V for Vendetta movie discussion

compound

compound

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
2,772
Location
Metro Manila, Philippines
A thread dedicated to the upcoming movie -- appropriately slated for release on Guy Fawkes' Day this year -- based on Alan Moore's dystopian graphic novel.

The discussion here comes with the usual disclaimer that it may probably involve spoiler info regarding the original comic. Got it?

Now that we have the pleasantries out of the way... I just read this little bit of worrying info from the blog of a dedicated Alan Moore fan.

mindfuel said:
In the film, the oppressive state of things is due to the Germans winning WW2. So beyond the shades of Philip K. D!ck's The Man in the High Castle, it devolves a sophisticated setup (because the crime is that the English people allowed such a fascist state to gain and keep power) into a conveniently palatable Hollywood one, wherein you have an external antagonist. And not just ANY external antagonist, but the one that virtually everyone can hate in unison: NAZIS! The only people who don't hate them are the Nazis themselves. So that, you know, there can be ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT who the bad guys are. Whereas, in the book, just as much responsibility is placed on the passive masses.
Click to expand...
That's already Strike One against the movie, as far as I'm concerned... :evil:
 
Last edited:
V is not for Venom

the problem with alan moore movies is the directors arent familiar enough with the work to capture the trut portrait in a viewable form for the audience....id like to see this, but id never recommend it to someone who isnt a fan and or hasnt read it..
 
That news is tragic. I'm sick to death of the easy villian being the Nazis. Yeah, we know they were bad guys, but the last time they held any power was 60 years ago. It's little more than a cliché now to drag them out as being simple evil. And of course the relevance is there in the book, but it was in no way saying to us, "hey guys, in case you didn't know, Nazis are bad", we already know they're bad. The world isn't black and white, Moore knows the world isn't black and white, everyone knows but the sodding director it seems. gah!

And Natalie Portman is in it. And she's killed every film she's been in since El Profesional.
 
The Captain said:
the problem with alan moore movies is the directors arent familiar enough with the work to capture the trut portrait in a viewable form for the audience....id like to see this, but id never recommend it to someone who isnt a fan and or hasnt read it..
Click to expand...
Stock response, much?
Guijllons said:
And Natalie Portman is in it. And she's killed every film she's been in since El Profesional.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Natalie Portman should have left movies years ago.

People keep telling me "The Professional! The Professional!" She's so good but I just haven't seen it! Well, that was like a decade ago and I doubt she even remembers that side of her that did that. God, i still have no idea why this girl has a career: one film does not a career make.
 
Last edited:
heard she was good in closer.

oh, and this V news is the worst thing i have ever heard. ever.

when i heard this movie was being made, i was like "they better not screw this up, they better take their damn time and make it good." this isn't even a quality problem. it's a stupid director not understanding anything dumb-a$$ producer problem. sigh.
 
Speaking of stock responses, I was recently reading C.S.Lewis' critique of paradise lost (no, I'm actually serious), and he gives a very convincing argument for stock responses, but not so much as in a simple reply, but in the sense of a standardised language (he seemed to hate exploratory language). Preferring that one should learn how to copy to make, than simply throw across comments that one had no relation to, only the writer had.

Crikey, I think I must be tired.

Sorry, back on topic.
 
Guijllons said:
Preferring that one should learn how to copy to make, than simply throw across comments that one had no relation to, only the writer had.
Click to expand...
And here I was, thinking John Byrne invented that approach! :roll:
 
I really, really hope the film is good, but I serously doubt it. From what I've seen of it, it seems to be lacking the meaning of the comic, trading it for action movie spectacle.

But, it might be, through editing and directing, far more ethereal than I give it credit for.

I think a terrific director for this film would've been Terry Gilliam, from Monty Python fame.

We'll see.

England prevails.
 
