(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-eu.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F1852862912.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=5ba891d146b3fcd493cf00f39d7b06671cad3d02)
I know this has been discussed before, but I don't think it has its own thread.
Anyway, the more I think about it, the more I get excited about this. This is my second favorite Alan Moore piece, after From Hell, and not only do I think it'll make a much better movie than Watchmen would - I think it's all around better than Watchmen, period.
JB, if ever you were to look forward to a comic book movie, this is likely the one.
Natalie Portman is the biggest name involved in this, and that's a fact that makes me happy - it's not a star driven piece whatsoever. Also, that they're set on releasing this on Nov. 4, for the 100th anniversary of Guy Fawks day, shows how seriously they take the subject matter.
The press conference transcript over at the official site (http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/) is an interesting read.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fwarner_brothers%2Fv_for_vendetta%2Fvforvendetta_bigteaser.jpg&hash=5a8fe39bc3094b15fb8fd9220a6748e679323e4c)
Release Date: November 4th, 2005 (wide)
Cast: Natalie Portman (Evey Hammond), James Purefoy.
Director: James McTeigue (feature debut; he served as the 1st AD on the Matrix trilogy and Star Wars Episodes II & III)
Screenwriter: Andy Wachowski & Larry Wachowski (the Matrix trilogy)
Based Upon: The graphic novel "V for Vendetta," written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd, published by DC Comics in 1988.
Premise: In an alternate timeline where Germany won World War II and Great Britain is now a facist state, a masked vigilante known only as "V" conducts guerrilla warfare against the government. When he rescues a normal young woman (Portman), she joins his struggle against the forces of oppression.
Being that this is another adaptation of a graphic novel, and that the Wachowskis are involved... any word wether they will be using some new technique, or some Sin City technique?
Quote from: andykalBeing that this is another adaptation of a graphic novel, and that the Wachowskis are involved... any word wether they will be using some new technique, or some Sin City technique?
check out the video section of the site http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
or read the press conference transcript GB linked above. they cover questions of visual style and things like that. man i can't stand joel silver.
Quote from: Pubrickman i can't stand joel silver.
he represents all things he hated back in the ol golden days of cinema.
Vendetta Gets Fry-ed
IGN FilmForce recently interviewed British actor-writer Stephen Fry (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) who happened to be in Berlin. And why was he in Germany? It turns out he was there filming a role in the big-screen adaptation of the Alan Moore/Dave Gibbons graphic novel V for Vendetta.
Unfortunately, we have been unable to confirm which role Fry is playing and his reps did not respond to our inquiries for comment.
Fry's credits include Wilde, The Life and Death of Peter Sellers, Gosford Park, Jeeves and Wooster and Blackadder II.
Vendetta Casting Revealed
Stephen Fry spills the beans!
Earlier this week IGN FilmForce informed you that Stephen Fry (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) had been cast in an unspecified role in the big-screen version of the Alan Moore/David Lloyd graphic novel, V for Vendetta.
Now Empire Online fills in the blanks on which role Fry is playing, and also disclosed some other heretofore unknown casting.
"I'm playing the character of Gordon Deitrich, who's a chat show host who questions the authority of the people who run Britain in this post-viral facist state, as it were," the actor-writer explained at the premiere of HG2G. "I've been filming (in Berlin) all the time, and I'm going back on Sunday."
And according to Fry, "[Hellboy veteran] John Hurt, Tim Pigott-Smith, and Sinead Cusack" are also in the film. "Lots of very good casting on the part of the Wachowski Brothers, who of course are wonderful, though it's being directed by James McTeigue, who was first assistant director on all the Matrix films. And it's a good lark."
'Vendetta' loses title character amid shoot
Hugo Weaving ("The Matrix") has replaced James Purefoy as the title character in the futuristic thriller "V for Vendetta," which is shooting in Berlin.
Natalie Portman, Stephen Rea, Rupert Graves and Stephen Fry also star in the Warner Bros. project, which is set for a Nov. 4 release in North America. No reason was given for Purefoy's exit.
Set in totalitarian Britain, "Vendetta" tells the story of a mild-mannered woman named Evey (Portman) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked vigilante known only as V, who ignites a revolution.
The screenplay, by the "Matrix" team of Andy and Larry Wachowski, is based on the acclaimed graphic novel by Alan Moore, whose work also includes "The Watchmen" and "From Hell," and illustrator David Lloyd. James McTeigue is directing.
Weaving played Agent Smith in the "Matrix" trilogy. He also has appeared as Elrond in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and his other credits include "The Interview," "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" and "Proof."
Well, he wears a mask through the entire movie, so it's not like anyone will really know. His voice will just be more recognizable now.
V for Vendetta: The Movie
Nazis, terrorism and horrible experiments! Oh, and Natalie Portman to boot. Source: IGN.FilmForce
Warner Brothers' big-screen version of V for Vendetta was shaken up this past week when it was announced that Hugo Weaving (Lord of the Rings, The Matrix trilogy) had replaced James Purefoy (Resident Evil) in the title role. No reason was given, which leads one to assume the filmmakers were not satisfied with Purefoy's performance. But that's only speculation.
The project is based on the ten-part the Alan Moore/David Lloyd graphic novel series from 1988, which has been adapted for the screen by Matrix creators Larry and Andy Wachowski. James McTeigue is making his feature film directing debut for producer Joel Silver (Wonder Woman). The film is a German-UK co-production.
