fricking uk accent - they should have cast a brit - it wouldn't have made the film better but at least i wouldnt have been so distracted by the cockney-rp-aussie accent she was coming out with


----------



## tastebud (Mar 29, 2006)

yeah you're right actually, she was especially shit. 'can't do a british accent' doesn't quite cover it, her accent was completely ridiculous. freakish almost.

the thing is though, i thought it was typical comic book style in terms of bad acting - like that was the intent, but maybe she *was* just shit.

i loved v though - he was sexy.

edit: actually she was pretty shit in closer too. though the film was shit so it's hard to separate. she was only really good in leon, thinking about it..


----------



## nick1181 (Mar 29, 2006)

I thought it was pretty terrible to be honest.

I mean the central character-arc "where Natalie finds inner-strength through being physically tortured by her friend" simply isn't credible. 

It was dreadfully wordy as well. Long after-the-fact explanations completely fucked up the pace. Plot revelations need to happen through action, not by long explanations.

If you're going to have a massive symbolic destruction of oppression at the end, destroy something ugly and oppressive. The houses of parliament and Big Ben etc are a national treasure. Similar sort of thing to going into the National Gallery and wrecking all the paintings.


----------



## Stigmata (Mar 29, 2006)

nick1181 said:
			
		

> If you're going to have a massive symbolic destruction of oppression at the end, destroy something ugly and oppressive. The houses of parliament and Big Ben etc are a national treasure. Similar sort of thing to going into the National Gallery and wrecking all the paintings.



A friend of mine saw it at the weekend- he said the film was so dull that by the time they blew up parliament it was just a bit insulting.

He also said the Guy Fawkes comparison was a bit weak. Since when was Fawkes a defender of the oppressed?


----------



## tommers (Mar 29, 2006)

Stigmata said:
			
		

> He also said the Guy Fawkes comparison was a bit weak. Since when was Fawkes a defender of the oppressed?



well, he did try to blow up the houses of parliament in order to instigate a popular revolution in order to overthrow an oppressive regime.

quite similar I would say.

(well, and to kill the king and stuff too I suppose...)


----------



## Stigmata (Mar 29, 2006)

tommers said:
			
		

> well, he did try to blow up the houses of parliament in order to instigate a popular revolution in order to overthrow an oppressive regime.
> 
> quite similar I would say.
> 
> (well, and to kill the king and stuff too I suppose...)



I thought he was a Spanish patsy? Out to turn the tables in terms of religious persecution? Maybe i'm wrong.

Edit: And I don't remember him being an ace knife-fighter.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 29, 2006)

Stigmata said:
			
		

> I thought he was a Spanish patsy? Out to turn the tables in terms of religious persecution? Maybe i'm wrong.
> 
> Edit: And I don't remember him being an ace knife-fighter.



nah your correct, he just wanted an absolutist catholic king.


----------



## tommers (Mar 29, 2006)

Stigmata said:
			
		

> I thought he was a Spanish patsy? Out to turn the tables in terms of religious persecution? Maybe i'm wrong.
> 
> Edit: And I don't remember him being an ace knife-fighter.



nah, he was the demolitions expert.

I think the plan was to blow up the HoP, kill the king and then to install a more Catholic friendly regime.  Can't remember who the preferred person was.  I'm sure there was an element of popular uprising too....


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 1, 2006)

I thought that it was a top romp: cheered me up no end.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 1, 2006)

Cheered you up?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 1, 2006)

Yes, I found it very cheering when the people marched on Parliament Square and  John Hurt and the baddies got totalled. I cheered.


----------



## DG55 (Apr 1, 2006)

What a crock of shit.


----------



## Flashman (Apr 1, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> falling in love with natalie portman is a universal certainty, like death.



*insert Clare Grogan for my generation*


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 15, 2006)

Just saw it tonight: it's an excellent, powerful movie.

I didn't realize it was adapted from a comic book till I came online. That might explain why the populace ends up doing something we'd like to hope it's capable of.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 15, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> falling in love with natalie portman is a universal certainty, like death.



The princess type does nothing for me. If Portman was in Belfast, she'd be a Methody girl. That might be your bag, but it sure as hell ain't mine.

