# V For Vendetta: Crap/Not Crap



## _pH_ (Dec 22, 2008)

I watched this last night, thought it was excellent. The bit where Evie gets imprisoned by V was a bit freaky!

What say you?


----------



## Gmart (Dec 22, 2008)

Definitely not crap - excellent film


----------



## keybored (Dec 22, 2008)

Loved it, the ending could have been done better though.

I've only just realised the bloke who plays V is also Agent Smith from The Matrix.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Dec 22, 2008)

It is alright, I guess.


----------



## _pH_ (Dec 22, 2008)

only alright? why do you say that?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Dec 22, 2008)

I am complimenting it by not saying that it is shit.



I quite like it, really. It works on a lot of different levels.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Definitely not crap - excellent film



What are you fav films gmarthews?


----------



## _pH_ (Dec 22, 2008)

I like your style.

'Not shit' = complimentary


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2008)

Gmarthews said:


> Definitely not crap - excellent film



One day eh?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 22, 2008)

It aint amazing but it has it's moments (and yes I'm a big fan of the original comics)...the ending is proper cringeworthy shite though!


----------



## teuchter (Dec 22, 2008)

I thought it was a bit crap. All rather predictable I thought. It's the sort of thing conspiraloons or teenage anarchists might get all excited about.


----------



## Callie (Dec 22, 2008)

It draws a lot from other books/films. Its hardly original imo. Its ok. Not exciting stuff.

Not familiar with the source material (comics you say?)


----------



## _pH_ (Dec 22, 2008)

Callie said:


> It draws a lot from other books/films. Its hardly original imo. Its ok. Not exciting stuff.



you fell asleep, what the fuck would you know??


----------



## Callie (Dec 22, 2008)

i didn't.


----------



## _pH_ (Dec 22, 2008)

oh. i thought you did. sorry


----------



## N_igma (Dec 22, 2008)

Yeh good film from what I remember. Haven't seen it since it came out though.


----------



## In Bloom (Dec 22, 2008)

It was okay, all the virus stuff seemed a bit silly to me, but I'm quite a fan of the comic.


----------



## isitme (Dec 22, 2008)

I like it
It isn't great, and I know it is a bit offensive for people who bought the cominc when it came out, but shit man, they actualy made a film of houses of parliment blowing up with a load of fireworks
that bit always gets me. it's one of my favourite scenes in a film ever


----------



## ruffneck23 (Dec 22, 2008)

it was ok , not a patch on the comics tho ( yet another alan moore ( i think ) adaption that didnt live up to the source )


----------



## Azrael (Dec 22, 2008)

Alan Moore said the Wachowskis should've had the guts to set their paranoid anti-Bush parable in the USA, instead of mutilating his examination of fascism and anarchism. He's right, it's a mediocre film. 

I'll stick with the vastly superior comic book.

Mr Moore's got to be due a decent adaptation one of these days: here's hoping for the _Watchmen_ movie.


----------



## fubert (Dec 22, 2008)

Book's better.. film's also good.


----------



## andy2002 (Dec 22, 2008)

I thought it was pretty poor - Moore and Lloyd's comic pisses on it from a great height.


----------



## internetstalker (Dec 22, 2008)

It's shit

Alan Moore didn't want his name associated with it!

I don't blame him

The Graphic novel is quality tho!


----------



## ruffneck23 (Dec 22, 2008)

Azrael said:


> Mr Moore's got to be due a decent adaptation one of these days: here's hoping for the _Watchmen_ movie.




i havent got high hopes


----------



## poului (Dec 22, 2008)

*eyv5rjyfg*

Shockingly bad.


----------



## kained&able (Dec 22, 2008)

love it


----------



## T & P (Dec 22, 2008)

Very good.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 22, 2008)

isitme said:


> I like it
> It isn't great, and I know it is a bit offensive for people who bought the cominc when it came out, but shit man, they actualy made a film of houses of parliment blowing up with a load of fireworks
> that bit always gets me. it's one of my favourite scenes in a film ever



Exactly


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 22, 2008)

i really like it.  it's got loads of bits in it that make me go WOO!  YEAH!

i also have lots of criticism about what they should have done to make it better.


----------



## Sadken (Dec 22, 2008)

poului said:


> Shockingly bad.



Yeah.  In the same way a crisp Spring morning is, or waking up next to somebody you are in love with and noticing that they've baked you a cake and cleaned your oven whilst you were asleep.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

not crap at all. Not as good as the comic, but still fucking good.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> not crap at all. Not as good as the comic, but still fucking good.



Especially so, for a Hollywood film.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

Great, but haven't read the picture book that came with the film


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2008)

It's okay as an action film, and it has a decent cast, but it's not a patch on the "Warrior" strip (later published as the graphic novel).


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

Left Turn Clyde said:


> Great, but haven't read the picture book that came with the film



Graphic Novel. Anyone who blithely dismisses Moore is silly


----------



## internetstalker (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Graphic Novel. Anyone who blithely dismisses Moore is silly



Moore is a god!










*I'm from Northampton and this makes me blind to any other opinion*


----------



## fogbat (Dec 22, 2008)

Got to love anyone whose chosen deity was probably a handpuppet.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Graphic Novel. Anyone who blithely dismisses Moore is silly



I know - that was just to wind up you lot
Moore is great - not a great writer by any stretch of the imagination, but a great ideas man, much like PKD


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Graphic Novel. Anyone who blithely dismisses Moore is silly



Trade paperback, it's a collection of comics not a purpose released one off...


----------



## andy2002 (Dec 22, 2008)

Left Turn Clyde said:


> I know - that was just to wind up you lot
> Moore is great - not a great writer by any stretch of the imagination, but a great ideas man, much like PKD



He's certainly a great *comics* writer - probably one of the best ever.


----------



## internetstalker (Dec 22, 2008)

andy2002 said:


> He's certainly a great *comics* writer - *probably one of the best ever.*



Oh the Irony!!


----------



## andy2002 (Dec 22, 2008)

internetstalker said:


> Oh the Irony!!



Hah - very good. I'm from Northampton too, by the way.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

andy2002 said:


> He's certainly a great *comics* writer - probably one of the best ever.



No, he really isn't a good writer


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

andy2002 said:


> Hah - very good. I'm from Northampton too, by the way.



w000t another one


----------



## andy2002 (Dec 22, 2008)

Left Turn Clyde said:


> No, he really isn't a good writer



Go on then, I'll bite. Why isn't he a good writer?


----------



## andy2002 (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> w000t another one



I live in Southend now - but that's really just Northampton with even more objectionable accents and a bit of beach.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

andy2002 said:


> Go on then, I'll bite. Why isn't he a good writer?



He's rather awkward and grandiloquent - like he's an ex-tramp who's just done a course in Creative Writing. Full of ideas and stories though, so it's a good job he has pictures to back up his weak text.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

Left Turn Clyde said:


> He's rather awkward and grandiloquent - like he's an ex-tramp who's just done a course in Creative Writing. Full of ideas and stories though, so it's a good job he has pictures to back up his weak text.



^^^this is a man who sneered at dickens the other day


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> ^^^this is a man who sneered at dickens the other day



me? I did not - he's our greatest writer!


----------



## Gavin Bl (Dec 22, 2008)

Don't remember it in great detail, it had a lot more about it than most films, but wasn't knocked out by it. Not familiar with the comic. 

Not sure why, but 'hollywood' films seem to be able to spend a load of money on everything except keeping the story coherent.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Dec 22, 2008)

Crap


----------



## Sadken (Dec 22, 2008)

Left Turn Clyde said:


> me? I did not - he's our greatest writer!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

Gavin Bl said:


> Don't remember it in great detail, it had a lot more about it than most films, but wasn't knocked out by it. Not familiar with the comic.
> 
> Not sure why, but 'hollywood' films seem to be able to spend a load of money on everything except keeping the story coherent.



but the bit where a fingerman kills the kid in the V mask is fucking ace. The look of dawning horror on his face when the bystanders turn on him is probably my second favorite scene.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Dec 22, 2008)

crap


----------



## MullahNasrudin (Dec 22, 2008)

It's a big bag of shite -- Children of Men was so much better and certainly had some V For Vendetta like elements.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 22, 2008)

Children of Men was worse.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Dec 22, 2008)

bollox... CoM was wikkid


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

Children Of Men is ace!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

C of M was like a Ballard novel. Crafted but essentially empty- sci fi for people with no taste


----------



## exleper (Dec 22, 2008)

I enjoyed parts, like the Houses of Parliament blowing up, and the Richard Littlejohn character.  But generally I thought it was pretty poorly executed.  The baddies in that first scene, Dickensian villains in futuristic London?  In fact the whole film seems to look like it's set in Victorian times, with people saying 'bollocks' a lot. The American Mary Poppins-informed view of Britain is invariably excrutiating viewing for those of us who live here.

And I thought the none-too-subtle political message was a load of bull as well.  Fine if you're a 19 year old student, but it clearly thought it was making some original and important Ideas About Government And That, and wasn't nearly as clever as it thought it was.  Plus  dreadful dialogue, shitty acting, getting a clever man like Stephen Fry to do Benny Hill-style comedy (does America think that's all we can do in comedy?), rip offs from 1984 and an incoherent story, and I believe I'm leaning towards to 'Crap' side of the table.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 22, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Children of Men was worse.