The cast includes Stephen Fry, Stephen Rea, Rupert Graves, John Hurt, Tim Pigott-Smith, and Sinead Cusack. Fry revealed at the premiere of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that he's playing "Gordon Deitrich, who's a chat show host who questions the authority of the people who run Britain in this post-viral facist state."
Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (Portman) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked vigilante (Weaving) known only as "V."
Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and deception, V ignites a revolution when he detonates two London landmarks and takes over the government-controlled airwaves, urging his fellow citizens to rise up against tyranny and oppression.
As Evey uncovers the truth about V's mysterious background, she also discovers the truth about herself - and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plot to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption.
"Natalie Portman is one of the most gifted actresses working today, and we're thrilled that she is bringing her extraordinary talents and presence to this film," Silver said in a statement at the time her casting was announced. "With V for Vendetta, the Wachowski Brothers have created an uncompromising vision of the future driven by a totally original superhero."
"This is more people centred than The Matrix," promised Silver. Portman has said that Evey is no "damsel in distress…she takes matters into her own hands." She was drawn to the tale by its "moral…and philosophical issues." Portman admitted she is still struggling with identifying the protagonists as freedom fighters or terrorists. "That's the big question," she said, adding that Vendetta focuses on the "power of people [and] the right to revolt." The first photo of Portman with her head shaved for the role can be seen below.
Filming began in early March in Berlin for a Nov. 5, 2005 release, although how much this casting change will affect the release date remains to be seen. It should be noted that V will never appear without his mask in the film so perhaps most of Purefoy's footage can still be used. How they will then credit him (if at all) is not known.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.natalieportman.com%2Fpicstemp%2Fbaldnat.JPG&hash=e2229c232fa43980109e5df781b5764079fa4d20)
! :shock:
Still Hot.
Re-V-ealed!
Plus, Vendetta finishes filming.
Moviehole has scored the first look at the title character in Warner Bros.' upcoming big-screen adaptation of the Alan Moore/David Lloyd graphic novel, V for Vendetta.
The site has published a now widely seen still of Natalie Portman with her head shaved, as well as the first official still of the title character, masked revolutionary V. Moviehole wasn't sure if it was either the fired James Purefoy or his replacement Hugo Weaving behind the mask.
In related news, the official film site has announced that principal photography on V for Vendetta wrapped June 8th. The site also includes set photos of the London stint of filming.
V for Vendetta is slated for release November 4th.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviehole.net%2Fimg%2Fv2.JPG&hash=891d61c8f4d60a2ee402b0d4a108b67b77e9d0a6)
i always think it's going to be someone posting the teaser but sigh.
controversy...what controversy?
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=20602
people are so stupid
its still too soon to tell what this will be... lets wait
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fffmedia.ign.com%2Ffilmforce%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F629%2F629620%2Fvendetta_poster_1119948525.jpg&hash=e91bb2cc8e6e8ac3da1201f0912f8bfbbcacb105)
Must have trailer now!
kind of spoilers,
will the london bombings affect this?
i hope so. it seems impossible that a hollywood movie will deal with the matters that the grovel does . any guesses on how will they fluff everything?will they change the word anarchy for democracy?
Quote from: cronopiokind of spoilers,
will the london bombings affect this?
i hope so. it seems impossible that a hollywood movie will deal with the matters that the grovel does . any guesses on how will they fluff everything?will they change the word anarchy for democracy?
i started re-reading this last week and was thinking that as soon as the bombings happened. :shock:
the subject of terrorism was always gonna be a problem. now with london hit, i think the marketing department will definitely hav difficulties.
I think it will be fine, maybe delay the release an extra 6 months. After 9/11 we all thought there would never be movies about destruction of cities but it turns out those are the money makers.
this one's different, though.
Comic-Con 2005: V for Vendetta Panel
Portman and the producers discuss the film amidst a sea of idolators.
Following the first-ever footage shown of the political thriller V for Vendetta, several key players in the film's development took the stage to field questions from the audience. On hand were artist David Lloyd, who worked with Alan Moore to create V for Vendetta, producers Joel Silver and Grant Hill, and actress Natalie Portman.
The filmmakers talked about Alan Moore's lack of involvement in the project, how the team worked together and what it's like to adapt such detailed source material. Of course, many of the questions were aimed at Portman's involvement in this and other films.
David Lloyd fielded the first inevitable Alan Moore question. Moore did not want to be involved in the project and publicly spoke out against the film, even though he no longer owns the rights (Joel Silver bought them in 1988). "Alan has his own view of things. [He] would only be happy with a complete book-to-film adaptation."
Producer Joel Silver added that Moore is a "visionary, genius, gifted guy… I keep finding my way back to him." Although Moore isn't involved in the project, Silver repeatedly acknowledged the brilliance of his vision.
Speaking about the people who are involved with the project, Natalie Portman had nothing but praise for her colleagues. "On V we had such an amazing group of people," she said. "I try to work with directors who are collaborative and who I trust." She also praised Hugo Weaving and his contribution to the film. Of the Wachowski Brothers, who also produced the film, she said they are "brilliant, focused people; really down to Earth."
To prepare for the role, Portman "read a lot and watched documentaries that I thought were related." She studied Twelfth Night, Macbeth and the film The Weather Underground to get a handle on the material. Of course, she also pored through the graphic novel, calling it "incredibly rich."
Since the film is so politically charged, a couple of the audience questions were directed at how it will play in the current political climate. "This is a really good time for this movie," said Silver. "It's a controversial movie and it's a controversial time."
"Society has actually become a lot more like the one we claim here," said Lloyd. "I think it's important that we try to understand terrorists… It's gonna be healthy to understand what leads someone to terrorism."