(especially after all the snide remarks I got from the one methody girl I do know).


----------



## Allan (Apr 15, 2006)

*Spoiler Alert*

Major nitpick: exploding a tube train underneath the HoP won't do anything to the building above it. Think how far down the District Line is at Westminster and all that concrete and earth it's got to get through. Does the DL even run under it at all?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 15, 2006)

Flashman said:
			
		

> *insert Clare Grogan for my generation*



Yeah, Clare Grogan as the original Kochanski in Red Dwarf was vastly preferable to the posh bird they replaced her with.

See my point about the princess type?

(Not seen V for Vendetta yet, will wait for the dvd. It does look like the yanks emasculated the politics. In the book Norsefire comes to power with the help of 'some of the corporations that survived the war'. That's the bit they don't mention where the rise of fascism is concerned).


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 15, 2006)

Allan said:
			
		

> Major nitpick: exploding a tube train underneath the HoP won't do anything to the building above it. Think how far down the District Line is at Westminster and all that concrete and earth it's got to get through. Does the DL even run under it at all?



As an Irish person I really shouldn't be posting this but what if you had a really *big* bomb?


----------



## Allan (Apr 15, 2006)

Idris2002 said:
			
		

> As an Irish person I really shouldn't be posting this but what if you had a really *big* bomb?



Then Westminster and St.James' Park stations would get totalled by the sideways-expanding blast.


----------



## Allan (Apr 15, 2006)

Also, if you look on the station wall where NP sets the train rolling it says "Strand" which is the disused tube station that filmmakers are always given to use by LU. She wants to blow up Holborn???


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Apr 15, 2006)

hotvans said:
			
		

> and natalie portman can't do a fricking uk accent - they should have cast a brit - it wouldn't have made the film better but at least i wouldnt have been so distracted by the cockney-rp-aussie accent she was coming out with



I genuinely thought the fact that she was apparently South African, was going to be a plot point, until about half way through when I realised her parents had completely ordinary British accents   

I quite liked the grey seventiesness of all those dull living rooms and pubs, and I'm v curious about the original graphic novel now.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 15, 2006)

Flashman said:
			
		

> *insert Clare Grogan for my generation*



Ahhh  sweet grogan, I never understood why gregory was intrested in that other curly haired idiot.

See those eyes is one of my favorate songs ever, 1983 was a sad year.


----------



## IPRN (Apr 15, 2006)

Idris2002 said:
			
		

> The princess type does nothing for me. If Portman was in Belfast, she'd be a Methody girl. That might be your bag, but it sure as hell ain't mine.
> 
> (especially after all the snide remarks I got from the one methody girl I do know).



I went out with a Methody girl recently, and she was fuck all like Portman (Alright, she had left Methody 17 years ago!)


----------



## Fenian (Apr 15, 2006)

Barry Kade said:
			
		

> Well I just saw the film and thought it was fantastic! Of course it has political and artistic flaws, but its a mainstream movie. Generally though, was amazed to see such a political film. All the hard core Alan Moore fans might winge that it departs from their holy book, but I think the Warshawski brothers have done a good job updating it to deal with the 'War on Terror', Islamophobia, biowarfare and surveillance. Fairly Savvy and fun too. Great stuff! Go see!



Agree, now I didn't have a history of engagement with Moore/the comic when I walked in to the cinema but nevertheless found it satisying visually and surprisingly hard-hitting politically.

Some late-80s radicalism apparent which I felt could have been updated to a modern sphere by references to, say, Guantanamoa as opposed to more traditional camp-gulags "shot behind the chemical sheds" but hell yes it delivered on many fronts.


----------



## Fenian (Apr 15, 2006)

tommers said:
			
		

> well, he did try to blow up the houses of parliament in order to instigate a popular revolution in order to overthrow an oppressive regime.
> 
> quite similar I would say.
> 
> (well, and to kill the king and stuff too I suppose...)