Children of Men was a bit better, but they're both ace films.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Dec 22, 2008)

V for Vendetta was a moronic take on the story and its clear the Wachowski's and their Director (who's previous credit was 2nd Unit on Attack of the Clones) had bugger all to say about Britain or Englishness. Which was a massive missed opportunity... At least CoM had that.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 22, 2008)

bouncer_the_dog said:


> bollox... CoM was wikkid



Nope, it's shite.



Left Turn Clyde said:


> Children Of Men is ace!



LOL! You're crazy, it's shite!



DotCommunist said:


> C of M was like a Ballard novel. Crafted but essentially empty- sci fi for people with no taste



Nah, it's just shite, it's not well crafted, it's crap through and through...


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Dec 22, 2008)

3 shites and you're out I'm afraid KE


----------



## exleper (Dec 22, 2008)

The Wachowskis proved with the Matrix sequels that scriptwriting is clearly not something they are particularly talented at.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 22, 2008)

bouncer_the_dog said:


> 3 shites and you're out I'm afraid KE



What does for shites get me? 

CoM was a load of bollox; V was a crap adaption, read the source materials and you can see that the vision of the future, rooted in the 80s, made a lot more sense than CoM lame attempt...


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

Children Of Men is an excellent thriller - exciting, visually interesting and Michael Caine as a dope smoking hippy. And it has that brilliant one take shot of a building at siege.
And it has the best slow car chase ever. All this, despite starring a teak sideboard as the central character.
Shit book though.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Dec 22, 2008)

CoM and some fabulous cinematography, caught the essence of a decrepit Britain and London in a far more evocative way than V for Vendetta. It took in plenty of modern issues, such as terrorism, refugee's etc. V for Vendetta's slickness and lack of understanding of its setting detracted from any weight it might have had. Both films are good, although I said V was shite because I am a comic fanboy, and CoM is by no means 'Shite' whatever level you look at it.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Dec 22, 2008)

CoM is better than V for V, but still a long way off being a great film.

Caine was good, Owen did his usual tree trunk job, it was alright.

There's too much money and time spent on films which are just ok.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 22, 2008)

CoM bored the shit out of me, Caine wasn't very good. V, for what it was, was quite entertaining in places...I could easily watch V again but you'd have to put a gun to my head to force me to watch CoM.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

How could that bore the shit out of you? I conclude that you are a popcorn munching moron.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Dec 22, 2008)

Didn't like it the first time through, liked it more the second. Might like it a lot on the third if and when i get around to it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Nah, it's just shite, it's not well crafted, it's crap through and through...



no, the crafted side is what LTC was referring to- the thriller element.

And much like Ballard the film C of M is beloved by people who only like speculative fiction when it is presented in a form they can identify with through mainstream exposure to the form the ideas are articulated in.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

I don't care for the scifi label - it was a thrilller, pure and simple


----------



## MullahNasrudin (Dec 22, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> V was a crap adaption, read the source materials and you can see that the vision of the future, rooted in the 80s, made a lot more sense than CoM lame attempt...



Even Alan Moore would now concede that his idea that Britain would turn fascist after a nuclear war was naive. He said as much when interviewed by Stewart Lee on R4's Chain Reaction.

So when your beloved creator contradicts your argument, it means that you are talking a load of...shite!


----------



## MullahNasrudin (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> And much like Ballard the film C of M is beloved by people who only like speculative fiction when it is presented in a form they can identify with through mainstream exposure to the form the ideas are articulated in.



I take it you've met everyone that's seen CoM then? Or are you just being massively presumptuous to fit your own prejudices?

At worst, you could say it's soft sci-fi -- but then again, there's very little hard sci-fi around. I guess there isn't a big audience for it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

I think V and CoM shouldn't be judged in comparison with their source materials. They should stand alone.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

Left Turn Clyde said:


> I don't care for the scifi label - it was a thrilller, pure and simple



which used sci fi/speculative ideas to drive the plot. It's typical of the sort of nonsense that people quote as 'best sci fi film of xxxx'. There are very few films that articulate sci fi tropes effectively imo. The exception to this has to be action films like Timecop and Predator which are simply using sf as a vehicle for intense violence and explosions


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 22, 2008)

Left Turn Clyde said:


> I think V and CoM shouldn't be judged in comparison with their source materials. They should stand alone.



That's impossible for those who've read either or both the source material. There's always going to be bias...


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> which used sci fi/speculative ideas to drive the plot. It's typical of the sort of nonsense that people quote as 'best sci fi film of xxxx'. There are very few films that articulate sci fi tropes effectively imo. The exception to this has to be action films like Timecop and Predator which are simply using sf as a vehicle for intense violence and explosions


I saw it as a thriller foremost.

 Fuck hard sci fi anyway, sci fi that's nearer to our time and reality is much more interesting,


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

MullahNasrudin said:


> I take it you've met everyone that's seen CoM then? Or are you just being massively presumptuous to fit your own prejudices?
> 
> At worst, you could say it's soft sci-fi -- but then again, there's very little hard sci-fi around. I guess there isn't a big audience for it.



Like Ballard it is mundane SF.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> That's impossible for those who've read either or both the source material. There's always going to be bias...



Not entirely. It's only impossible for prissy self-important fanboys.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Like Ballard it is mundane SF.


You really hate him! I think he's great!


----------



## Termite Man (Dec 22, 2008)

Left Turn Clyde said:


> I think he's great!




So do I . Ballard is damn brilliant !


----------



## Dillinger4 (Dec 22, 2008)

Termite Man said:


> So do I . Ballard is damn brilliant !



yep.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

Left Turn Clyde said:


> I saw it as a thriller foremost.
> 
> Fuck hard sci fi anyway, sci fi that's nearer to our time and reality is much more interesting,



yeah fuck 2001 eh?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

Left Turn Clyde said:


> You really hate him! I think he's great!



I find him incredibly over done and airy fairy. A writer who wins at descriptive, fails on dialogue and fails hard when it comes to scenes of action.


----------



## Herbsman. (Dec 22, 2008)

I lost interest after about 10 mins

It just seemed really fake - bad acting maybe...


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah fuck 2001 eh?


that's not complete space opera sci fi though


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

Left Turn Clyde said:


> that's not complete space opera sci fi though



but it is hard sf and that is what your post said 'fuck' to.


----------



## ChrisC (Dec 22, 2008)

It certainly puts into your mind the way this country is heading.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> but it is hard sf and that is what your post said 'fuck' to.



I misunderstood what hard scifi is then - 2001 was near future plausible shit, not like Star Wars


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

Left Turn Clyde said:


> I misunderstood what hard scifi is then - 2001 was near future plausible shit, not like Star Wars



hard sf is fic coming from plausible shit. Hence Alistair Reynolds star travellers sleep in cryogenic  caskets and suffer all the dislocation caused by near _c_ time dilation effects. That is very different to space opera.

Star Wars is closer to scientific romance tbh, a fantasy draped in future skin


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

Ah right you are then


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Dec 22, 2008)

A crap film on its own terms, but specifically in its mangling of such genius source material it is fucking appalling.


----------



## loud 1 (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> w000t another one


----------



## Gavin Bl (Dec 22, 2008)

yeah, enjoyed Children of Men far more, the story felt tighter, and some of the set pieces were stunning. 

I guess it might just be I'm not wild about graphic novels/comics. Apart from Maus, the last comic I read was probably 'Warlord' in about 1978.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> A crap film on its own terms, but specifically in its mangling of such genius source material it is fucking appalling.



I've yet to se a comic adaptation from Holllywood that done justice to the source material



loud 1 said:


>



we pwn


----------



## loud 1 (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I've yet to se a comic adaptation from Holllywood that done justice to the source material
> 
> 
> 
> we pwn



oi

i got an xmas card from mr moore!!

original artwork too!!!


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I've yet to se a comic adaptation from Holllywood that done justice to the source material



Yet the last 2 batman films are _better_ than the source material... I read batman into my mid teens and obviously there are better batman stories but overall, that film is way better than most batman comics. 

Sin City was done justice. 300 was done justice.

Spiderman and x-Men both done justice imho too.

Iron Man also.

So no, sorry, i do not accept that at all. The makers of V for Vendetta, be it the director, the writers or the financial bods clearly did not respect the source material in the the the films i mention above did. I assume they saw a cult, but largely insignificant british comic and thought about how to 'bring it up to date' or 'make the plot work better'. The problem is V is not a series, V was only a few comics. There is only one story. Tell it - or fucking don't.


----------



## october_lost (Dec 22, 2008)

Crap. Instead of a story about anarchism taking on fascism we had a parody of both. Shite baddies, over reliance on action, no character development, poor performances all round (Steven Fry was atrocious) the only redeeming point was the blowing upof parliament.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> Yet the last 2 batman films are _better_ than the source material... I read batman into my mid teens and obviously there are better batman stories but overall, that film is way better than most batman comics.
> 
> Sin City was done justice. 300 was done justice.
> 
> ...




oh do me a favour, Miller adaptations are fucking horrible, totally stripped of the ambiguity of the comics, a lack that fails to temper the film adapts.

of all you mention only Iron Man and Batman Begins come anywhere near doing the sources justice and the are not quite perfect in many ways.

Comparing the mediums is a bit sily beyond subjective value judgments tho ennit


----------



## Gavin Bl (Dec 22, 2008)

october_lost said:


> (Steven Fry was atrocious)



God, I forgot about that, he and his dialogue were dire.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> oh do me a favour, Miller adaptations are fucking horrible, totally stripped of the ambiguity of the comics, a lack that fails to temper the film adapts.



what ambiguity is that then?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> of all you mention only Iron Man and Batman Begins come anywhere near doing the sources justice and the are not quite perfect in many ways.



