V: For Vendetta

[Ammar Al Subahi]

DAMN IT!

I saw the movie yesterday...and it was so friggin good! I wonder, are the comics just as good? I herad that DC are reprinting some (or all?) of the comics in a TPB now due to the movies release.

Is it worth buying?

[Sasquatch]

you know what the sad thing is?
that ppl see a movie and go "wow" and the series has been sitting there for, what is it, almost 2 decades.
yes, it's good, yes it's alan moore, yes, it's brit, yes, it's one of the things that vertigo was built upon.
once upon a time there were writers doing series....

[CPT Space Bomb]

you know what the sad thing is?
that ppl see a movie and go "wow" and the series has been sitting there for, what is it, almost 2 decades.
yes, it's good, yes it's alan moore, yes, it's brit, yes, it's one of the things that vertigo was built upon.
once upon a time there were writers doing series....
Curse you, Sasquatch! I'll find you posting capitol letters again someday, just you wait! :LOL:

[Justin Byrd]

Haven't seen the film yet, but the series was excellent. I bought it online.

[JSaint25]

you know what the sad thing is?
that ppl see a movie and go "wow" and the series has been sitting there for, what is it, almost 2 decades.
yes, it's good, yes it's alan moore, yes, it's brit, yes, it's one of the things that vertigo was built upon.
once upon a time there were writers doing series....

Maybe that is a sad thing.

But if the movie gets people interested enough in trying to find the series that's been "sitting there, for what is it, almost 2 decades" and buying it to read, well then that's a good thing.

[Sasquatch]

Maybe that is a sad thing.

But if the movie gets people interested enough in trying to find the series that's been "sitting there, for what is it, almost 2 decades" and buying it to read, well then that's a good thing.

comics reader must not need movies. it's alan moore, you just buy it. period.

[JSaint25]

comics reader must not need movies. Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this. It reads kind of caveman-ish.

Anyway, not everyone knows who Alan Moore is. If the movie gets people to read the books and discover more of his work, that's a good thing.

[Sasquatch]

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this. It reads kind of caveman-ish.

Anyway, not everyone knows who Alan Moore is. If the movie gets people to read the books and discover more of his work, that's a good thing.

"you" (not you you, you someone) don't know who alan moore is? go read tarots instead of comics
better yet, go read x men and spiderman

[MattyJ]

Not everyone has the budget to read every Alan Moore comic, and local libraries dont have very good comic selections (though mine has the whole Sandman series, which surprised me). Some of us have other hobbies or activities (including watching movies on occasion), and don't always have time to read every seminal or epic comic from 20 years ago.

I read about half of v for vendetta, and its pretty good in my opinion. You should definetly check it out JSaint.

[S.A. Parvaze]

V for Vendetta is definately a comic worth getting. The movie (while decent enough in its own way) seems pretty timid while stacked up against the comic.

[Terry Verticchio]

Ammar, the comic is even better. If you can, get a copy. I highly recomend it.

[Adrienne]

"you" (not you you, you someone) don't know who alan moore is? go read tarots instead of comics
better yet, go read x men and spiderman

Slightly elitist, no?

Perhaps someone who had never really read a comic before went to see V...perhaps it changed their perspective on what comic books are (artistic medium or child's toy?) and inspired them to start reading.

A well-done comic book movie can do this. A big-budget A-movie like V for Vendetta can bring a great comic to a large audience, and get people interested again. It can be a springboard for some to true understanding of comic books as a medium...

Also, a ****ing cool movie.

[Sasquatch]

see the beauty of it all?:)
comics are both "artistic medium or child's toy"
depends on who's working on it
almost any spidey :no: or x-ey :no: falls in the latter category, while the paperback hese discussed is by all means in the former:) .
elitist? ***king yes!
i've learned to read on captain america n.1 (italian verison) then i bought back issues :LOL:
i've seen it all all (almost) and i've seen cargoload, no, make it planetloads (try to fill warworld with comics:LOL: ) of pathetic **ap but along the way i've seen real treasures.
that's life: tons of ...bleah, and some precious diamonds.

so when i see (or, read, here) ppl going "ga-ga-me-likes" about the most mediocre and pathetic things ever published, the same ppl that have never experienced what a real comic should be like, well, i do see red like ferdinand the bull (the donald duck one, not the "please-someone-kill-greg-rucka-or-at-least-cut-off-his-hands-so-he-does-not-get-even-close-to-wonder-woman-again" one):LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