And to have civil rights for all, not based on adherence to the religion of the state i.e. Fawkes was pro-Catholic Emancipation.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Apr 16, 2006)

I thought it was great - made me want to go and buy a truckload of Guy Fawkes masks and distribute them


----------



## Fenian (Apr 16, 2006)

AnnO'Neemus said:
			
		

> I thought it was great - made me want to go and buy a truckload of Guy Fawkes masks and distribute them



  tho' that'd probably get you lifted under the Prevention of Terrorism legislation.


----------



## Allan (Apr 16, 2006)

When we were filiming it in Whitehall I brought along my camera and took loads of pics during a break in filming. This was near Downing Street and one security guy started giving me funny looks so I took my mask and hat off to lower his suspicion and sidled in the general direction of away.....


----------



## rainbowman (Apr 16, 2006)

*Very Good Film*

it was very good in parts and some parts crap,best bit was big ben and goverment building being blow up to bits.whish i could see it for real i would give up my up  lentils and veggies just for that   fuk law and order and goverments and mp's and police.

ps nat potman acting was just great she played her role very well


----------



## Fenian (Apr 16, 2006)

rainbowman said:
			
		

> ps nat potman acting was just great she played her role very well



Yes indeedy!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2006)

Finally watched this this evening. Apart from a rather crappy and cringy ending I actually quite liked it! It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be and managed to get the tone of the graphic novel quite well. The original source material was better (although to be fair it's been nearly ten years since I read it last) but for a film adaption it wasn't too bad. I even liked the way they tried to update for today. Pleasantly surprised.


----------



## T & P (May 7, 2006)

I appreciate that those who have read the book might think it's a poor adaptation etc.

I hadn't, and as a stand alone film I thought it was fucking brilliant.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2006)

I can see that but you have to understand, those of who read the book are likely to be the same group that read alot of Alan Moore growing up so there's alot of expectation at work.


----------



## Random One (May 7, 2006)

watched this last night with Kid E and i thought it was pretty cool. Had no idea what it was going to be about so had no expectations and actually quite liked it.  And i agree with Kid E about the ending bit where all the people take off their masks that was a bit crap.


----------



## YouSir (May 7, 2006)

Watched it yesterday myself, 'twas nae too bad, never read the book before and I pretty much just expected a stylised, violent, 'dark' jobby, along the lines of Sin City, pleasantly suprised though. Not a world changing film, but definitely one I'd watch again at some point. 

And yes, the ending was rather crappy, but it could've been far, far worse.


----------



## polo (May 14, 2006)

Saw it last night.  I had read the comic when it first came out.  It was a pretty good adaption.  Portman was excellent, in fact all the acting was of a high standard.  

The plot explanations were a little weak and how V came into being could have been done better.  There was no real explanation of how he changed under drug treatment, all we had was 'he was strange', then suddenly the whole camp blows up.  In the comic, he had a job tending roses in the garden and he access to fertilizer which links the plot together a bit better.

I liked some of the characters. Creedy played by Tim Piggot Smith was great evil baddie.  The detectives were pretty good as well.  Stephen Fry had the part made for him in order not to stretch his narrow range.  

There were lots of nice contemporary references which drew murmurs of approval from the audience.

It kind of fell down when it was trying to explain the 'emergencies' that where responsible for the Facists taking over.  Could have been done better, they could have emphasised the 'society in fear' and that would of resonated with the overcoming of 'personal fear' during Eveys ordeal. 

I can see how the anarchic political sentiments would appeal to a lot of folks, especially around here.  Not often you get a film that celebrates the destruction of Parliment at the hands of 'Terrorist/Freedom fighter'.

Lots of little gripes, but I enjoyed it all the same.  

http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/photos.html


----------



## Fenian (May 14, 2006)

polo said:
			
		

> Not often you get a film that celebrates the destruction of Parliment at the hands of 'Terrorist/Freedom fighter'.



More's the pity ;-)


----------



## Karac (May 20, 2006)

Apols for dredging up an ancient thread-but just saw this and thought it was excellent in fact the best, most thought provoking film since "Crash"-(no im not a film buff )
Dont know anything about the original comic or whether or not it was a good adaptation -but im tempted to get hold of the original material.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 21, 2006)

You liked Crash? Christ, I guess someone had too...