I disagree. As i say, there are many stories to tell _within ongoing series_, within the characters' universe: those were excellent x men stories, excellent spider man stories and excellent batman stories. They are not attempting to do justice to all 500 plus comics of each series. 

Anyway, you've conceded my point - that there have been decent enough adaptations pf comics to film.

Thanks 

PS - Persepolis too.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Dec 22, 2008)

october_lost said:


> Crap. Instead of a story about anarchism taking on fascism we had a parody of both. Shite baddies, over reliance on action, no character development, poor performances all round (Steven Fry was atrocious) the only redeeming point was the blowing upof parliament.



if you haven't read the comic i'll get u for xmas


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> I disagree. As i say, there are many stories to tell _within ongoing series_, within the characters' universe: those were excellent x men stories, excellent spider man stories and excellent batman stories. They are not attempting to do justice to all 500 plus comics of each series.
> 
> Anyway, you've conceded my point - that there have been decent enough adaptations pf comics to film.
> 
> ...




I believe hollywood adapts was the qualifier for non justice to source


----------



## loud 1 (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I believe hollywood adapts was the qualifier for non justice to source



i dont think alan likes many of his work in hollywood form


----------



## Fictionist (Dec 22, 2008)

Homosexual character owns a copy of the Qur'an in aesthetic appreciation (shock!!!)


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I've yet to se a comic adaptation from Holllywood that done justice to the source material


Superman?
Or on another level, Persepolis?


----------



## jonnoboy (Dec 22, 2008)

not crap

plus Stephen Fry is in it!


----------



## Azrael (Dec 24, 2008)

ruffneck23 said:


> i havent got high hopes


For the first time with an Alan Moore adaptation, I have. Snyder appears to have kept close to the comic (the trailer is a run-through of every important scene) and he's confirmed that the moral deadlock at the end is intact. Plus the cinematography looks gorgeous. 

Mr Moore now badmouths films of his work on principle (and who can blame him), but artist Dave Gibbons is positive. 

www.watchmencomicmovie.com is full of nifty stuff. 

Although my prior hopes have been ravished by crass Hollywoodisation, I'm determined to remain optimistic.


----------



## looneytune (Dec 25, 2008)

Read the book and you'll see the light.

which means my vote is 'crap'


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Dec 25, 2008)

It was alright, but am looking forward to reading the comic some day.  Sounds like it will have a lot more substance tro it...


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 25, 2008)

unmitigated toss


----------



## looneytune (Dec 26, 2008)

Jon-of-arc said:


> It was alright, but am looking forward to reading the comic some day.  Sounds like it will have a lot more substance tro it...



Yeah, it's pretty sweet.  It's almost all dialogue, unlike the film which was mostly posteuring.  I recommend the novel  to anyone wanting an intro to anarchy


----------



## Badgers (Nov 5, 2009)

November the 05th bump for a 'not crap' film


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> I watched this last night, thought it was excellent. The bit where Evie gets imprisoned by V was a bit freaky!
> 
> What say you?


should have posted a public poll, that's what i say


----------



## vauxhallmum (Nov 5, 2009)

The Graphic novel meant alot to me and I avoided the film successfully until I was trapped on a plane when it was on 

Much to my surprise I thought it was fab. Really moody and caught the atmosphere of the novel well.

However that sodding Natalie Portman and her stooooopid posh fake english accent really god on my nerves


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 5, 2009)

I didn't even notice it was Nathalie Portman, I thought it was a British actress


----------



## mwgdrwg (Nov 5, 2009)

Loved the graphic novel, hated the film.


----------



## nicksonic (Nov 5, 2009)

verily i really liked it, esp V's monologue at the start (which i've discovered via this forum divides opinion).


----------



## stupid dogbot (Nov 5, 2009)

Not crap.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2009)

Don't know.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 5, 2009)

Again, definitely loved the film.  In fact, the book which I will start on in earnest once I've finished my Chinatown-meets-Star Wars epic is, in part, influenced a little by it in one respect.  That said, I haven't read the comic.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Nov 5, 2009)

Not crap
but where's the poll


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> That said, I haven't read the comic.


There's a comic?


----------



## nicksonic (Nov 5, 2009)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Not crap
> but where's the poll



Vanished.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Nov 5, 2009)




----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 5, 2009)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Not crap
> but where's the poll



It got blown up, it was in a conference with people from MORI in the Houses of Parliament at time


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> There's a comic?



How very dare you


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> How very dare you


Does that mean "of course there is" or "of course there isn't"?

I believe it was a successful film, so I wouldn't be surprised if they made a comic out of it.  Star Wars had comics, I understand.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2009)

are you goading me? Alan Moore (may he live forever) did the comic long before the film


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2009)

Who?


----------



## nicksonic (Nov 5, 2009)

this could get nasty...


----------



## ericjarvis (Nov 5, 2009)

Alan Moore. The guy who wrote Watchmen, The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and V For Vendetta, along with several other graphic novels that have been turned into successful films, and quite a few that haven't but eventually should be.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2009)

Lol.  I've Googled him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2009)




----------



## Nanker Phelge (Nov 5, 2009)

I wasn't keen when I first saw it, but I caught it recently on TV and it did draw me in and as a piece of entertainment it was fun....some of it is still fucking ropey.

The woman in the country reading letters with the London Eye in the distance was hilarious. Some very bad Amercian-eye view of London stuff.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Nov 5, 2009)

I thought it was a good film. But I'd wager that the screenplay cut a few corners in the plot.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 5, 2010)

Seasonal bump for a film I like a LOT and will possibly be watching tonight.


----------



## sim667 (Nov 5, 2010)

Not crap. end of.


----------



## Bajie (Nov 5, 2010)

Nice thread necromancy, out of all the Alan Moore comic book film adaptations V for Vendetta is the best one, but the book is better and different in many different areas.


----------



## porno thieving gypsy (Nov 5, 2010)

sim667 said:


> Not crap. end of.


 
Correct


----------



## porno thieving gypsy (Nov 5, 2010)

Bajie said:


> but the book is better and different in many different areas.



Also correct


----------



## dylans (Nov 5, 2010)

The novel is outstanding. The film was inevitably a bit meh. Not least because the novel was written during the bleak Thatcher years when petty vindictive laws and cruel moralistic poison was coming out of downing street. Laws such as clause 28 etc were being pushed through and things looked pretty rotten.

The film had to reflect a different time and as such it loses a lot of the dystopian bleakness so central to the novel.  Also V is such a larger than life character that he is really only understood as a metaphore for resistance and rebellion in general  something that the movie loses, perhaps inevitably. Not a bad movie but it fails in relation to the novel which stands as one of the greatest graphic novels ever written. 



> One Inch
> 
> I don't know who you are. Please believe. There is no way I can convince you that this is not one of their tricks. But I don't care. I am me, and I don't know who you are, but I love you.
> 
> ...


----------



## Badgers (Nov 5, 2010)

dylans said:


> The novel is outstanding. The film was inevitably a bit meh. Not least because the novel was written during the bleak Thatcher years when petty vindictive laws and cruel moralistic poison was coming out of downing street. Laws such as clause 28 etc were being pushed through and things looked pretty rotten.
> 
> The film had to reflect a different time and as such it loses a lot of the dystopian bleakness so central to the novel.  Also V is such a larger than life character that he is really only understood as a metaphore for resistance and rebellion in general  something that the movie loses, perhaps inevitably. Not a bad movie but it fails in relation to the novel which stands as one of the greatest graphic novels ever written.



That bit from Valerie gets me every fucking time


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 5, 2010)

the dude what made the mask and some sets for the film has touched my clunge!!!!!!


----------



## Badgers (Nov 5, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> the dude what made the mask and some sets for the film has touched my clunge!!!!!!


 
touched with what?


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 5, 2010)

Badgers said:


> touched with what?


 
his hands


----------



## Badgers (Nov 5, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> his hands


 
Excellent


----------



## dylans (Nov 5, 2010)

The vicious cabaret



> They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway.
> They say that life's a game, then they take the board away.
> They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
> Then leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret...
> ...


----------



## sim667 (Nov 5, 2010)

I didnt know there was a book...... I did know about the comic tho.....


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> the dude what made the mask and some sets for the film has touched my clunge!!!!!!


 ah! that's what that project reminded me of!


----------



## dylans (Nov 5, 2010)

V is for



> Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villian by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. (he carves a "V" into a sign) The only verdict is vengence; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. (giggles) Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 5, 2010)

dylans said:


> V is for


 
Are you like a crazy person?


----------



## dylans (Nov 5, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Are you like a crazy person?


 
I'm quite sure they will say so


----------



## Badgers (Nov 5, 2010)

Going to watch later, I have decided!!


----------



## Crispy (Nov 5, 2010)

dylans said:


> V is for


 
God that's awful


----------



## dylans (Nov 5, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Going to watch later, I have decided!!


 
I have the book open in front of me. 



> Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of the everyday routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration - whereby those important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, are celebrated with a nice holiday - I thought we could mark this November the fifth, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.
> There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now orders are being shouted into telephones and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?
> 
> Cruelty and injustice...intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance, coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told...if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
> ...