Much of the rest of the panel was taken up with admiration of Natalie Portman, and requests from the crowd (one fan asked her to recreate a unique moment from Garden State, rendering it ironically not unique). Ultimately, the panel provided as much insight into the psyches of fans in attendance as it did about V for Vendetta.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comic-Con 2005: V for Vendetta Trailer Impressions
The first footage of this controversial thriller was shown, and we've got the details!
The first-ever footage of V for Vendetta was shown this morning at Comic-Con in San Diego. Based on the graphic novel about terrorism and vengeance, the Warner Bros. movie is being produced by the Wachowski Brothers, who are most famous for creating The Matrix franchise. Before a panel of the film's producers and star Natalie Portman were brought out, the film's first trailer premiered.
Alan Moore, the creative force behind V, no longer owns the rights to the material (The rights to V for Vendetta were acquired in 1988 by Joel Silver, at the same time he locked in rights to Watchmen), and has publicly spoken out against the film, fueling fan speculation about the quality of the project. The trailer should allay some of those fears, because it appears to stay true to the style and design of the graphic novel.
Although fans have already witnessed the mask of the titular character V (Hugo Weaving) from the poster art, there are plenty more glimpses of the rogue in the trailer. When coupled with the black garb, boots and knives, V looks menacing, indeed.
Filled with action, V for Vendetta promises many fight sequences, most of which appear to involve flying knives. The film employs a trail effect on them that is rather stunning. In fact, all of the effects, mainly used during fight sequences, look great.
Most of the trailer is spent inter-cutting between these fight scenes, and others where government agents capture and attempt to break down Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman), accosting her in the street, imprisoning her, and as we've all heard, shaving her hair.
There is fascist-style imagery abounding in the trailer, juxtaposed with images of the mayhem V causes, and the red roses he leaves on the bodies of his political victims. There is a heavy emphasis on intrigue and politics throughout.
We'll post more information about the film as soon as we get it, but from the trailer, it looks to be a smart, focused and extremely entertaining picture rife with moral gray area and solid visuals.
Trailer! Trailer! (http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/trailer.html)
Well, almost...a few minutes away, at least...
Very cool... I think this will be great
Wow! I'm really glad they got Hugo Weaving and his perfect voice for this role. The trailer is really dark so I need to wait until I'm at home later tonight for a better look.
Matrix-esque shot..
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv239%2FDreydin%2FFilm%2Fmatrixshot1.png&hash=c23b9bba19ad5f6918c3e903b9d5b6c002e929a6)
i don't know if i still want this movie to fail as horribly as i wanted it to fail before i saw this trailer. oh me oh my. will this have cheap speaches about freedom and tons of action? this is something that worries me :"Alan Moore, co-creator of the "V For Vendetta" comic, has publicly disassociated himself from the upcoming Warner Brothers movie project based on the comic book and written and produced by the Wachowski Brothers (The Matrix), and, as a result, has cut his remaining ties with DC Comics, which include future volumes of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen". the books are so good that they're almost life changing, or at least changed my perception on graphic novels.
so this is how the trailer made me feel:
:ponder: :yabbse-huh: :yabbse-cry: :elitist: :crazyeyes:
It'll be pretty good, but man, that's a fairly ugly trailer. All those nasty CGI titles, and what's with the stupid space spinning out of the logos?
Alan Moore's been burned too many times. I think he just wants to disassociate himself with any adaptations, period. When From Hell is as good as it gets, can you blame him?
I think (hope) they're trying to market it as an action film, so that they can then fuck with people who flock to see the next Matrix. After all, the Wachowski's did include that shot of Hitler/Bush in Matrix Reloaded...I don't think they'll pull any punches, politically.
All I can really say is, ehh...
I don't like the fact that Adrian Biddle shot this. Aliens and some of his earlier work looks really good. But some of his more recent outings have been pretty terrible, ie The Mummy Returns, Holy Man. Maybe that's just me.
Anyhoo Portman's in it, so that's ten bucks I can say goodbye to.
is anyone else scared by freaky masks like V's?
It's not as scary as your avatar.
D for Delayed
V for Vendetta pushed to '06.
Sci Fi Wire broke the news yesterday that Warner Bros. has delayed the release of V for Vendetta. The adaptation of the Alan Moore/David Lloyd graphic novel had been slated for a November 5th release to coincide with Guy Fawkes' day (a key date in the story) but it has now been rescheduled for a March 17, 2006 debut.
An anonymous Warner Bros. spokesperson advised Sci Fi Wire, "We have moved the release date of V For Vendetta to March 17, 2006, to accommodate the movie's post-production schedule."
It might be assumed that the film, which deals with terrorist attacks in London, might have been delayed in part due to the recent bombings there. Considering leading man James Purefoy was replaced by Hugo Weaving well into filming, however, perhaps the production is simply behind schedule.
march = it sucks. sorry WB, if there was really that much post (but it was really really good) you would hold out further till May or August. so don't give me that buncha bull.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fffmedia.ign.com%2Ffilmforce%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F667%2F667142%2Fv-for-vendetta-20051116013922669.jpg&hash=17cf718f424445fcf4a9ae5fc38f4fb9ed397282)
:yabbse-thumbup:
Off AICN:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fpics%2FVForVendetta.jpg&hash=5bef3ccac6c27650340886a8799a00b344805642)
:yabbse-thumbdown:
I'm with Picolas. The second poster is more pronounced and the image being tilted makes it discomforting.