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (May 21, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> You liked Crash? Christ, I guess someone had too...


which Crash?  the david cronenberg amputee fetish thingy?  or the more recent racial tension in LA one?  former was okay in my opinion, mildly strange, disturbing divertin, latter was excellent, imvho


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 21, 2006)

The former was a bit crap but the recent Oscar winning one was pure shite if you ask me...


----------



## fishfingerer (Jun 29, 2006)

Saw this last night. Desperate plot holes, some corny wachowski brothers lines, shoddy direction, and orange revolution bollocks type ending. Interesting that the only mention anarchy gets is when some knob is holding up the corner shop and the guy who played Prothero looks a lot like Christopher Hitchens.


----------



## Error Gorilla (Aug 20, 2006)

fishfingerer said:
			
		

> ...the guy who played Prothero looks a lot like Christopher Hitchens.



This occured to me too; fat, bloviating, in love with the sound of his voice...

Having read the graphic novel and being only too aware that this film had fallen far short of what it could have been from all the criticism levelled at it, I still found myself passing an enjoyable couple of hours. _Yes_, Natalie Portman's accent veers alarmingly from Cockney, to the Home Counties via Cape Town and Canberra; _Yes_, the Americanisms glare (c.f. Stephen Rea pronouncing lever as levver, the Benny Hill skit during the talkshow, the overuse of the word bollocks); _Yes_, there's too little explanation of what led to such a totalitarian regime and there's some hackneyed dialogue... but still, it's amazing that this film was made at all, especially by Hollywood. Not brilliant by any measure, but worth a look.


----------



## Jim2k5 (Aug 20, 2006)

best film ive seen in a while, well worth it if you aint seen it, and then worth it again and aagain and again


----------



## Fenian (Aug 21, 2006)

Saw this yesterday on Qantas flight to Thailand, agree with above comments that whatever shortcomings there may be - tho' not many IMHO - it's incredible this was made, and that it rattles along at such an engaging pace.

Think I'll watch again coupla days time on leg to Sydney


----------



## lyra_k (Aug 27, 2006)

loved it, already posted on the what did you watch last night thread


----------



## kakuma (Aug 27, 2006)

i thought it was ace

put it next to any other big budget movie of the last2 years and it kicks their arse

and i think parliment being finally destroyed is the best end of a film i've seen for a long time


----------



## Sean (Aug 27, 2006)

Thought it was loads better than I expected it to be, but nothing can match the comics. Pace of second half was a bit slack and I thought Portman's accent got a bit wearing after a while but not bad at all and some lovely touches.

God knows what happened to my old editions of Warrior magazine...


----------



## bushphobia (Aug 29, 2006)

Ah man....can't beleive this thread is still running.
I have finally seen the film, and yeah, before I start, I did love the comic. Got the warrior prints, got the DC mini, and have stupendous respect for the one called Alan Moore.

So, I may be slighlty biased.
Yeah, the film had it's good moments. V's lair was well realised. Bombs on a train (Hmmm....next summers Sam.L.Jackson action master piece? ). Parliament getting blown to smitherines(yay!)
Stephen fry was great, in a role not seen in the comics, but nice and relevent, and a nice modern updating.
But the film was, how do you say....fucking boreing as hell!
The director had no sense of mood or atmosphere, and in fact made the visuals seem hum-drum, sub-standard. Couldn't stand the way that John Hurt's leader was used like a big Brother contestant, always showing him, larger than life, on a massive screen, taking away any sense of menace from the authoritarian figure head, and stealing from the character the pathetic state of paranoia that he eventualy falls into, thanks to the constant mind games conducted by V. This was one of the things that bought the whole together in the original comic. Was kind of integral to the story, seeing how even the father of the state was nothing more than just a man, corrupted by power, totally seperated from his humanity.
But then i really don't see why any of the original story had to be changed. Yes, I know it's almost inevetable that changes will occur, but I don't have to be a bovine Brit, and accept the changes. 

The added romance between V and Evie was cringe worthy, and excrutiating to watch. I thopught it softened the whole film up, to the point of taking away from it's inherently reveolutionary message. Bloody Hollywood compromises! 