Yeah, Alan Moore's film-comic adaptations do suck. But hey, thast crappy peoples fault for makin 'em so crappy. Good job Alan said he's not involved with Watchmen, so if that cocks up, he won't have to wrry about it. But if they get this wrong, they sure as hell better got Watchmen right. ANd if they get this right, Watchmen better be even better.
 
"The purer the novel, the worse the film."

Each medium has its own strengths and weaknesses. Novels, for example, can play out inner conflict with much more craft than film can, which is unable to photograph the human mind. The closest is on-the-nose voice-overs that serve as exposition to the protagonist's mind. So, if a novel is pure and masterful, its probably because the majority of the story is on an internal level, thus, to adapt it to film, you must reimagine it to make it work. The easiest novels to adapt to film are the ones with a lot of external conflict, action novels, spy novels, what-have-you, because film is masterful at creating external conflict.

So, to adapt a terrific novel will require major reworking. Adaptation is not a quick and easy route to circumventing the need to actually have a script. It must be rewritten.

Same for comic adaptaions. A pure comic will utilise the medium in ways that cinema cannot duplicate - that's the whole damn point. So, adapting Promethea to cinema would be an enormously difficult task.

But considering most of Hollywood treat comics as little more than storyboards, its no wonder that they think, "oh, we'll just shoot the comic and cut it down to 120 minutes" and then the movies suck.

Alan Moore is a master of the comic medium, and his works are pure works in that medium. To adapt them, one must reinvent, not copy.
 
They need to stay away from Alan Moore works for adapting to film, at least modern Hollywood and their halfwits. They just don't translate them well at all. To much layering and nuance that gets lost on film even indirectly. From Hell, while a decent film of its own right, is completely incomparable to the book itself since Moore vested at least 5 years of research into it and the story is so based in that research and interweaved in such subtle ways. As a result, a massive amount of material and plot (and literacy) had to be lost.

The same I fear is happening with V (which, aside from being my favorite Moore piece for sentimental reasons, I always considered his easiest adaptable piece) but more still its losing its meaning at the same time. The true point of the book was to question our ideals and if the price we pay to achieve them are worth the consequences. The film obviously is going to play out as a simple, V Good, Norsefire Bad scenario. Blegh.

If people are going to make Moore's work to film, we need equally masterful filmmakers to do it. A pity their usually dead. Kubrick would have been the ideal choice to do a V movie I think. My second choice would be Ridley Scott, a pity someone didn't try feverently to pitch this to him. Oh well.
 
poster_1.jpg



More than a little pissed.

Its not their ****ing Vision, god damnit.

Moore may not want his name on the movie, but that doesn't mean the credit should go to the Matrix Boys.

Blarg!

BLARG I SAY
 
I really liked that picture until the Hackowski Bros claim its their vision.

If it was their vision, it would be a big pile of wank, the ****ing hacks.

I love this comic so much - they better not **** it. V looks perfect.

I'm so ****ing pissed off and happy...
 
Jesus Christ, they could have at least put Alan Moore's bloody name on it! Even if he wants nothing to do with it (which is pretty reasonable, films absed on his books have a tendency to **** up) at least put somke credit to him. His name is nowhere on that poster. And what is up with that rubbish about the MAtrix fellas and their vision? Sure they might have directed it, but who wrote the bloody ****ign thing!
 
What about the guy who ****ing designed it? David Lloyd created the image for V! That guy on the cover was created by David Lloyd, NOT the Wachowski brothers. In a literal sense, this is Lloyd's vision. **** them. **** them and their retarded, bastardised bull****.

*thinks about Grand Theft America*





*calms down*
 
Bass said:
What about the guy who ****ing designed it? David Lloyd created the image for V! That guy on the cover was created by David Lloyd, NOT the Wachowski brothers. In a literal sense, this is Lloyd's vision. **** them. **** them and their retarded, bastardised bull****.

*thinks about Grand Theft America*





*calms down*
Click to expand...

I completely agree.

Except about calming down, I'm still ****ing pissed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top