That being said, I have no interest to see this movie.
i was agreeing with polka that the second isn't as good and i liked the last four posts. but now that you point out the idea behind the tilt i don't know anymore.
Fucking Communists.
Quote from: matt35mm on November 17, 2005, 02:46:54 AM
Fucking Co***nists.
Watch the language, kids read this board.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 17, 2005, 01:04:20 AM
the image being tilted makes it discomforting.
yep, waay tilted.
my feeling is that terrorism and the wachowskis butchered this great story already.
Quote from: cronopio on November 17, 2005, 08:44:37 AM
my feeling is that terrorism and the wachowskis butchered this great story already.
They didn't. From my blog:
All the doubts I had about <I>V For Vendetta were unfounded. It's an outstanding achievement. People Should Not Be Afraid Of Their Government, Governments Should Be Afraid Of Their People - that ideal courses through every frame of the film. I cannot believe a movie with these ideals and ideas is being put out by a studio. It's a piece of dynamite, and hopefully it'll be handled correctly when it opens in March. That Warners is premiering it at Berlin in the spring seems somewhat indicative of their plans for it; it certainly deserves a prestige rollout.
that's such a relief to hear, Ghostboy.
so is it possible the film is anywhere near as great as AICN has hyped or are they just inflating it because of its political message? is it really a better film than the Matrix?
yeah, the matrix will be tough to top.
not.
It's not an action movie (the trailer has just about every action scene in the movie in it). And while, in my opinion, the film's political message and dramatic narrative completely trump The Matrix's action and philosphical bent, it's really a matter of comparing apples and oranges.
Or polar bears and leprechauns.
or transexuals and real women.
New Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/v_for_vendetta/trailer/)
reusing old sets..
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy154%2Fpubrick%2FVfV.jpg&hash=31905793082e27536370c0006be599da2bfb60c9)
Great minds think alike:
Quote from: Myxo on July 22, 2005, 06:08:40 PM
Matrix-esque shot..
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv239%2FDreydin%2FFilm%2Fmatrixshot1.png&hash=c23b9bba19ad5f6918c3e903b9d5b6c002e929a6)
Quote from: Pubrick on December 15, 2005, 11:46:14 PM
reusing old sets..
Seeing as the Matrix reused old sets from Dark City, it's a step up that the Wachowski's are only ripping
themselves off now.
the poster has a very russian constructivism look (probably not on accident).
i hope that this film is based off a comic book/graphic novel or something sci-fi geeky b/c if not this looks like the most stupidest thing ever....
:nono:
Quote from: pyramid machine on December 24, 2005, 07:36:11 PM
i hope that this film is based off a comic book/graphic novel or something sci-fi geeky b/c if not this looks like the most stupidest thing ever....
welcome to the thread. read it.
Quote from: pyramid machine on December 24, 2005, 07:36:11 PM
i hope that this film is based off a comic book/graphic novel or something sci-fi geeky b/c if not this looks like the most stupidest thing ever....
You wouldn't like it. It's about how fascism is a
bad thing.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1807%2Farticle.jpg&hash=1ea15b215670d94b99ba3b6baf267b64cbef81c7)
I’ve been a lot of movie sets over the years, both big and very small. But nothing prepared me for visiting the on location shoot of V for Vendetta. A good chunk of the film shot in London, thankfully it was all done before the bombing. V for Vendetta is based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd and is set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain. The character of V [played by Hugo Weaving] ignites a revolution when he detonates explosions in two London landmarks and takes over the government-controlled airwaves, urging his fellow citizens to rise up against tyranny and oppression.
I got a chance to see the amazing climactic scene outside the Houses of Parliament. The monstrous production had hired hundreds of extras to wear V masks, others to play solders and there were even a few tanks lining the streets. I doubt there will ever be another time when a production of that scale will allowed to block off the area in front of the Houses of Parliament for a film.
I got a chance to talk with Natalie Portman the day after this exciting scene was shot. Portman plays Evey, a young woman who uncovers the truth about V's mysterious background and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plot to bring freedom and justice back to society.
Daniel Robert Epstein: Did you go to shoot outside the Houses of Parliament last night?
Natalie Portman: I did. I went just to spectate. I'm not in those scenes but it's amazing. I don't know how they got permission for that [laughs]. But I am glad they did.
DRE: Had you read the comic book before you got involved?
Portman: I read the comic after I read the script. I found that even though it is an action movie, it makes you think a lot about violence and how we categorize violence. How we differentiate between state violence and individual violence and how we define terrorism and all of that. I think they are really relevant issues. After I read it, it just made me think so much about my own preconceived ideas about all of these topics.
DRE: So it’s not a comedy?
Portman: [Laughs] Actually there are actually comedic parts in it.
DRE: So it does lighten up a bit?
Portman: Yeah, I think you have to. When you're creating a world there's always light. You're not going to feel the heavy parts if you don't feel the light parts.
DRE: How does the movie change from the graphic novel?
Portman: I think it really keeps to the graphic novel. It keeps the integrity of the story; in fact even a lot of the dialogue is directly from the book. The really impressive thing that Larry and Andy [Wachowski] did when adapting the graphic novel into the screenplay was how they found one story. The graphic novel takes place in three parts so there are several different storylines that are wonderful, but if all of that was in a movie people would be sitting there all day.
You could make a trilogy if you wanted to. But to make it into one movie they had to consolidate and take out the character threads that were distracting.
DRE: The original graphic novel is very British; in fact it’s almost a period piece of 80’s Britain. Does the movie reflect that?