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2010)

Crispy said:


> God that's awful


 
that's alan moore for you - not a great writer, but a great imagination


----------



## dylans (Nov 5, 2010)




----------



## rollinder (Nov 5, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> that's alan moore for you - not a great writer, but a great imagination


 
I don't think Alan Moore wrote that bit


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2010)

rollinder said:


> I don't think Alan Moore wrote that bit


 
is that from the film then? reads like him!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 5, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> is that from the film then? reads like him!


 
It's from the film. It pissed off a lot of people. 

I like most of Moores work but I have always found V boring as hell. The film though is far far worse.


----------



## The Rural Juror (Nov 5, 2010)

the film isn't bad, as long as you mentally separate it from the superior source material..


----------



## Badgers (Nov 5, 2010)

The Rural Juror said:


> the film isn't bad, as long as you mentally separate it from the superior source material..


 
I saw the film first which may have helped


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 5, 2010)

_pH_ said:


> I watched this last night, thought it was excellent. The bit where Evie gets imprisoned by V was a bit freaky!
> 
> What say you?


 
Comment: V is an aspect of Evie's personality which she was unaware that she possessed.

What say you?


----------



## T & P (Nov 5, 2010)

dylans said:


> V is for
> 
> 
> 
> > Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villian by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. (he carves a "V" into a sign) The only verdict is vengence; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. (giggles) Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.


 Out of curiosity, is that in the book, or was just created for the film?

Good flick IMO. I'm sure it doesn't do the novel justice, but as one who has not read it I thought the film was great.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 5, 2010)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> It's from the film. It pissed off a lot of people.
> 
> I like most of Moore's work but I have always found V boring as hell. The film though is far far worse.


OK...worse than what?  PS I Love You?  Saw (whatever number)? Piranha 3D?  Predators?

...the latest Karate Kid?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 6, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> OK...worse than what?  PS I Love You?  Saw (whatever number)? Piranha 3D?  Predators?
> 
> ...the latest Karate Kid?


 
Worse than the comic book of course.


----------



## Melinda (Mar 13, 2011)

Oooh this is on now. I rather like it.  BBC 2

I may consider staying up to watch it.


----------



## Melinda (Mar 13, 2011)

dylans said:


>


 
England Prevails!


----------



## 8den (Mar 13, 2011)

tribal_princess said:


> the dude what made the mask and some sets for the film has touched my clunge!!!!!!


 
By accident or intentionally?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 13, 2011)

V for Vendetta?  Graphic novel and film?  Both crap.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 13, 2011)

Not crap. Was pretty true to the original too. I read it in my early-twenties (the end of the eighties)


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 13, 2011)

Seems like one of those things you're into in your teens, but embarrassed about when you're thirty.  We all go through a 'Bon Jovi' phase.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

But shit, i make revolution happen in Egypt and that rastaman


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 13, 2011)

Eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

So there it goes we get the subliminal - all veils dropped. I hate etc now. I truly see.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 13, 2011)

Okay.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Seems like one of those things you're into in your teens, but embarrassed about when you're thirty.  We all go through a 'Bon Jovi' phase.


 
Did you?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 13, 2011)

Nevermind.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 13, 2011)

Anybody who claims to know about modern British literature should have read the comics. The film, I've not seen. I might iPlayer it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

Why should they? (and i don't - do you?)

The film is great pompous idiocy.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 13, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Seems like one of those things you're into in your teens, but embarrassed about when you're thirty.  We all go through a 'Bon Jovi' phase.


 
You're still in it.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 13, 2011)

"Bollocks."


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why should they? (and i don't - do you?)


 
Mostly because it's been very influential on comics since then and they're part of modern British literature. And no, I don't either, but it was definitely worth reading.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Mostly because it's been very influential on comics since then and they're part of modern British literature. And no, I don't either, but it was definitely worth reading.


 

Good answer.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 13, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Anybody who claims to know about modern British literature should have read the comics. The film, I've not seen. I might iPlayer it.


 
If you love the comics you might not think that much of the film. That said it's nowhere near as an abomination as the Watchmen turned out to be...


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 13, 2011)

Ive not read the comic or seen the film. 

But talks of 'a virus' on page one of the thread makes me think of Will Smith type shite.


----------



## Santino (Mar 13, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Ive not read the comic or seen the film.
> 
> But talks of 'a virus' on page one of the thread makes me think of Will Smith type shite.


 
Yep, you've nailed it all right.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 14, 2011)

Well i could be wrong. But usually the graph runs as the special effects increase the storyline and acting diminishes. Although there are a few exceptions to the rule.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

Now i know the truth (apols for everyone who got the truth two years - how did that work out for the rest of us you lib dem cunt).


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 14, 2011)

Is the original material just comics, or is there a novel?

Coz I hate comics


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 14, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Is the original material just comics, or is there a novel?
> 
> Coz I hate comics



Just comics.

But FINALLLY. I hate comics as well.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 14, 2011)

Just comics.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2011)

Alan moore said:
			
		

> What had originally been a straightforward
> battle of ideas between anarchy and fascism had been turned into a kind of
> ham-fisted parable of 9-11 and the war against terror, in which the words an-
> archy and fascism appear nowhere. I mean, at the time I was thinking: look, if
> ...




from this:

http://www.tangledwilderness.org/?p=301


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 14, 2011)

How shit was that


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2011)

you're telling me there wasn't even a semi when they blew up the houses of parliament?


----------



## Santino (Mar 14, 2011)

As films V for Vendetta and Watchmen both suffer from the fact that there is no real jeopardy. The main plot thrust of both is determined by one brilliant individual and the outcome is never in doubt.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2011)

Am I the only one who thinks that the story (both comic and film) is individualistic teenage crap? Lone hero overthrows fascism? V has become posterboy for libertarian right and its obvious why.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 14, 2011)

I like it


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2011)

Oh I enjoyed it for what it was, but I think the politics in it are shite.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 14, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> you're telling me there wasn't even a semi when they blew up the houses of parliament?


 
No. Seemed like a libertarian twat.

Mass movements ftw.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Am I the only one who thinks that the story (both comic and film) is individualistic teenage crap? *Lone hero *overthrows fascism? V has become posterboy for libertarian right and its obvious why.


 
symbolic figurehead surely? he does the 'spectaculars' like tv hijacking and bombings but its not him that overthrows fascism.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> symbolic figurehead surely? he does the 'spectaculars' like tv hijacking and bombings but its not him that overthrows fascism.


 
its him that leads the way and "awakens" the masses


----------



## Badgers (Mar 14, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Oh I enjoyed it for what it was, but I think the politics in it are shite.


 
 

Whereas the non fiction politics are excellent


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 14, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Am I the only one



No, you're not.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 14, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I like it


 
Me too.  Watched it for the first time last night.





Now I know where the 'the internetz are coming' masks are from


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 14, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> its him that leads the way and "awakens" the masses


 
Has anyone ever argued that V is actually an aspect of Evie's personality that she doesn't know she had?

Maybe Moore wasn't hailing the Nietschean überman as revolutionary subject, but simply telling us to search for the hero inside ourselves?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> No, you're not.


 
Oh good.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Has anyone ever argued that V is actually an aspect of Evie's personality that she doesn't know she had?
> 
> Maybe Moore wasn't hailing the Nietschean überman as revolutionary subject, but simply telling us to search for the hero inside ourselves?


 
that then places evie as lone hero


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2011)

As well as being a dreadful M People lyric.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 14, 2011)

The M People did that too.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 14, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> but simply telling us to search for the hero inside ourselves?


 
Like Heather Smalls


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2011)

LOL


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 14, 2011)

Ha Ha.  That's three!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 14, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> As well as being a dreadful M People lyric.


 


Captain Hurrah said:


> The M People did that too.


 
twats


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Me too.  Watched it for the first time last night.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

people have been calling them anonymous masks for ages now which is annoying. 'v' masks are misleading as well.

It's everyones favourite catholic terrorist, Guy Fawkes.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 14, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> people have been calling them anonymous masks for ages now which is annoying. 'v' masks are misleading as well.
> 
> It's everyones favourite catholic terrorist, Guy Fawkes.


 
Guy Fawkes wore a V mask?


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2011)

I watched it very late last night and rather enjoyed it. It's a good yarn.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2011)

Santino said:


> As films V for Vendetta and Watchmen both suffer from the fact that there is no real jeopardy. The main plot thrust of both is determined by one brilliant individual and the outcome is never in doubt.


 
the real jeopardy in V4V is the fascist state overseen by john hurt. And they show that evil by killing stephen fry.

point on watchmen though


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 14, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> And they show that evil by killing stephen fry.


 
My favourite bit.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 14, 2011)

lol.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 14, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Like Heather Smalls


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 14, 2011)

Santino said:


> As films V for Vendetta and Watchmen both suffer from the fact that there is no real jeopardy. The main plot thrust of both is determined by one brilliant individual and the outcome is never in doubt.


 
really?  watchmen?  



Spoiler: watchmen ending



in watchmen the "bad guy" wins.  major cities are destroyed.  and  also  the  plan set out is still in jeperdy as  rosarchs jornal is still in existance


----------



## Zabo (Mar 14, 2011)

Wonderful escapism with a great plot and good photography and lighting. It's entertainment and nothing more. I'm sure it would only get validated by some if it was sixteen hours long, directed by a Russian with a name that ends with ofsky and featured typhoid riddled peasants eating rats while having a shower from an overflowing gutter. Well it ain't so fucking live with it.