[CPT Space Bomb]

see the beauty of it all?:)
comics are both "artistic medium or child's toy"
depends on who's working on it
almost any spidey :no: or x-ey :no: falls in the latter category, while the paperback hese discussed is by all means in the former:) .
elitist? ***king yes!
i've learned to read on captain america n.1 (italian verison) then i bought back issues :LOL:
i've seen it all all (almost) and i've seen cargoload, no, make it planetloads (try to fill warworld with comics:LOL: ) of pathetic **ap but along the way i've seen real treasures.
that's life: tons of ...bleah, and some precious diamonds.

so when i see (or, read, here) ppl going "ga-ga-me-likes" about the most mediocre and pathetic things ever published, the same ppl that have never experienced what a real comic should be like, well, i do see red like ferdinand the bull (the donald duck one, not the "please-someone-kill-greg-rucka-or-at-least-cut-off-his-hands-so-he-does-not-get-even-close-to-wonder-woman-again" one):LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
My God, I don't know how you do it.............:eek:

[Cardiac]

Thread-necromancy alert...

There is nothing redeeming about V For Vendetta the movie. It's an utterly simplistic, disjointed and directionless piece of cinema, which will cheapen the source material in the eyes of the general public for years to come.

[Ammar Al Subahi]

I finally bought it some week ago and finished it today. It's really good, and yeah it was really different from the movie.

Does anybody know what Leader's love for Fate was supposed to mean, BTW?

[Ammar Al Subahi]

Thread-necromancy alert...

There is nothing redeeming about V For Vendetta the movie. It's an utterly simplistic, disjointed and directionless piece of cinema, which will cheapen the source material in the eyes of the general public for years to come.

After reading the GP and then seeing the movie again...I agree with you.

Everything felt so forced, like as if the movie was cut into half because it was originally too long.

[Cardiac]

After reading the GP and then seeing the movie again...I agree with you.

Everything felt so forced, like as if the movie was cut into half because it was originally too long.

Certainly. That and the shades of grey (and V, for me, always existed in a moral and ideological grey area) were lost beneath a good vs. evil plot apparently meant for children. It was always in the book who was evil, but it was never clear that the main protagonists were good, in any traditional sense. Its called V For Vendetta for a reason, because despite his posturing, V is driven, at least in significant part, by a desire for vengeance.

The worst point for me, was that the film-makers didn't trust the viewing public to recognise fascism when they were presented with it. They had to give Mr Susan a moustache, stand him in front of red and black banners with a simple angular symbol emblazoned across them, and give his name the last syllable of Hitler's (Sutler). I felt thoroughly patronised by the whole thing and was compelled to leave a full twenty minutes before the film was due to end.

[Eleanor Cromwell]

I'll be interested to hear the reaction to the movie version of Stardust when it comes out.

[Joe Illidge]

Originally posted by Cardiac

There is nothing redeeming about V For Vendetta the movie. It's an utterly simplistic, disjointed and directionless piece of cinema, which will cheapen the source material in the eyes of the general public for years to come.

I'm almost in agreement, but I have to say that Hugo Weaving's performance was quite good.

We didn't see a face, but yet his inflections, body language, etc. did give weight to V's character, whereas everyone else was less than stellar, to be kind.

Past that, the posters were much better than the movie itself.

[Tanjint]

I read the comic and because it was so good I refuse to see the movie as Moore was not involved with it.

I saw about 5 minutes of the movie at a friends house and was pretty disgusted.

-T

[Eleanor Cromwell]

Honestly, I think you have to separate the two. The book is so old, now, it comes from such a different place. The book is very influenced by Margaret Thatcher's Britain. The movie is very influenced by the "War on Terror." There's a huge historical and attitudinal difference.

[khazra reborn]

the film was a good couple of hours of fun... but did not even compare to the graphic novel. I found it silly that they left out the bit where he used the fertilizer to create napalm and destroy the camp....it made the roses seem almost pointless

[Cardiac]

Honestly, I think you have to separate the two. The book is so old, now, it comes from such a different place. The book is very influenced by Margaret Thatcher's Britain. The movie is very influenced by the "War on Terror." There's a huge historical and attitudinal difference.