Portman: This is definitely a British piece, but I think there is something strong about it is that also speaks to America and the American political situation right now. Not to mention everywhere else in the world where there is political unrest. I think it's important that it takes place in a specific time and place. Though with the art direction, production design and direction we are keeping it very British. But we are also trying to give it the feel of a universal story that isn't specific. It couldn't only happen in England.
DRE: Many times with film adaptations, the original author might say that they don’t like the film. But with V for Vendetta the writer of the graphic novel, Alan Moore, has chosen to take his name off this film and has said that if he could stop the production he would. How does that make you feel?
Portman: I have no idea. I really don't know about that. But I think all of us making this are obviously huge fans of the graphic novel and want to be as true to it as possible. I hope that it pleases Alan Moore because all of us are such fans of his. We are so inspired by what he wrote.
DRE: Have you read any of his other works?
Portman: No, I'm not a big comic, graphic novel type person. I didn't even realize so much about that whole world until this film. I never thought they actually had real stories [laughs]. I was completely ignorant about it.
DRE: Well you are a girl.
Portman: Thank you. [laughs] I don't know how girl graphic novel fans will feel about that but it was really impressive to see something that has such a serious intellectual side and was also beautifully drawn.
DRE: It is such a dark piece, will it be R rated?
Portman: I don't know but it does have adult themes. Not meaning pornography themes, not adult that way, but adult grown up themes.
DRE: The Shadow Galley is an impressive part of the graphic novel, how was it being on that set in Berlin?
Portman: The set is incredible. I'm a moron with architecture terms so I'm not even going to try describe it in detail. But it had these domed ceilings. There is classic art from modern stuff back to Rembrandts, old record players, piano, books everywhere and a chandelier. It's this amazing huge world that they made.
DRE: What about the part of Evey appealed to you?
Portman: She starts out as a passive character. She's the everyman who knows the government is pretty horrible but is going to keep her head down and go on with her life and work. She gets swept up in this by accident and then slowly learns to understand the political situation. Then she has to become active. Someone getting their political consciousness is a really exciting arc.
DRE: Did it make you examine your own political ideologies?
Portman: Definitely. Like I said before we have so many ways of categorizing violence, just look at our legal system with he difference between manslaughter and first degree murder or the difference between a hate crime and a regular crime. What are the differences between them? What is the difference between a terrorist act and the American Revolution? The definitions straddle such fine lines. Ultimately I think my revelation is that all violence is bad so it is weird to categorize it. It's arbitrary sometimes but obviously we have our good violence and bad violence. When we were doing the press for Star Wars George Lucas was talking about how bad people usually think they are doing something good and for the right reason. They don’t know that they are “bad” [laughs]. So if we can justify violence for our reasons we have to understand that other people are justifying violence for their reasons.
Also I rewatched the documentary The Weather Underground. There's an interesting part where a foreign member of The Weather Underground was talking about how in American we tend to think of state violence as the only legitimate violence and any violence other than government approved violence as criminal or insane. But our history is littered with martyrs that we've created. The people who use violence to overcome injustice.
DRE: Do you see V as a hero?
Portman: In a lot of ways he is. But the whole story is V going on a personal revenge trip that is unattractive and he's not a hero that you just go along with wholeheartedly. I think that makes it really interesting because it isn’t separating the world into good and bad which is what happens in most big action films.
DRE: James Purefoy was replaced by Hugo Weaving early in the shoot. How did you deal with that?
Portman: It was difficult because James is a wonderful guy and actor. Hugo is amazing as well. They are both just really fun people and fine actors. It's been a smooth and very calm transition. It wasn't traumatic because stuff just wasn't working. They were trying to figure it out and that happens sometimes on movies.
DRE: Hugo is wearing a mask the entire time, how was it acting opposite that?
Portman: When you have a great actor beneath the mask it's amazing how much can come through. Also part of my character is that she's also dealing with someone in the mask. My character is always wondering about what’s going on behind it.
DRE: Have you done a lot of bluescreen work on this?
Portman: No, there's virtually no bluescreen in this movie. There will be a lot of effects but I think a lot of it is going to be put in later. There's only about three or four shots of bluescreen. Not even whole scenes. There's a lot of action but they’re shooting it for real.
DRE: I spoke to Terence Stamp earlier this year. He’s played two characters from comic books, in Superman 2 and Elektra. He told me that with both characters he was really interested in literally trying to translate the character from the comics. To try to find out the way the character would move between the panels. Did the comic influence you in that way at all?
Portman: You definitely get a sense of her physicality and facial expressions from the comic book. At the same time my character is probably the most changed because first I'm older than she is in the comic books. In the graphic novel she's 16 and I'm 22 in this. Also she's portrayed as a streetwalker and now she has a regular job at the television station. So I can take cues but not base it exactly because the character has been altered.
DRE: Are the reconditioning scenes as grueling as they are in the graphic novel?
Portman: It's pretty tough. It's always hard to say before you see the movie cut because I don't know how much will be left in or anything like that but what we shot was pretty rough.
DRE: Was your head shaved for the entire production?
Portman: My look for the beginning is sort of my own hair with bows [laughs]. Then I shaved my head. But because we had to shoot a few scenes that went back in time, I had a wig.
DRE: It seems like many actresses go into a genre film after being honored by the Oscars. Such as Halle Berry doing Catwoman and Charlize Theron in Aeon Flux but you were probably signed to this before your Oscar nomination.