Five stars for entertainment and for being cheeky and who wouldn't shag Natalie Portman?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 14, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Wonderful escapism with a great plot and good photography and lighting. It's entertainment and nothing more. I'm sure it would only get validated by some if it was sixteen hours long, directed by a Russian with a name that ends with ofsky and featured typhoid riddled peasants eating rats while having a shower from an overflowing gutter. Well it ain't so fucking live with it.



Yeah, all my fave films are russian miserablist epics.



Zabo said:


> who wouldn't shag Natalie Portman?


 
Her dad.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Wonderful escapism with a great plot and good photography and lighting. It's entertainment and nothing more. I'm sure it would only get validated by some if it was sixteen hours long, directed by a Russian with a name that ends with ofsky and featured typhoid riddled peasants eating rats while having a shower from an overflowing gutter. Well it ain't so fucking live with it.
> 
> Five stars for entertainment and for being cheeky and who wouldn't shag Natalie Portman?


 

step aside, kermode...


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 14, 2011)

Most Russian films aren't miserablist.

Who wouldn't shag Natalia Arinbasarova?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 14, 2011)

My favourite film is the goonies


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 14, 2011)

I saw the begining then went out and came back in time to see Parliament being blown up and the end. I enjoyed Parliament being blown up. Was it William Morris who said that after the revolution, Parliament would be useful as a store for manure?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 14, 2011)

You're Sloth.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2011)

I prefer Triumph of the Will.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 14, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> You're Sloth.


 
Hurtful but true.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 14, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Wonderful escapism with a great plot and good photography and lighting. It's entertainment and nothing more. I'm sure it would only get validated by some if it was sixteen hours long, directed by a Russian with a name that ends with ofsky and featured typhoid riddled peasants eating rats while having a shower from an overflowing gutter. Well it ain't so fucking live with it.
> 
> Five stars for entertainment and for being cheeky and who wouldn't shag Natalie Portman?



Oooh, the blowing up of Parliament. That's right up my street that is. Very 'me'.

If i watched it and caught myself enjoying that bit i'd cringe so badly i'd be forced to drink a litre of domestos.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 14, 2011)

The film is utter tat but in a different way to the comics which is probably the only Alan moore work I don't like.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 14, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Her dad.


 
He is wrong


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 14, 2011)

i didn't mind the comic.  the only moore work i had  that  i didn't really like was captain britain.  i just couldn't really get into it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2011)

swamp thing turned a bit emo while he was doing it as well. Still enjoyed it.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 14, 2011)

Other than the prison sequence, the rest of the film is pretty poor. It's the hammy acting and the constant incidental music that really kill it. 

I love the comic. Yes it is libertarian in essence. So collectivist socialist types aren't ever going to find him a satisfactory hero.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

That's a 'problem'/feature of straightforward narrative full stop. Moore is collectivist though isn't he?


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 14, 2011)

Isn't he Labour Social Democrat?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Isn't he Labour Social Democrat?


 
Nah, he's out there.

edit: his novel on Northampton is one of the best attempts i've ever read to get pat the individual nature of narrative.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 14, 2011)

Read the words - or at least their first letters.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Read the words - or at least their first letters.


 
OK..er...no he's not - he's a public anarchist.


----------



## El Sueno (Mar 14, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> If you love the comics you might not think that much of the film. That said it's nowhere near as an abomination as the Watchmen turned out to be...


 
I thought Watchmen turned out rather well. I just watched the Ultimate Edition with the Black Freighter stuff cut in, thought it was excellent and (apart from the ending) stayed just about as true to the original as you could have hoped. I mean, they practically used the graphic novel as the storyboard didn't they?


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 14, 2011)

Yet they totally inverted the role of the Comedian - in the book he's a sadist, a rapist, a thug and a murderer, a representation of everything that is the USA at its worst. And in the film he's presented far more sympathetically than he should be.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Isn't he Labour Social Democrat?


 
anarchist who believes in magic. Think like Le Guins toaist/anarchist mash up but odder


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> OK..er...no he's not - he's a public anarchist.


 


> Of course you can never say what would have happened if it had gone otherwise. I would say that it had a tremendous impact on my life. When I first took acid, I saw a quality of hallucination that was only like that for a few years. Very much like a Martin Sharp [of _Oz_ magazine] illustration. It was very liquid and drifting. But then, a few years later — I'm sure that the acid was exactly the same — it was the landscape that had changed. The experience had become more crystalline and hard-edged. A bit more paranoid. But, yes, it made me realise that actually reality was a state of mind and that, as your mind could change, so could your reality.



http://www.ideologic.org/news/view/alan_moore_interview


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 14, 2011)

Seriously did none of you get the pun, or were playing it deadpan for the lols?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2011)

oh, LSD. Took me a while.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

LSD?


----------



## Echo Base (Mar 14, 2011)

I think V for Vendetta is fantastic

"And ideas...are BULLET PROOF"


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 14, 2011)

Picture yourself on a boat on a river.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 14, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Hurtful but true.


 
He also searches for the hero inside himself.


----------



## El Sueno (Mar 14, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Yet they totally inverted the role of the Comedian - in the book he's a sadist, a rapist, a thug and a murderer, a representation of everything that is the USA at its worst. And in the film he's presented far more sympathetically than he should be.


 
I wouldn't say they totally inverted the role - he is portrayed quite literally and unflinchingly as a sadist, rapist, thug and a murderer.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 14, 2011)

El Sueno said:


> I wouldn't say they totally inverted the role - he is portrayed quite literally and unflinchingly as a sadist, rapist, thug and a murderer.


 
A sympathetic rapist, sadist, thug and murderer.

You see the problem?


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 14, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> A sympathetic rapist, sadist, thug and murderer.
> 
> You see the problem?


 
I didn't see that at all when I was watching the film (or indeed reading the book) 

In fact, even in his most vulnerable moments (drunken break-in at Moloch's), any sympathy is dispelled by the sneaky feeling he's just pissed off his world is about to change and there won't be any place in the new order for his 'methods'.

In terms of V for Vendetta, some bits were done very well (Evie's imprisonment and the letter, Stephen Rea's weary performance and monologue as events build up at the end), but ironically I found the action sequences to be a bit 'meh' (why the fuck do spinning knives need bullet time effects?).


----------



## Idaho (Mar 14, 2011)

Like 99% of modern films, they are just too busy and noisy. I like a bit more space and silence to let the ideas sink in. Modern films seem to me to be a series of big-scenes-that-we-have-to-get-in-from-the-book lumped one on top of the next.

Watchmen was just a tedious drag to watch. What was the point of it?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

Yes, 99% of 'modern films' are like that.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 14, 2011)

all those modern films.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 14, 2011)

Also, the use of 'Hallelujah' in the soundtrack was laughable. That song has been so badly abused over the years, starting with the Buckley eejit.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

Harumph


----------



## El Sueno (Mar 14, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Also, the use of 'Hallelujah' in the soundtrack was laughable. That song has been so badly abused over the years, starting with the Buckley eejit.


 
I didn't notice Comedian's portrayal being particularly sympathetic in the movie but I have to agree with you on this!


----------



## Idaho (Mar 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, 99% of 'modern films' are like that.


 
Sorry - I got my numbers wrong. I mean 98.45322%


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

I don't know how you get the time.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 14, 2011)

Idaho said:


> Watchmen was just a tedious drag to watch. What was the point of it?


 
To remind us just how awful an adaptation can be?


----------



## Riklet (Mar 14, 2011)

Crapppppp.

I plan on rewatching it at some point to see if i've changed my mind, but it's the kind of annoying comic-adapted trash I just find really irritating and pretentious, with too much dark lighting and faux gravelly voices.  Laaaame.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2011)

El Sueno said:


> I wouldn't say they totally inverted the role - he is portrayed quite literally and unflinchingly as a sadist, rapist, thug and a murderer.


 
Yes, it was really pretty accurate to the comic (which I was pleasantly surprised by). I don't see how the film is sympathetic to him where the comic isn't, at all.

I think they did dilute Rorschach though.

In general I thought it was a very good adaptation and I'm baffled as to people's problems with it.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2011)

El Sueno said:


> I wouldn't say they totally inverted the role - he is portrayed quite literally and unflinchingly as a sadist, rapist, thug and a murderer.


 
Yes, it was really pretty accurate to the comic (which I was pleasantly surprised by). I don't see how the film is sympathetic to him where the comic isn't, at all.

I think they did dilute Rorschach though.

In general I thought it was a very good adaptation and I'm baffled as to people's problems with it, unless you're going to be 100% purist in which case no film will ever work.


----------



## gosub (Mar 14, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> the real jeopardy in V4V is the fascist state overseen by john hurt. And they show that evil by killing stephen fry.
> 
> point on watchmen though



 stephen fry was one of the people lifting off his mask in the crowd




DotCommunist said:


> you're telling me there wasn't even a semi when they blew up the houses of parliament?



 it was empty


----------



## T & P (Mar 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> stephen fry was one of the people lifting off his mask in the crowd


 It was a metaphor though. The lesbian woman who whose story is told is also there, and the little girl shot by a fingerman.


----------



## gosub (Mar 14, 2011)

so the metaphor is that everyone stupid enough to be standing in Parliament Square when the bomb went off was killed?

I could be like the b/w bits in IF, what really happend was they ran out of money


----------



## Idaho (Mar 15, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> In general I thought it was a very good adaptation and I'm baffled as to people's problems with it, unless you're going to be 100% purist in which case no film will ever work.