Ah well, no point in banging on abaout it.
Yeah, it was the first of Alan Moore's stories to be anywhere like decently adapted for the screen, but I hope the next (WATCHMEN, from what I hear from my friends in the industry) will be a larger improvment. Maybe even a good film.

It's worthy to note, as I'm not sure anyone has, and am not obsessed enough to trawl through this whole thread to check, that Alan Moore has never seen the point of any of his comics being adapted to film. His point being that his work is written for a certain medium, and isn't really given to translating well to another.

I think he may well be right.

me
winner of the least threads posted over the longest period no-prize. lol.


----------



## fishfingerer (Aug 29, 2006)

There's a review here which was sort of funny but I'm sure there must be madder ones out there. 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621



> Overall, the most outrageous thing about "V" is the ending. Instead of vanquishing terror, all of Britain sides with the terrorist hero of this movie. They celebrate his murder of all the top officials in government, his blowing up of the Houses of Parliament and other government buildings.
> 
> Terrorists and terrorism are the heroes, the government fighting them and trying to keep us safe are the enemy.
> 
> This is the glorious revolution? Osama Bin Laden must be very proud.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 29, 2006)

bushphobia said:
			
		

> (WATCHMEN, from what I hear from my friends in the industry)



Who's that, the guy that sells popcorn at your local Odeon?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 29, 2006)

fishfingerer said:
			
		

> There's a review here which was sort of funny but I'm sure there must be madder ones out there.
> 
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621



That reminds me of some of the mad reviews Fight Club got, especially the Evening Standard which said something like it was a Nazi film for people who liked the Nazis or something equally crazy...


----------



## bushphobia (Aug 29, 2006)

Who's that, the guy that sells popcorn at your local Odeon?

Er....yeah....so...?!
He reads a lot. Ok?!
 

Haw haw.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 30, 2006)

bushphobia said:
			
		

> Who's that, the guy that sells popcorn at your local Odeon?
> 
> Er....yeah....so...?!
> He reads a lot. Ok?!
> ...


----------



## Structaural (Aug 30, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> The former was a bit crap but the recent Oscar winning one was pure shite if you ask me...



I agree.


----------



## fishfingerer (Aug 30, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> That reminds me of some of the mad reviews Fight Club got, especially the Evening Standard which said something like it was a Nazi film for people who liked the Nazis or something equally crazy...


Spookily, Fight Club got the thumbs up from utterly bonkers right wing hack Mary Ellen Synon in Ireland.


----------



## snouty warthog (Sep 4, 2006)

just saw this film on youtube... I really enjoyed it. I thought it would be very different. It mainly came across a romance with hints of 'Brazil' about it to me. I haven't read the original moore story, but I am interested to, now...


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 10, 2006)

I finally saw this last night.

Some bits of it were very well done, but basically, I don't think it works.

In the comic where Evie is about to go on the game for the first time, and she gets caught by the fingermen it's genuinely terrifying. There was no sense of that in the equivalent scene in the film.

The politics weren't sketched properly. In the film her parents were just described as 'political activists', in the book it's 'my dad had been in a socialist group when he was young'.

As for the images of Sutler's fascist regime, it was too close to the styles of the 1930s. Any future - or present day - fascism will wear a suit and tie rather than a jackboot.


----------



## Fenian (Sep 11, 2006)

Idris2002 said:
			
		

> As for the images of Sutler's fascist regime, it was too close to the styles of the 1930s. Any future - or present day - fascism will wear a suit and tie rather than a jackboot.



Quite.

http://www.grandorange.org.uk/parades/order_on_parade.html


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 11, 2006)

I know my saying this wounds you in the marrow of your republican soul, Fenian, but while the Orange order may be a crowd of wrong'uns, it is merely silly to describe them as fascist.


----------



## Structaural (Sep 12, 2006)

snouty warthog said:
			
		

> just saw this film on youtube... I really enjoyed it. I thought it would be very different. It mainly came across a romance with hints of 'Brazil' about it to me. I haven't read the original moore story, but I am interested to, now...



How are YouTube getting round all these copyright issues? They carry almost everything now.


----------



## Flashman (Sep 12, 2006)

They carry stuff until someone official says "Oi!!" then they take it down.