Portman: I actually did sign on to this before the nomination but I just wanted to do something different because I get bored really easily. I need to do something that's completely new and interesting in order to stay focused. Every film I do I try to make it the opposite of the last thing I did.
DRE: Is there any truth to the rumors of a sequel to Léon?
Portman: No, I wish there was.
DRE: That would be great.
Portman: I would love to do it. I talk to [Léon director] Luc [Besson] all the time but he never has mentioned it to me. Though if he directed it I would do it in a second.
DRE: Garden State ended up doing really well. That must have been amazing for everyone involved.
Portman: I was really proud of it. It was one of the most fun things I've ever gotten to work on. [director] Zach [Braff] is so talented and it was all him. He wrote it, directed it and starred in it so it's his talent that I think people connected to so much.
DRE: The ending was pretty controversial for a while, how do you feel about that?
Portman: Why is the ending controversial? Because it's happy? [Laughs]
DRE: Pretty much.
Portman: Whatever. People would also complain if it was sad [laughs].
DRE: What’s next?
Portman: Goya's Ghosts with Milos Forman which is very exciting. Also I'm a doing a film that's called Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium which is a children's film. Zach Helm, who wrote Stranger than Fiction, is directing. He’s a really wonderful writer.
Quote from: MacGuffin on December 27, 2005, 11:42:44 AM
DRE: What's next?
Portman
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.answers.com%2Fmain%2Fcontent%2Fwp%2Fen%2F5%2F5a%2FTroyMcClure.jpg&hash=b7ef8ec492f2340c894dbdaea82343c09db13a01): ... Also I'm a doing a film that's called Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium
Will the gambit pay off? 20th Century Fox is betting.. it will.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fv_for_vendetta_ver5.jpg&hash=37b602fd99d076d3901af312b687b0572a52084c)
Poster I hadn't seen before... pretty great, I'd say.
i just got a south by southwest film badge and i plan on seeing this when it plays wed. night. is anyone else here going who's had some experience with the fest, and do they know if i'll even be able to get in? do i show up five hours early and chill out on the sidewalk with a book and some xanax? or is it easier than that? or harder?
If you have a badge, you'll be able to get in. You shouldn't need to get there more than an hour ahead of time, either. And since the film opens two days later, it might not be as packed as, say, Prarie Home Companion will be.
Quote from: Ghostboy on February 27, 2006, 12:06:01 PM
If you have a badge, you'll be able to get in. You shouldn't need to get there more than an hour ahead of time, either. And since the film opens two days later, it might not be as packed as, say, Prarie Home Companion will be.
do you think both showings of PHC will be ultra-packed? i can imagine the first one..but i dunno? the friday at 4:30?
yeah, i'm wondering that too. the friday 4:30 showing is on my schedule as well.
it's okay.
natalie portman is really good (and HOT). starts out really well -- i was into it -- and proceeds in a very uneven, clunky manner but it maintains the momentum it starts out with pretty well. the action's sweet. it's sort of like A Very Long Engagement, in that it's visually satisfying (as opposed to pleasing or "stunning") but overstuffed and completely underdeveloped.
I'm definitely going to see this, to get over any notion that the comic wasn't done justice.
I just hope that the action isn't the focus more than the actual plot. Not to say the action isn't important, but Moore is quite a storyteller, and I'd hate for that to be sacrificed in the name of explosions.
The Vendetta Behind 'V for Vendetta'
Source: NY Times
THE most vivid characters in Alan Moore's graphic novels are antiheroes of ambiguous morality and identity: costumed avengers like Rorschach, the disturbed street vigilante of "Watchmen," or the crusader known only by the letter V, who commits catastrophic acts of terrorism in the dystopian tale "V for Vendetta."
With inventions like these, and a body of writing that spans nearly three decades, Mr. Moore, a 52-year-old native of Northampton, England, distinguished himself as a darkly philosophical voice in the medium of comic books — a rare talent whose work can sell solely on the strength of his name. But if Mr. Moore had his way today, his name would no longer appear on almost any of the graphic novels with which he is most closely associated. "I don't want anything more to do with these works," he said in a recent telephone interview, "because they were stolen from me — knowingly stolen from me."
In Mr. Moore's account of his career, the villains are clearly defined: they are the mainstream comics industry — particularly DC Comics, the American publisher of "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta" — which he believes has hijacked the properties he created, and the American film business, which has distorted his writing beyond recognition. To him, the movie adaptation of "V for Vendetta," which opens on Friday, is not the biggest platform yet for his ideas: it is further proof that Hollywood should be avoided at all costs. "I've read the screenplay," Mr. Moore said. "It's rubbish."
Mr. Moore has never been shy about expressing himself. With "Watchmen," a multilayered epic from 1986-87 (illustrated by Dave Gibbons) about a team of superheroes in an era of rampant crime and nuclear paranoia — and again with "V for Vendetta" (illustrated by David Lloyd), published in America in 1988-89, about an enigmatic freedom fighter opposing a totalitarian British regime — Mr. Moore helped prove that graphic novels could be a vehicle for sophisticated storytelling. "Alan was one of the first writers of our generation, of great courage and great literary skill," said Paul Levitz, the president and publisher of DC Comics. "You could watch him stretching the boundaries of the medium."