 
I thought it's failing was that it was too purist. It pretty much storyboarded straight from the comic. It meant that it was dull and plodding.


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Am I the only one who thinks that the story (both comic and film) is individualistic teenage crap? Lone hero overthrows fascism? V has become posterboy for libertarian right and its obvious why.


 
Only because the libertarian right are largely too dumb to spot the whole riff on Thatcherism as incipient fascism, which is pretty fundamental to the whole thing.


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 15, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Has anyone ever argued that V is actually an aspect of Evie's personality that she doesn't know she had?
> 
> Maybe Moore wasn't hailing the Nietschean überman as revolutionary subject, but simply telling us to search for the hero inside ourselves?


 
Precisely. The whole point is that nothing V does directly overthrows the government, it's all simply a catalyst by which the people are encouraged to cut through the fear that fascism relies on for control.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

What made V/the party/the Prince so advanced then?


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 15, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Only because the libertarian right are largely too dumb to spot the whole riff on Thatcherism as incipient fascism, which is pretty fundamental to the whole thing.


 
A similiar thing happened with Terry Gilliam's Brazil - it was adopted by the militia 'movement' in the US. But I remember seeing an interview with TG in Hot Press at the time the movie came out where he was asked if his film could be interpreted as a call for Thatcherite 'rolling back the frontiers of the state' and he said that if anyone could prove that to him he would personally hunt down and destroy every print of the movie.

Ultimately, creators of art can't be held responsible if idiots misuse their work.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What made V/the party/the Prince so advanced then?


 
A truly vanguardist piece would spell out the reasons for the party's special role, but I don't think V's origins are ever precisely spelled out, even in the scenes where he's in the medical experiments wing of the concentration camp.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

A special role is enough surely?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Only because the libertarian right are largely too dumb to spot the whole riff on Thatcherism as incipient fascism, which is pretty fundamental to the whole thing.


 
Did thatcherism become fascism? Have i missed something?


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> A special role is enough surely?


 
That's what I was getting at with the M People thing - there's nothing in it to suggest that V was somehow endowed with special powers. Nothing to suggest that he had a special role because of some unique characteristic that entitled him to a vanguard role.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> That's what I was getting at with the M People thing - there's nothing in it to suggest that V was somehow endowed with special powers. Nothing to suggest that he had a special role because of some unique characteristic that entitled him to a vanguard role.


 
A non-vgist non-leader. A brother. A bit like gaddaffi? (who killed your dad)


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> A non-vgist non-leader. A brother. A bit like gaddaffi? (who killed your dad)


 
'Everyone, republican or otherwise, has his or her own part to play'.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 15, 2011)

V was special in the comic. He's not an ordinary bloke.

It's a bit tragic how you are all so fixated on left dogma that you have to comb through the minutiae of this story to work out which side of the intra-left sectarian divide it sits. It's also tragic that you refuse to see that the libertarian movement is not a fascist movement, and that it can, on some issues, have common cause with a left revolutionary movement.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 15, 2011)

the author claims it is a story about anarchism vs fascism. Its sad to examine these claims is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

Idaho said:


> V was special in the comic. He's not an ordinary bloke.
> 
> It's a bit tragic how you are all so fixated on left dogma that you have to comb through the minutiae of this story to work out which side of the intra-left sectarian divide it sits. It's also tragic that you refuse to see that the libertarian movement is not a fascist movement, and that it can, on some issues, have common cause with a left revolutionary movement.


 
That's what it's about. What an odd post.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 15, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yes, it was really pretty accurate to the comic (which I was pleasantly surprised by). I don't see how the film is sympathetic to him where the comic isn't, at all.
> 
> I think they did dilute Rorschach though.
> 
> In general I thought it was a very good adaptation and I'm baffled as to people's problems with it, unless you're going to be 100% purist in which case no film will ever work.



^^This^^ You're right about Rorschach too - I haven't seen the final, 4 hr+ version with Black Freighter in, only the DC, so I don't know if it has the whole sub-story of R & his shrink, but allowing for the teleported nuke (rather than the fake alien invasion) ending.

As for being sympathetic to the comedian - that's a demonstration of the actor taking a completely hateable character and getting an audience to empathise with a man who shoots a pregnant woman, rapes another etc etc. Out of all of the characters, Blake & Rorschach are the only ones who are internally honest - and I think that's where the sympathy can spring from.


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 15, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> A similiar thing happened with Terry Gilliam's Brazil - it was adopted by the militia 'movement' in the US. But I remember seeing an interview with TG in Hot Press at the time the movie came out where he was asked if his film could be interpreted as a call for Thatcherite 'rolling back the frontiers of the state' and he said that if anyone could prove that to him he would personally hunt down and destroy every print of the movie.
> 
> Ultimately, creators of art can't be held responsible if idiots misuse their work.


 
A few inches of my right elbow are in Brazil. I was an extra and decided that since I still got paid the same if I largely hid behind a filing cabinet I may as well do so. 

Just to place Gilliam on the political spectrum. As extras we were promised a particular sum for the day's filming. In the event they tried to send half of us back at lunchtime on half pay. Since many had turned down other work on the basis of a full day's wage we weren't best pleased and held a sit in. After half an hour Gilliam himself came down and gave the accountants and so on a rather impressive rollicking, after which we got what had been agreed with a small bonus for those who did the extra filming. For the record, we started at 6am, so we'd already been on set for nearly 7 hours anyway.


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 15, 2011)

Idaho said:


> V was special in the comic. He's not an ordinary bloke.
> 
> It's a bit tragic how you are all so fixated on left dogma that you have to comb through the minutiae of this story to work out which side of the intra-left sectarian divide it sits. It's also tragic that you refuse to see that the libertarian movement is not a fascist movement, and that it can, on some issues, have common cause with a left revolutionary movement.


 
I'm not combing through the minutiae of the story for anything. I'm relying entirely on conversations with the original author from back when I was considering attempting to create a stage musical of it. There is a massive difference between the libertarian movement in the USA, a left wing revolutionary movement, and anarchism. I am 100% certain that Alan Moore has absolutely no time for any but the latter. This is because the first gives far too little value to collective action, and the second gives too little value to individual rights.

So by all means enjoy his writing, but don't try to claim there's a message in there that is directly contrary to the whole thrust of the thing. It's possible to fault Alan for being a bit of an old hippy anarchist with a wash of new age spiritualism and conspiracy theory, but what he definitely isn't is politically ignorant.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2011)

Idaho said:


> V was special in the comic. He's not an ordinary bloke.
> 
> It's a bit tragic how you are all so fixated on left dogma that you have to comb through the minutiae of this story to work out which side of the intra-left sectarian divide it sits. It's also tragic that you refuse to see that the libertarian movement is not a fascist movement, and that it can, on some issues, have common cause with a left revolutionary movement.


 
Ultra capitalism has a common cause with revolutionary socialism?

Pardon?


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Did thatcherism become fascism? Have i missed something?


 
Eventually not. However this was back in the times of Thatcher doing her whole enemy within/Falklands/riding in tanks schtick, which seemed to many of us to be too reminiscent of the early stages of fascism for comfort. So incipient fascism that never went all the way.


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Ultra capitalism has a common cause with revolutionary socialism?
> 
> Pardon?


 
Yeah. Guns and explosives. That's about it.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 15, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> ^^This^^ You're right about Rorschach too - I haven't seen the final, 4 hr+ version with Black Freighter in, only the DC, so I don't know if it has the whole sub-story of R & his shrink, but allowing for the teleported nuke (rather than the fake alien invasion) ending.
> 
> As for being sympathetic to the comedian - that's a demonstration of the actor taking a completely hateable character and getting an audience to empathise with a man who shoots a pregnant woman, rapes another etc etc. Out of all of the characters, Blake & Rorschach are the only ones who are internally honest - and I think that's where the sympathy can spring from.


 
Rorschach is the son of one of his mother's johns, and he has withdrawn into a deluded fantasy that his father was doing special secret agent stuff for Harry Truman. How is that 'internally honest'?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 15, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Rorschach is the son of one of his mother's johns, and he has withdrawn into a deluded fantasy that his father was doing special secret agent stuff for Harry Truman. How is that 'internally honest'?


 
Within his belief of how the world works he's completely honest, fearless, incorruptible, true to his principles to the point of self-sacrifice.


----------



## JimW (Mar 15, 2011)

I remember not thinking too much of the film or the comic, which I downloaded after seeing the film as heard it was better. Not that it was bad, more like as it was nearly something I would have loved I was pickier than I'd have been with some obvious rubbish and so a bit disappointed.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 15, 2011)

One thing I thought was done very effectively in the comic was Dr. Manhattan's growing alienation from his residual humanity. Pretty much what you'd expect from a metaphor for the bomb.

The movie didn't even attempt to do that.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 15, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Within his belief of how the world works he's completely honest, fearless, incorruptible, true to his principles to the point of self-sacrifice.


 
From just having watched the film I would have said it was just Rorschach and Ozymandias who stick to their principles throughout.

Also (separate point), just from having seen the film I would have said it definitely deals with Manhattan's growing separation from (or weariness of) his humanity.

Will have to get my hands on the graphic novel sometime...


----------



## Idaho (Mar 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Ultra capitalism has a common cause with revolutionary socialism?
> 
> Pardon?


 
I'm not convinced that Libertarianism can be neatly summarised as ultra capitalism. 