----------



## snouty warthog (Sep 12, 2006)

BootyLove said:
			
		

> How are YouTube getting round all these copyright issues? They carry almost everything now.


in which case, can you recommend anything in a similar vein to V4V?


----------



## Fenian (Sep 12, 2006)

Idris2002 said:
			
		

> I know my saying this wounds you in the marrow of your republican soul, Fenian, but while the Orange order may be a crowd of wrong'uns, it is merely silly to describe them as fascist.



Idris my comment may have been puckish, but as you know there are various interpretations of fascism e.g. were the Blueshirts fascist or merely reactionary Irish Catholic free staters?  Were Franco's forces fascist or nationalist militarists?  Some argue that the nazis were not real fascists; I'd say certain elements of th'Order, if a minority, can be said to fall within that rubric.


----------



## Structaural (Sep 13, 2006)

snouty warthog said:
			
		

> in which case, can you recommend anything in a similar vein to V4V?



ever seen Dark City?


----------



## snouty warthog (Sep 13, 2006)

no... couldn't find it on youtube, but I'll look out for it... my problem is I don't have a DVD player, and the video rentals places are phasing out video for new films... thanks for the rec


----------



## King Mob (Sep 13, 2006)

maya said:
			
		

> very lazy, black-and-white film adaptation...not surprised moore didn't want anything to do with it...




Moore has washed his hands of film adaptations since the _League of Extraordinary Gentlemen_ fiasco. Since then we've had the dismal _Constantine_ (which really pissed off Garth Ennis as well)  and now this.

It's a decent action film but it simplfies things beyond belief, it also misses the point Moore was trying to make. Ok, it does clean up some of Moore's naiveity (the biowarware stuff makes more sense today than a limited nuclear war) but it makes its point with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

Saying that, Dave Lloyd likes the film. He accepts that it would be very, very hard to make a Hollywood version of the book that remains faithful. This is, in his opinion, the best we'll get. Alan Moore disagrees even though he hasn't (and refuses) to see the film.

Still, we have Watchmen coming in 2008.


----------



## Structaural (Sep 14, 2006)

snouty warthog said:
			
		

> no... couldn't find it on youtube, but I'll look out for it... my problem is I don't have a DVD player, and the video rentals places are phasing out video for new films... thanks for the rec



You can pick a DVD player up for about 30 quid these days.


----------



## Structaural (Sep 14, 2006)

King Mob said:
			
		

> Still, we have Watchmen coming in 2008.



Looking forward to that!


----------



## King Mob (Sep 14, 2006)

I would like to but as much as i liked Zack Snyder's _Dawn of the Dead_ remake (and his adaptation of Frank Miller's _300_ looks interesting) Watchmen is something else entirely.

I agree with Moore, it's meant to work only as a comic book. It's like _Moby Dick_, it's something meant to only work in its original form.


----------



## Structaural (Sep 14, 2006)

'Meant' is a bit like 'should': idealistic sentiments. The movie will be a separate piece of art based on the same story and hopefully will be judged on its own merits.

Personally I'd like films to wander away from being 'just like the book', I'll read the book if want that, my imagination is perfectly up to the task. 
I'd prefer a slightly different interpretation like Blade Runner's take on Do Androids...
The film should stand on it's own and it's crap watching a film where you know what's going to happen...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 14, 2006)

King Mob said:
			
		

> Still, we have Watchmen coming in 2008.



That should be 'fun'...nice name btw.


----------



## King Mob (Sep 14, 2006)

BootyLove said:
			
		

> 'Meant' is a bit like 'should': idealistic sentiments. The movie will be a separate piece of art based on the same story and hopefully will be judged on its own merits.
> 
> Personally I'd like films to wander away from being 'just like the book', I'll read the book if want that, my imagination is perfectly up to the task.
> I'd prefer a slightly different interpretation like Blade Runner's take on Do Androids...
> The film should stand on it's own and it's crap watching a film where you know what's going to happen...




You must hate Titanic then. Damn boat sinks every time.


----------



## Structaural (Sep 14, 2006)

King Mob said:
			
		

> You must hate Titanic then. Damn boat sinks every time.



Hate it? I despise that film.  