But by 1989, Mr. Moore had severed his ties with DC. The publisher says he objected to its decision to label its adult-themed comics (including some of his own) as "Suggested for Mature Readers." Mr. Moore says he was objecting to language in his contracts that would give him back the rights to "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta" when they went out of print — language that he says turned out to be meaningless, because DC never intended to stop reprinting either book. "I said, 'Fair enough,' " he recalls. " 'You have managed to successfully swindle me, and so I will never work for you again.' "
Mr. Levitz said that such so-called reversion clauses routinely appear in comic book contracts, and that DC has honored all of its obligations to Mr. Moore. "I don't think Alan was dissatisfied at the time," Mr. Levitz said. "I think he was dissatisfied several years later."
Mr. Lloyd, the illustrator of "V for Vendetta," also found it difficult to sympathize with Mr. Moore's protests. When he and Mr. Moore sold their film rights to the graphic novel, Mr. Lloyd said: "We didn't do it innocently. Neither myself nor Alan thought we were signing it over to a board of trustees who would look after it like it was the Dead Sea Scrolls."
Mr. Moore recognizes that his senses of justice and proportion may seem overdeveloped. "It is important to me that I should be able to do whatever I want," he said. "I was kind of a selfish child, who always wanted things his way, and I've kind of taken that over into my relationship with the world."
Today, he resides in the sort of home that every gothic adolescent dreams of, one furnished with a library of rare books, antique gold-adorned wands and a painting of the mystical Enochian tables used by Dr. John Dee, the court astrologer of Queen Elizabeth I. He shuns comic-book conventions, never travels outside England and is a firm believer in magic as a "science of consciousness." "I am what Harry Potter grew up into," he said, "and it's not a pretty sight."
Actually, he more closely resembles the boy-wizard's half-giant friend Hagrid, with his bushy, feral beard and intense gaze, but those closest to Mr. Moore say his intimidating exterior is deceptive. "Because he looks like a wild man, people assume that he must be one," said the artist Melinda Gebbie, Mr. Moore's fiancée and longtime collaborator. "He's frightening to people because he doesn't seem to take the carrot, and he's fighting to maintain an integrity that they don't understand."
After he left DC Comics, he spent the 1990's working his way from one independent publisher to the next, ultimately arriving at Wildstorm Studios, owned by the comics artist Jim Lee. There, Mr. Moore was given his own imprint, called America's Best Comics, where he continued to write such pioneering and popular titles as "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," about a proto-superhero team of Victorian literary characters including Allan Quatermain, Captain Nemo and the Invisible Man.
DC Comics purchased Wildstorm, in 1998, expecting that Mr. Moore would not tolerate the arrangement. "We did the deal on the assumption that Alan would be gone the day it was signed," said Mr. Levitz. But Mr. Moore's loyalty to his artists trumped his aversion to his former employers, and he stayed put. "It seemed easier to bite the bullet meself," he said.
In 2001, the first film adaptation of one of Mr. Moore's graphic novels arrived in theaters. "From Hell," distributed by 20th Century Fox, was based on his extensively researched account of the Jack the Ripper murders, a 572-page black-and-white title illustrated by Eddie Campbell. Mr. Moore had no creative participation in the film, and happily so. "There was no way that I would be able to be fair to it," he said. "I did not wish to be connected with it, and regarded it as something separate to my work. In retrospect, this was kind of a naïve attitude."
Two years later, when 20th Century Fox released a movie version of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," the screenwriter Larry Cohen and the producer Martin Poll sued the studio, charging that elements of the film had been plagiarized from their work. Though the film, which was one of the year's costliest flops, differed drastically from the graphic novel, the lawsuit nonetheless claimed that the "Extraordinary Gentlemen" comics had been created as a "smokescreen" to cover up the theft.
Mr. Moore found the accusations deeply insulting, and the 10 hours of testimony he was compelled to give, via video link, even more so. "If I had raped and murdered a schoolbus full of retarded children after selling them heroin," he said, "I doubt that I would have been cross-examined for 10 hours." When the case was settled out of court, Mr. Moore took it as an especially bitter blow, believing that he had been denied the chance to exonerate himself.
Since then, he has refused to allow any more movies to be made from work he controls. In the case of work whose rights he does not control, he has refused credits on any film adaptations, and has given his share of option money and royalties to the artists who illustrated the original comic books. That position is so radical that though his colleagues say they respect his position, few in the film industry can understand it.
"It's very simple, but they don't seem to hear it," said John O'Neill, the illustrator of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen." "They just gravitate towards offering more money."
Last year, when Mr. Moore received a phone call from Larry Wachowski — who, with his brother, Andy, had written and directed the "Matrix" movies — to discuss the "V for Vendetta" film that the Wachowskis were writing and producing for Warner Brothers, Mr. Moore felt he had made it clear that he did not want to be involved in the project.
"I explained to him that I'd had some bad experiences in Hollywood," Mr. Moore said. "I didn't want any input in it, didn't want to see it and didn't want to meet him to have coffee and talk about ideas for the film."
But at a press conference on March 4, 2005, to announce the start of production on the "V for Vendetta" film, the producer Joel Silver said Mr. Moore was "very excited about what Larry had to say and Larry sent the script, so we hope to see him sometime before we're in the U.K." This, Mr. Moore said, "was a flat lie."
"Given that I'd already published statements saying I wasn't interested in the film, it actually made me look duplicitous," he said.
In a telephone interview, Mr. Silver said he had misconstrued a meeting he had with Mr. Moore and Dave Gibbons nearly 20 years ago, when Mr. Silver first acquired the film rights to "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta." (Mr. Silver no longer owns the rights to "Watchmen," though Warner Brothers is still planning an adaptation.) "I had a nice little lunch with them," he said, "and Alan was odd, but he was enthusiastic and encouraging us to do this. I had foolishly thought that he would continue feeling that way today, not realizing that he wouldn't."