The desire to not be controlled by a governing class whose legitimacy you challenge is, to some extent, common cause.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2011)

Depends on what you mean by "libertarianism".  It used to mean anarchist-communism, now it generally means ultra free market capitalism.

Which use were you using?


----------



## Idaho (Mar 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Depends on what you mean by "libertarianism".  It used to mean anarchist-communism, now it generally means ultra free market capitalism.
> 
> Which use were you using?


 
I don't have a definition for the term. I have heard it used by a variety of people to label their own political views. The broad consensus only seems to be about state power to intervene in people's lives. Beyond that their assumptions seem to diverge.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 16, 2011)

Idaho said:


> I don't have a definition for the term. I have heard it used by a variety of people to label their own political views. The broad consensus only seems to be about state power to intervene in people's lives. Beyond that their assumptions seem to diverge.


 
I tend to find that those self-described libertarians tend to be right-wing types. Scratch the surface and you'll find an authoritarian underneath.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2011)

Idaho said:


> I don't have a definition for the term. I have heard it used by a variety of people to label their own political views. The broad consensus only seems to be about state power to intervene in people's lives. Beyond that their assumptions seem to diverge.



Errr....no.  It has a defined political useage.  It can be used as an adjective as in "libertarian socialism", but libertarianism has come to mean ultra free market capitalism, despite that being anything but libertarian!


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2011)

UK Libertarian Party are extreme free market capitalists, for example.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Am I the only one who thinks that the story (both comic and film) is individualistic teenage crap? Lone hero overthrows fascism? V has become posterboy for libertarian right and its obvious why.



Yeah but the libertarian right are notorious for their flawed readings of texts - this one included.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Yeah but the libertarian right are notorious for their flawed readings of texts - this one included.


 
I agree that they often get wrong end of stick, but V is a lone superhero awakening the masses.  This is an individualist take on anarchism.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 16, 2011)

a comic aimed at the market it was needs a hero figure. And V dies- the symbol destroys itself.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I agree that they often get wrong end of stick, but V is a lone superhero awakening the masses.  This is an individualist take on anarchism.


 
I see V (the character) as a symbol more than an individual anarchist. That said, the film is pretty patchy in parts.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> I see V (the character) as a symbol more than an individual anarchist. That said, the film is pretty patchy in parts.


 
In the book though, he was a subject of chemical experiments (iirc), making him special in some way and able to be a superhero.  That seems fairly individualist to me.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> In the book though, he was a subject of chemical experiments (iirc), making him special in some way and able to be a superhero.  That seems fairly individualist to me.


 
That's just typical comic book stuff as DotCommunist suggests. I haven't read the graphic novel btw.

But he dies in the film and the book (from what I understand), so he's not invulnerable, which makes him a flawed superhero.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2011)

Might be worth reading the book?


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Might be worth reading the book?


 
Why? Would it change my current understanding in any way? Moore isn't a right libertarian though...is he?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Why? Would it change my current understanding in any way? Moore isn't a right libertarian though...is he?


 
Well I'm talking about the book, which you haven't read.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Well I'm talking about the book, which you haven't read.


 
Yes and the point is that Moore is not a right libertarian. Is he?


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 16, 2011)

It wasn't clear whether you were talking about the book or the film, Blagsta. 

Those goalposts are all over the pitch!


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2011)

whatever


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> whatever


 
Yes, exactly. Whatever. In an earlier post, you talk of both the book and film - do you not? My point is that Moore is not a right libertarian and any such reading of the book or film is fatally flawed. They also miss (quite deliberately or through wilful ignorance) the obvious attack on the Tories under Thatch. Yes? No?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 16, 2011)

Whether or not he's technically a normal human or a mutant or whatever is, at least in the book, irrelevant - he's not even a _person_. He has no personality, he's everywhere and nowhere, and everyone who comes across him in whatever form does so as going through some sort of spiritual journey, whether they're the people he kills, the Leader, Evie, or the guy who kills him in the end. (The last two, particularly explicitly.)


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 17, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> I see V (the character) as a symbol more than an individual anarchist. That said, the film is pretty patchy in parts.


 
Very much so. Part of the point is that it isn't at first clear that V actually is a single individual, it could be one man, it could just as easily be several hidden behind identical masks. Because V's "heroism" is primarily symbolic. V isn't there as a classic hero figure, more as a symbol of the will to resist oppression. That's why it's Evie's story and not V's. Evie is the real human being at the heart of the narrative.

Also remember when it was written back in the early 80s. Frank Miller and Chris Claremont had just started subverting DC and Marvel comics in a small way, and over here 2000AD had made some inroads into deconstructing some of the comics tropes, but overtly political mainstream comic writing was still somewhat unusual, and Alan Moore was at the time simply one of the better writers for 2000AD, rather than a name in his own right. It had to stick reasonably close to the traditional formats.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 17, 2011)

I haven't read the comic, but irrespective of the political basis of the writer (and whether they're deconstructing the tropes or not), every superhero is an advert for individualism - it's not like this is new or anything. The whole concept of the hero is one of the main building blocks of conditioning for general acceptance of hierarchy (accepting that for arbitrary and fastastical reasons that someone is better than you are), and in most cases, the concept of violently & summarily dispensed justice (irrespective of the scene when the hero hands the bad guys over to the police).

I still reckon Moore's best work was Halo Jones too.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 17, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Very much so. Part of the point is that it isn't at first clear that V actually is a single individual, it could be one man, it could just as easily be several hidden behind identical masks. Because V's "heroism" is primarily symbolic. V isn't there as a classic hero figure, more as a symbol of the will to resist oppression. That's why it's Evie's story and not V's. Evie is the real human being at the heart of the narrative.
> 
> Also remember when it was written back in the early 80s. Frank Miller and Chris Claremont had just started subverting DC and Marvel comics in a small way, and over here 2000AD had made some inroads into deconstructing some of the comics tropes, but overtly political mainstream comic writing was still somewhat unusual, and Alan Moore was at the time simply one of the better writers for 2000AD, rather than a name in his own right. It had to stick reasonably close to the traditional formats.



Aye, the story is told by Evie, not by V. Which is a point that seems to have been missed by those who have focussed solely on the character V, which they have read as the individual fighting against the totalitarian (for that, read communist) system.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 17, 2011)

I watched the film again last night and evie at the beginning and end talks about "the man" as clearly separate from the ideas. How she can't kiss an idea and how she misses the man.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 17, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Whether or not he's technically a normal human or a mutant or whatever is, at least in the book, irrelevant - he's not even a _person_. He has no personality, he's everywhere and nowhere, and everyone who comes across him in whatever form does so as going through some sort of spiritual journey, whether they're the people he kills, the Leader, Evie, or the guy who kills him in the end. (The last two, particularly explicitly.)



For sure. I am told that, in the book, V dies early on. In the film he dies toward the end...but that's Hollywood for you.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 17, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> In the book though, he was a subject of chemical experiments (iirc), making him special in some way and able to be a superhero.  That seems fairly individualist to me.


 
Well come the revolution we can execute Moore for being a counter revolutionary on the basis of this evidence.


----------



## Santino (Mar 17, 2011)

Narrative is bourgeois.


----------



## Random (Mar 17, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> For sure. I am told that, in the book, V dies early on. In the film he dies toward the end...but that's Hollywood for you.


 
No, he dies at the end in the book too.

An interesting thing about V as an experimented-on-mutant-hero is that he was basically a concentration camp survivor, one of Mengle's victimes who breaks out. So we know he was either black, gay or a leftie. 

Something that struck me about the book was that it was the population who, for their own reasons, took to the streets, for their own reasons, making use of the opportunity, the crack in the system, that V gives them. These could be real 1980s inner city rioters. The translation of this into a pre-packaged flashmob with free masks included in teh film is the worst change they made. From Toxteth to Tea Party.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 17, 2011)

Random said:


> No, he dies at the end in the book too.
> 
> An interesting thing about V as an experimented-on-mutant-hero is that he was basically a concentration camp survivor, one of Mengle's victimes who breaks out. So we know he was either black, gay or a leftie.
> 
> Something that struck me about the book was that it was the population who, for their own reasons, took to the streets, for their own reasons, making use of the opportunity, the crack in the system, that V gives them. These could be real 1980s inner city rioters. The translation of this into a pre-packaged flashmob with free masks included in teh film is the worst change they made. From Toxteth to Tea Party.


 
Thanks. I stand corrected. I'll have to read the graphic novel. I haven't seen _Watchmen,_ but I read the book yonks ago. It looks like I'm going to do the reverse with_ V for Vendetta_.


----------



## Random (Mar 17, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Thanks. I stand corrected. I'll have to read the graphic novel. I haven't seen _Watchmen,_ but I read the book yonks ago. It looks like I'm going to do the reverse with_ V for Vendetta_.


 
Just rty to purge your mind of the film. The book is much more threatening, more sus law and Blair Peach.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 17, 2011)

apparently crimethinc bods tabled the films opening in New York to inform people of the politics that hads been gutted from the film. heh.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 17, 2011)

Random said:


> No, he dies at the end in the book too.
> 
> An interesting thing about V as an experimented-on-mutant-hero is that he was basically a concentration camp survivor, one of Mengle's victimes who breaks out. So we know he was either black, gay or a leftie.
> 
> Something that struck me about the book was that it was the population who, for their own reasons, took to the streets, for their own reasons, making use of the opportunity, the crack in the system, that V gives them. These could be real 1980s inner city rioters. The translation of this into a pre-packaged flashmob with free masks included in teh film is the worst change they made. From Toxteth to Tea Party.