There is yes, so why not create an entirely new story to make points about the modern political climate, instead of butchering a past work?

In terms of satire, the movie is a blunt instrument used to attack perceived injustices that simply don't exist.

[Cappadonna]

There is yes, so why not create an entirely new story to make points about the modern political climate, instead of butchering a past work?

In terms of satire, the movie is a blunt instrument used to attack perceived injustices that simply don't exist.

A couple of things. First of all its a movie -- and a major studio summer movie at that. Simply put you either get a stripped down action romp (Johnny Pneumonic) or, if you try to stay too true to the book you end up with a muddle mess that makes you wonder why the book read the book in the first place. (As someone who read Toni Morrison's Beloved, the Oprah movie confused the heck out of me. Great book, but way too dense and complex a work to put on the silver screen. A Roots-like Miniseries might work, though.) You occassionally get a Sin City, but accurate, coherent comic book movies are rare.


Second, keeping too true to the book wouldn't give the movie the same power. As another poster pointed out, Iron Lady Thatcher simply isn't a relevant figure to today's kids.

Third, if Moore so tires of his masterpieces being spit upon by Hollywood (LoEG is a hell of alot worse than V), he needs to get involved with the process, ala Frank Miller.

Fourth, this is a Wachowski (sp) Brothers Production -- the two guys who ripped of the Matrix from a relatively unknown screenwriter and the Invisibles. We saw what happens when we let two geeks with too much money and too little exposure to anything beyond comic books and video games write a movie -- we get Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions (5 hours of your life never to return!!)

[WhereIsTony]

I enjoyed both the movie and the book.

I agree that the material had to be updated to be made relevant to today's audiance.

I would reccomend the movie to friends

[khazra reborn]

Third, if Moore so tires of his masterpieces being spit upon by Hollywood (LoEG is a hell of alot worse than V), he needs to get involved with the process, ala Frank Miller.
This is something i totally agree with....

[JX141]

Well Iliterally just now popped this out of my dvd player, haha that is my computer dvd as I watched it last night at work, love my job.

I gotta agree with Eleanor it has been updated for the times a bit and if thought of as an entity unto itself I thought it was just fine, and as Cappadonna stated "...coherent comic book movies are rare." especially if striving to stay true to the comic.

I haven't read the comic but was entertained by the movie. I really dont get why people let a book ruin their experience of a movie or vice versa. Some things simply do not work for the silver screen and its normally not possible to cram the same amount of information into a movie.
Now plot and timeline discrepancies aside, which for the case of a movie can be understood, I would really have to read the books to comment on the portrayals of the characters, but again have to state that sometimes in a movie, especially one geared towards a wide, public, "action" movie audience, sometimes the characters have to be painted in an easy to recognize manner.

[Ammar Al Subahi]

Third, if Moore so tires of his masterpieces being spit upon by Hollywood (LoEG is a hell of alot worse than V), he needs to get involved with the process, ala Frank Miller.


Because Alan Moore doesn't want his comics to be adapted into movies. What Hollywood seems to ignore is that Alan Moore consciously writes his comics in a way that can't be reproduced in any other medium.

Even Terry Gilliam recognised this when he was assigned to direct a Watchmen movie in the early 90's. According to him it was impossible to do this movie impossible without making it into a generic superhero story, which is exactly what all Moore adaptations have turned out into

[Cardiac]

Also Alan has said before that he finds the fact that the GNP of a small nation is frequently spent on a film ("another distraction for Western youth") utterly distasteful, so there is a moral issue here as well.

[Cardiac]

I enjoyed both the movie and the book.

I agree that the material had to be updated to be made relevant to today's audiance.

I would reccomend the movie to friends

How is it that ideas of totalitarianism, fascism, and responses to tyranny, including possible justifications for acts of "terrorism", are less relevant now than they were two decades ago? The book is about a great many things, not least the human cost of ideological conflict, and yet it seems to be viewed as a curious relic of Thatcher's Britain. I find this position frankly absurd. Are we so changed in the past twenty years that we cannot relate with a creative work on its own terms?

Exactly how was the material made relevant to todays audience anyway? I found it to be incredibly over-simplified, patronising, and an example of the most insulting propaganda.