I suppose what I'm saying is I'm a bit tired of all these very successful mediocre books being made into mediocre films. Film is it's own artform and most books are too long-winded to given any justice with a medium that works better from short stories. 
Mind you a comic seems almost ideal to turn into a film as it's essentially a storyboard.


----------



## King Mob (Sep 14, 2006)

BootyLove said:
			
		

> Mind you a comic seems almost ideal to turn into a film as it's essentially a storyboard.




Some are. Part of the reason Marvel have had so much success in their films is that they'verealised their characters can translate well while retaining the same feel (lets not mention the FF film) as the comics. You don't need to have a faithful adaptation as long as Peter Parker in Spider-Man or Wolverine is a nutter with claws. These are characters in a state of grace and as long they remain faithful to those characters spirit (please forget the FF film) they'll translate well.

Something like Watchmen is using the artform to its fullest and needs all the backstory, it needs the 'Tales of the Black Frieghter' subtext. It's going to take a hell of a job to translate this faithfully and after the failure of _From Hell_ i'm not convinced this will be any better.

Incidently, there was a time when Terry Gilliam was going to do the film from a script by Sam Hamm (who wrote the first two Batman films) and it was a decent script which even Moore liked. It died because Gilliam wasn't allowed to have the budget that would have made the film work. Shame, we could have had Big Arnie as Dr Manhattan.


----------



## Structaural (Sep 14, 2006)

King Mob said:
			
		

> (lets not mention the FF film) as the comics. You don't need to have a faithful adaptation as long as Peter Parker in Spider-Man or Wolverine is a nutter with claws. These are characters in a state of grace and as long they remain faithful to those characters spirit (please forget the FF film) they'll translate well.



I have - but then I never read the comic (nor do I know anyone who did). 



> Something like Watchmen is using the artform to its fullest and needs all the backstory, it needs the 'Tales of the Black Frieghter' subtext. It's going to take a hell of a job to translate this faithfully and after the failure of _From Hell_ i'm not convinced this will be any better.



They could do it just as it was - with the character reading it in the street as a comic book, most probably they'll leave it out... I'm still not sure I understand it  (mind you I read it at 15, I must drag it out again)



> Incidently, there was a time when Terry Gilliam was going to do the film from a script by Sam Hamm (who wrote the first two Batman films) and it was a decent script which even Moore liked. It died because Gilliam wasn't allowed to have the budget that would have made the film work. Shame, we could have had Big Arnie as Dr Manhattan.



Bit past it these days isn't he? Wasn't Dr Manhattan super intelligent


----------



## snouty warthog (Sep 14, 2006)

BootyLove said:
			
		

> You can pick a DVD player up for about 30 quid these days.


yeah... I don't actually own a telly. I'd rather not, in fact... 

I'm moving soon, and I might look into getting a PC with a DVD attachment...


> You must hate Titanic then. Damn boat sinks every time.


spoiler!


----------



## diego (Nov 5, 2006)

I wonder why such an interesting film very relevant to current times has been kept so quite as I for one have only recently been informed about it.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Nov 5, 2006)

Without dragging this into a _Watchmen - the movie_ thread, I think it's entirely possible to translate it into film without keeping the "Black Freighter" part. It's a very, very clever piece of dual narrative, and a nice meta-textual touch (what comics _might_ be like in a world with real superheroes), but it's not vital to the story. 

What is important is the back stories of the characters, and how they link to The Comedian, who really is the hub of the book. Current rumour is that it'll be spread over 2 movies, which seems like a better bet to me. I think a comparison could be drawn with LA Confidential, which is an immensely dense book, but which made an engrossing (although different) film.


----------



## treelover (Nov 5, 2006)

you can watch whole films on youtube, how do they get away with that?



> just saw this film on youtube


----------



## Fruitloop (Jul 30, 2007)

Idris2002 said:
			
		

> The princess type does nothing for me. If Portman was in Belfast, she'd be a Methody girl. That might be your bag, but it sure as hell ain't mine.
> 
> (especially after all the snide remarks I got from the one methody girl I do know).



I live with a Methody girl!  

I don't think she's much like the rest though.


----------