My favorite quote in the comic is the line:


> A noise is relative to the silence preceding it



Can't remember the exact rest of it but its something along the lines of how the state is going to find out just how loud peoples voices can be. Especially relevant at the moment with the various situations in the ME.


----------



## Random (Mar 17, 2011)

Idaho said:


> Can't remember the exact rest of it but its something along the lines of how the state is going to find out just how loud peoples voices can be. Especially relevant at the moment with the various situations in the ME.


 Yes, it's made very clear that the uprising is possible because of the right social circumstances.


----------



## IMR (Mar 17, 2011)

I liked _V for Vendetta _when it was in _Warrior_ comics, David Lloyd's artwork and Alan Moore's plot/dialogue went together well. There were some good characters too, like the man who provided the 'Voice of Fate'. A lot of it was pretty ludicrous, eg a nazi-style Church of England, which belongs in the same league of invention as the attack of the killer tomatoes. But it was good fun. Didn't think much of the film.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 17, 2011)

Idaho said:


> Well come the revolution we can execute Moore for being a counter revolutionary on the basis of this evidence.


 
What are you on about?


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 17, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> I haven't read the comic, but irrespective of the political basis of the writer (and whether they're deconstructing the tropes or not), every superhero is an advert for individualism - it's not like this is new or anything. The whole concept of the hero is one of the main building blocks of conditioning for general acceptance of hierarchy (accepting that for arbitrary and fastastical reasons that someone is better than you are), and in most cases, the concept of violently & summarily dispensed justice (irrespective of the scene when the hero hands the bad guys over to the police).
> 
> I still reckon Moore's best work was Halo Jones too.


 
Seconded. Shame he never got to finish it off. He only ever got to just short of halfway through the story he's got sketched out. Which I recall from hearing it from the man himself being absolutely brilliant, but which I was far too stoned to remember any of.

An awful lot of his career has been based on deconstructing the idea of the hero as portrayed in comics. Not just with making V a cypher, but also with the entirely non-heroic Halo Jones, the riffs he played on Batman, and the almost hero free Skizz. Then there's DR and Quinch, who can be described as many things, "heroes" not being one of them.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 17, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> apparently crimethinc bods tabled the films opening in New York to inform people of the politics that hads been gutted from the film. heh.


 
I always liked them.


----------



## IMR (Mar 17, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Then there's DR and Quinch, who can be described as many things, "heroes" not being one of them.



That was a great comic story


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 17, 2011)

IMR said:


> That was a great comic story


 
Mind the oranges, Marlon!


----------



## IMR (Mar 17, 2011)

I remember that one now. Pulger in his dress, Crazy Chrissie insulting her dad . . . all really well drawn too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 18, 2011)

I just re watched this to make sure- yes it is heroic in the mould of comic book adapts. Yes it does leave bits out that made the graphic novel more political. But the joyless trot fucks not enjoying the sight of a facist regime taken to its knees by one man who awakens a mass can fuck off. Unless you like the idea of john hurt stamping on your face forever you will have to accept that symbols _work_. It's a Roy walker situation- good but not right.

I'll take good. We can deal with right once the cunts have been ground into the dust of history.


----------



## Random (Mar 18, 2011)

IMR said:


> A lot of it was pretty ludicrous, eg a nazi-style Church of England, which belongs in the same league of invention as the attack of the killer tomatoes.


 The Church wasn't particularly 'nazi', just comfortably in bed with the regime. And a CoE that blessed the guns during WW1 would certainly bless the concentration camps. In fact I'll bet that the CoE did happily work alongside a British military that was holding Boers in concentration camps. Sure the bishop was a paedo, but is that really stretching belief?


----------



## Random (Mar 18, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> the joyless trot fucks not enjoying the sight of a facist regime taken to its knees by one man who awakens a mass can fuck off.


 Who are you calling a trot, fucker? Leaders 'awaking a mass' is what Leninism is _all about_ surely?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 18, 2011)

DC's a shit leninist


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 18, 2011)

*has massive breakdown*


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 18, 2011)

Random said:


> The Church wasn't particularly 'nazi', just comfortably in bed with the regime. And a CoE that blessed the guns during WW1 would certainly bless the concentration camps. In fact I'll bet that the CoE did happily work alongside a British military that was holding Boers in concentration camps. Sure the bishop was a paedo, but is that really stretching belief?


 
nothing compared to the extent of catholic collaboration.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 18, 2011)

> Then there's DR and Quinch, who can be described as many things, "heroes" not being one of them.



They were totally my heroes when I was 15 years old


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> nothing compared to the extent of catholic collaboration.


 
Collaboration in what where?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 18, 2011)

reichskonkordat


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2011)

Not sure that mentioning a concordat signed in 1933 by the catholic churches top brass really shows that the catholic churches collaboration with the nazis was greater than that of the protestant churches...

edit: anyway, well OT!


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 18, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Seconded. Shame he never got to finish it off. He only ever got to just short of halfway through the story he's got sketched out. Which I recall from hearing it from the man himself being absolutely brilliant, but which I was far too stoned to remember any of.


 
Did it go something like this?

*Well, I’d got the idea that she’d go through fabulous adventures, the next adventure would have probably been when she was a female space pirate with Sally Quasar, who was somebody that I’d mentioned, and I would have been basically going through all the decades of her life, with her getting older in each one, because I liked the idea, at the time, of having a strip in 2000AD with a seventy or eighty year old woman as the title character. And also because – it’s probably true in my work that – I mean, I wrote Marvelman when I was in my, what, twenties?

It would have ended up with Halo Jones upon some planet that is right at the absolute edge of the universe where, beyond that, beyond some sort of spectacular lightshow, there is no space, no time, and it would have ended up with Halo Jones – all the rest of the people on this planetoid because, actually, time is not passing; you could stay there forever, potentially – and what would have happened is that Halo Jones, after spending some time with the rest of the immortals, would have tottered across the landing field, got into her spacecraft, and flown into the psychedelic lightshow, to finally get out. And that would have been the ending. So, you’ve saved me a lot of writing, and you a lot of unnecessary worrying.*

From here: www.3ammagazine.com/3am/boy-from-the-boroughs/


----------



## trabant (Mar 18, 2011)

Crap movie, not bad comic. Moore had a section in Mythmakers and Lawbreakers which was pretty interesting though. There are pdfs floating around the web, some of the writers were alright (apart from the odd prim..)


----------



## Random (Mar 18, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> nothing compared to the extent of catholic collaboration.


 
Catholic collaboration with teh British Empire? Or with a putative English fascist regime? I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, trot boy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 18, 2011)

it is you who has the wrong end of the stick- the wrong end of a whole bunch of sticks tied together 


anyway, so long as we all agree that catholicism is fascisms more likely ally we can move on.


----------



## Disjecta Membra (Mar 18, 2011)

Great film, not perfect but criticisms about V are just nit picky. It's definitely better then alot of the crap that's passed out the brown eye of hollywood.


----------



## IMR (Mar 18, 2011)

Random said:


> Sure the bishop was a paedo, but is that really stretching belief?



That was the most believable bit!


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 18, 2011)

andy2002 said:


> Did it go something like this?
> 
> From here: www.3ammagazine.com/3am/boy-from-the-boroughs/


 
Actually no. Not much like that at all. Apart from the psychedelic lightshow bit at the end.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 5, 2011)

I will be watching this later


----------



## machine cat (Nov 5, 2011)

watching now


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 5, 2011)

Watching now for the first time. Looks crap so far.


----------



## Helen Back (Nov 6, 2011)

Claim to fame: I was one of the Vs at the end.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 6, 2011)

Excellent film, and the speeches he makes are still relevant to the UK, if not the world


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 6, 2011)

I saw it for the first time the other month, and absolutely loved it


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2011)

The film has a lot wrong with it.

Nevertheless, I got a warm fuzzy feeling inside when the Houses of Parliament exploded.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2011)

when the state goon shoots the little girl wearing a V mask and you see the looks on the faces of everyone who saw him do it as they go to rise up.


----------



## machine cat (Nov 6, 2011)

I liked John Hurt going mental


----------



## pigtails (Nov 6, 2011)

I don't think it's particularly great but I do enjoy it if I catch it when it's on.


----------



## donnel (Nov 7, 2011)

V for Vendetta is definitely a good movie! a must watch movie!


----------



## PlaidDragon (Nov 7, 2011)

I think it's a great film. I understand for fans of the comic book it's meant to be base level treachery or whatever, but I've never seen them so I wouldn't know. Some cracking performances from some of the actors in the film, especially John Hurt.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 7, 2011)

When I first watched it I thought it was alright. Saw it the other day on the telly and now think it's just terrible.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 7, 2011)

When I first watched it I thought it was great. Saw it the other day on DVD and now think it's just brilliant.


----------



## T & P (Nov 8, 2011)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> When I first watched it *I thought it was alright*. Saw it the other day on the telly and now think it's just terrible.


 A rare and momentary lapse in form that, I am glad to see, has been subsequently corrected


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 8, 2011)

Vanish, you vainglorious vagabond.


----------



## donnel (Nov 12, 2011)

vagabond?


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 12, 2011)

Yes, a vainglorious one.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 20, 2013)

Decided I want to watch this as a morning film. Seems I 'lent' it to someone who I thought 'needed' to see it  

Must learn not to keep lending dvds to people when drunk.


----------