The problem with Hollywood films is that they are made to entertain, and great literature is not. Certainly it can entertain, and frequently does, but it is not necessary for a work to be enjoyable for it to be worthwhile, a fact which I believe escapes a great many people, to our collective cost.

[Ammar Al Subahi]

There's also the thematics of power, and who it is given to. Which some of Moore's work is filled with.

If we exclude V's role as a protagonist in the story...then why should we sympethise with him? What makes him better than Norsefire?

He's a terrorist, he brainwashed Evey until she succumbed to his political idéas, not unlike how cults like Hare Krishna or the Scientologists brainwash their members. He manipulated Rose Almond so that she would throw away her life, and the message he sent to the people through the TV-broadcast wasn't a message that encouraged revolution like it was in the movie. In the comics, he was threatning the people, if they didn't improve their act, they would burn along with the government.

[Tanjint]

There's also the thematics of power, and who it is given to. Which some of Moore's work is filled with.

If we exclude V's role as a protagonist in the story...then why should we sympethise with him? What makes him better than Norsefire?

He's a terrorist, he brainwashed Evey until she succumbed to his political idéas, not unlike how cults like Hare Krishna or the Scientologists brainwash their members. He manipulated Rose Almond so that she would throw away her life, and the message he sent to the people through the TV-broadcast wasn't a message that encouraged revolution like it was in the movie. In the comics, he was threatning the people, if they didn't improve their act, they would burn along with the government.

dope ninja, yadadamean?

-T

[Cardiac]

There's also the thematics of power, and who it is given to. Which some of Moore's work is filled with.

If we exclude V's role as a protagonist in the story...then why should we sympethise with him? What makes him better than Norsefire?

He's a terrorist, he brainwashed Evey until she succumbed to his political idéas, not unlike how cults like Hare Krishna or the Scientologists brainwash their members. He manipulated Rose Almond so that she would throw away her life, and the message he sent to the people through the TV-broadcast wasn't a message that encouraged revolution like it was in the movie. In the comics, he was threatning the people, if they didn't improve their act, they would burn along with the government.

Exactly. The comic dealt with shades of grey. Very dark grey. And it was all the better for it.

[comicgeekoid]

agreed, yes indeedy

[Ronin]

whole of great points here. I missed the movie cause i hadn't read the book. I still gotta rent it, althoguh the fat lady from the dvd club warned me against it.

a few comments:

The fact that the book is old and deals with "closed" issues (such as iron lady) doesn't diminish it's quality, in fact, the book aged perfectly and current reads are to be more touching becuase of the anticipation cuality of the book.

Alan's reluctantness to the comic to movie jump is (The moral issue aside) kindda square. Can you even imagine what would have happened if we could have gotten him into a room with kubrick????? Great movies are in every way like great literature and the simplification hollywood=banal flat entretaiment (***p can't get the word right) is so stupid.


About V's character. The beauty of the novel lies is the fact that he is as much a fascist as he's enemies. This is a victim novel, wich lead character is evey, a poor girl lost in a world she can't even begin to comprehend.
V is fascist, a cool, intellectual, sugar-coding, idealist fascist. But a fascist never the less.

about Terry Gilliam's watchmen. I had read the story, but I never knew that the director issued to do WM was TG. For the life of myself I cannot (and neither can anyone here) begin to imagine the movie we lost. What I read was that he fell in love with the comic and presented this "10 hour" treament, saying it was that way or squat. The studio went with squat.
A high budget miniseries would be glorious.


well, that's that (i'm listening to the rolling stones, gimme shelter is such a great song "War, children / its just a shot away / Its just a shot away")

[virtuadept]

About V's character. The beauty of the novel lies is the fact that he is as much a fascist as he's enemies. This is a victim novel, wich lead character is evey, a poor girl lost in a world she can't even begin to comprehend.
V is fascist, a cool, intellectual, sugar-coding, idealist fascist. But a fascist never the less.


How do you figure?

A fascist is someone who promotes the idea of The State before The Individual. That's pretty much directly opposite to V's purported beliefs. He was pro-democracy, power to the people and all that nonsense, or at least he claimed to be such.

V was definitely egotistical and a maniac and decidedly evil, but I don't know how we can pin the fascist label on him.