― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Thursday, 23 March 2006 20:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― toby (tsg20), Sunday, 26 March 2006 00:44 (eighteen years ago) link
― fields of salmon (fieldsofsalmon), Sunday, 26 March 2006 01:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Sunday, 26 March 2006 01:32 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 26 March 2006 01:33 (eighteen years ago) link
― toby (tsg20), Sunday, 26 March 2006 11:27 (eighteen years ago) link
V for VendettaW for WrevengeX for Xtremism
― StanM (StanM), Wednesday, 29 March 2006 15:14 (eighteen years ago) link
*As I expected, they downplayed the anarchist themes, which was unfortunate. It's easy to make a story where someone opposes an evil fascist government, but for better or worse I think Moore's ponderings on anarchy is what separates the comic from other similar dystopies. So the V's telly speech about how it was the people's own fault for letting their leaders guide them was toned down drastically, the monologue with the justice statue was changed, etc. The only hints of anarchism in the movie were rather subliminal, i.e. the shoplifter saying "It's anarchy in the UK!" and the fact that V's symbol is almost like an upside down anarchist "A".
*The ending with the Houses of Parliament blowing up was probably the weakest part. The comic ended with angry folks uprising against the fascists, which was a much stronger finale. In the film, the bombing carried an enormous symbolic weight, but it was symbolic of what exactly? The failings of parliamentarism? If the film would've included the comic's anarchist themes, that might've been an option, but now the symbolism was kinda weak. Of course V's speech about how bombing a building can be revolutionary act was a brave move, but still... The comic ended with the explosion of Downing Street, which was the fascist government's operational center, but I'm not sure if the movie ever implied the government resided in the Houses of Parliament.
*The scenes with the V masks and the ending with people taking them off was a very nice touch, one of the changes to the comic that I think actually played out fine.
*Another thing where I felt the film improved upon the comic was the final scenes with V and Evey. V says that he must leave the final choice to Eve, and that his work is done. This I think was a better ending than in the comic. In the film V is more of a counterforce to the fascists, a necessary monster they've created, and once the fascists are dealt with he must perish too, and leave people's fate into their own hands. Whereas in the comic Evey becomes the new V, and it feels like her job is to watch that people don't stray from the narrow path again, which is against the very idea of anarchism. Of course, a single person deciding the fate of a nation is rather anti-anarchist too, but since V is supposed to be a symbol of anarchy rather than a real person, it's sort acceptable. Evey, however is clearly a real person and not a symbol.
*Stephen Rea was very good as Finch, but he wasn't given that much to work with. The humanizing scenes with Finch that were in the comic were mostly left out. I can't say whether Natalie Portman was good or bad, since in the film he was mostly V's puppet, and had very few scenes of her own. Again, a lot of the stuff that fleshed her out in the comic was left off. Obviously they couldn't have included everything from the comic, but what I missed the most were all the subplots with characters like Rose Almond, which showed the banal side of fascism. Now, the actual analysis of the workings of fascism was kinda thin, though maybe you shouldn't expect that much from a Wachowski brothers film.
*I'm glad they kept Evey's prison scenes from the comic almost intact, since that obviously was the true climax in both versions. The scenes with Evey reading Valerie's letters actually made me cry. I like Alan Moore the idealist more than the disillusioned cynic he later turned into.
*The human dictator in the comic was more interesting than the Big Brother one in the film. John Hurt's Hitler mannerisms were okay I guess, but it felt kinda silly that he had to use them to his closest men and not just in his public appearances. It was a nice touch that we never saw him in real life until his final scene.
* The Benny Hill tribute was great!
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 30 March 2006 16:20 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 30 March 2006 16:28 (eighteen years ago) link
I liked that too, but I was beginning to think I was the only one.
― Soukesian, Thursday, 30 March 2006 16:29 (eighteen years ago) link
(x-post)
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 30 March 2006 16:34 (eighteen years ago) link
― elmo, holy helper (allocryptic), Thursday, 30 March 2006 16:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 30 March 2006 16:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 30 March 2006 17:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 30 March 2006 18:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― kit brash (kit brash), Friday, 31 March 2006 01:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 31 March 2006 01:17 (eighteen years ago) link
― kit brash (kit brash), Friday, 31 March 2006 06:35 (eighteen years ago) link
Quickly designated "a melodrama in sixteen parts," the prologue first appeared in Cerebus #124, published by Aardvark-Vanaheim in 1989. The chapters proper began appearing in Taboo, edited by Stephen Bissette (Alan Moore's former collaborator on Swamp Thing) beginning in Taboo #2. Taboo was published intermittently and stopped publication with #7, which featured chapter 6 of From Hell.These early episodes were collected in From Hell volumes 1-3, first published from 1991-1993, alone with Moore's appendices. After the demise of Taboo, this series continued with new material, beginning with volume 4 in 1994.
― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Friday, 31 March 2006 07:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Friday, 31 March 2006 07:28 (eighteen years ago) link
DC bought Wildstorm once the contracts were signed and development work done, first issue or so drawn etc. Moore stuck around because it would be depriving a dozen artists of work if he flounced off on principle. He'd been doing work for hire solidly for six years at that point (Spawn, Violator, Bloodfeud, Badrock, WildCATs, Majestic, Fire For Heaven, Vampirella, Supreme, Youngblood, Shadowhawk, Glory), largely because he needed the dosh after going broke on Big Numbers. [Note to small business owners: when publishing a comic book that comes out once every three years as your sole source of income, do not pay regular salaries to your wife and her lesbian girlfriend for running the office.]
― kit brash (kit brash), Friday, 31 March 2006 08:21 (eighteen years ago) link
― kingfish ubermensch dishwasher sundae (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 31 March 2006 08:28 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 31 March 2006 19:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Sunday, 2 April 2006 14:39 (eighteen years ago) link
Independent of that, as a movie on its own, a little comic book thriller - yeah I guess it was okay.
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 3 April 2006 18:51 (eighteen years ago) link
how can you manage to make a bad film when for £10 off amazon you can get 200 pages of ready-made storyboards? FFS
― The Real DG (D to thee G), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 15:04 (seventeen years ago) link
― The Real DG (D to thee G), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 15:05 (seventeen years ago) link
― the doaple gonger (nickalicious), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 16:07 (seventeen years ago) link
― polyphonic (polyphonic), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 16:07 (seventeen years ago) link
i mean i know he's wearing a mask but it doesn't mean he has to be like "mfmfmfmffmmmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmmf" for the whole film, i can suspend my disbelief
― The Real DG (D to thee G), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 16:10 (seventeen years ago) link
― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Friday, 8 September 2006 02:04 (seventeen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 8 September 2006 02:06 (seventeen years ago) link
― Andrew (enneff), Friday, 8 September 2006 02:28 (seventeen years ago) link
― chaki (chaki), Friday, 8 September 2006 03:37 (seventeen years ago) link
the more I've thought about this the more I think Moore's assessment of the film's politics is essentially correct - its not that the movie is bad, its just that if they wanted to make a movie about the contemporary political landscape (US, War on Terror, Iraq, etc.), then the only ostensible reason for using the UK/V plot as a basis for the film is because they're pussies
otm
― latebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 8 September 2006 04:03 (seventeen years ago) link
― milo z (mlp), Friday, 8 September 2006 16:13 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 September 2006 16:30 (seventeen years ago) link
― Young Fresh Danny D (Dan Perry), Friday, 8 September 2006 16:35 (seventeen years ago) link
― Danny Aioli (Rock Hardy), Friday, 8 September 2006 16:38 (seventeen years ago) link
i mean for example V spends about 5 minutes introducing himself, the main purpose of which seems to be to show off the wachowski's ability to use a dictionary rather than introduce the character - he gets 9 short lines in the book
pffft - the graphic novel's great, particularly the latter soap-opera half with multiple narrators. the movie, albeit for fairly understandable reasons, jettisoned all that.
and they weren't shot of running time either, most missing material seems to have been replaced with stephen rea moping round corridors in records offices, hold tight on this roller-coaster ride of an action thriller
(soap opera isn't quite OTM though)
― The Real DG (D to thee G), Friday, 8 September 2006 16:42 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 September 2006 16:52 (seventeen years ago) link
Was Arthur Miller a pussy for writing The Crucible instead of dealing with McCarthy head-on?
Also, would anyone go see an explicit critique of the current war / government? I doubt it.
― polyphonic (polyphonic), Friday, 8 September 2006 16:56 (seventeen years ago) link
― Young Fresh Danny D (Dan Perry), Friday, 8 September 2006 17:00 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 September 2006 17:03 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 September 2006 17:08 (seventeen years ago) link
Oh yeah. *sheepish grin*
I would think its pretty obvious that Miller/the Crucible and Wachowskis/V are not analogous situations,
Does that change the fact that Miller critiqued a current issue through allegory instead of doing so head-on? Is it somehow less "cowardly" to levy a critique with your own allegorical construct instead of awkwardly appropriating someone else's?
― polyphonic (polyphonic), Friday, 8 September 2006 17:10 (seventeen years ago) link
not least the fact they dont seem to understand how BRITISHES actually speak!
― The Real DG (D to thee G), Friday, 8 September 2006 17:11 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 September 2006 17:27 (seventeen years ago) link