Mr. Silver said he called Mr. Moore to apologize for his statement at the press conference, but that Mr. Moore was unmoved. "He said to me, 'I'm going to hang up on you if you don't stop talking to me,' " Mr. Silver recalled. "It was like a conversation with a tape recording."
Through his editors at DC Comics (like Warner Brothers, a subsidiary of Time Warner), Mr. Moore insisted that the studio publicly retract Mr. Silver's remarks. When no retraction was made, Mr. Moore once again quit his association with DC (and Wildstorm along with it), and demanded that his name be removed from the "V for Vendetta" film, as well as from any of his work that DC might reprint in the future.
The producers of "V for Vendetta" reluctantly agreed to strip Mr. Moore's name from the film's credits, a move that saddened Mr. Lloyd, who still endorses the film. "Alan and I were like Laurel and Hardy when we worked on that," Mr. Lloyd said. "We clicked. I felt bad about not seeing a credit for that team preserved, but there you go."
DC, however, said it would be inappropriate to take Mr. Moore's name off of any of his works. "This isn't an adaptation of the work, it's not a derivative work, it's not a work that's been changed in any fashion from how he was happy with it a minute ago," said Mr. Levitz.
Still, some DC editors hope that Mr. Moore might return. "He remains a good friend, and I would work with him again in a heartbeat," said Karen Berger, the executive editor of the DC imprint Vertigo, in an e-mail statement.
But Mr. Moore does not seem likely to change his mind this time. For one thing, his schedule is almost entirely consumed with other comics projects, including a new volume of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," to be released in late 2006 or early 2007 by the American publisher Top Shelf Productions. This summer, Mr. Moore said, Top Shelf will also be publishing "Lost Girls," his 16-years-in-the-making collaboration with Ms. Gebbie, a series of unrepentantly pornographic adventures told by the grown-up incarnations of Wendy Darling of "Peter Pan," Alice of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and Dorothy Gale of "The Wizard of Oz." "I refuse to call it erotica, because that just sounds like pornography for people who've got more money," Mr. Moore said. "It would seem to be possible to come up with a kind of pornography that was meaningful and beautiful, not ugly."
Ms. Gebbie said she was more excited to see Mr. Moore finish his novel "Jerusalem," another years-long project that he estimates will total 750 pages when complete. "It's his story, his heritage, his blood ties and his amazing, wonderful system of beliefs," Ms. Gebbie said. "This book for him is an unfolding of his real, deep self."
But Mr. Moore suggested that his comic-book writing has already defined his identity. He recalled an encounter with a fan who asked him to sign a horrific issue of his 1980's comic "The Saga of the Swamp Thing"; the admirer then disclosed that he was a special effects designer for the television series "CSI: NY." "Every time you've got an ice pick going into someone's brain, and the close-ups of the little spurting ruptured blood vessels, and that horrible squishing sound, that's him," Mr. Moore said. "So that's something I can be proud of. This is my legacy."
To be fair, if I was the original writer of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and that was the movie that they made from it, I would be washing my hands of the movie industry too.
It's a shame, though, since Alan Moore is one of the most original and creative literary minds in any medium, and the thought that we may never see a movie that has his full cooperation behind it is kind of depressing. The heartening thing is hearing the early reviews of V, and how the movie seems to actually respect the original writing, and actually gets the point of the book. This, combined with the Watchmen movie that is bound to happen someday, and bound to be directed by somebody who cares passionately about it, is a good sign for Alan Moore fans.
it's crazy how different of an experience Frank Miller is having right now. maybe Rodriguez needs to make Watchmen panel for panel to turn Moore around. if anybody wants to write a good paper compare/contrast Miller & Moore's influence on comics and their experiences/views on films. it'd be a good read.
Quote from: polkablues on March 14, 2006, 08:36:46 PM
This, combined with the Watchmen movie that is bound to happen someday, and bound to be directed by somebody who cares passionately about it, is a good sign for Alan Moore fans.
that's not guarranteed.
i'd rather they don't make any more movies of his books if they're gonna keep turning out shit like From Hell. even V should be considered secondary to the original work, no matter how much ppl want to love it. it's more exciting to anticipate his own future works like those Jerusalem and Lost Girls projects. they will deliver.
(Chicago Tribune)
Movie review: 'V for Vendetta'
By Michael Phillips
Tribune arts critic
If the h-for-hype "V for Vendetta" connects with a wide American audience, then something truly has shifted in the homeland-insecurity pop landscape of the early 21st Century. It means we're ready for a cultured, sophisticated, man-about-town terrorist who espouses the belief that "blowing up a building can change the world." Finally, a film to unite movie-mad members of Al Qaeda with your neighbor's kid, the one with the crush on Natalie Portman.
Various film enthusiasts, particularly suckers for anything based on a graphic novel, are hot for this picture. They argue that the story line is pro-revolution rather than pro-terrorism, set in the near future, imagining England under the thumb of a regime than makes Mussolini look like Musso & Frank. Call me a neocon -- that'd be a first -- but this film is in fact about a glam-terrorist who believes in better government through the demolition of landmark buildings. It's only a movie. But would "V for Vendetta" stand a box office chance today if it were set in America, not England, and the U.S. Capitol were blowing up instead of Parliament? Unlikely. We all enjoyed seeing the White House get it in "Independence Day," but there's nothing political about space aliens.
A British-German production, "V for Vendetta" is brought to you by the Wachowski brothers, Andy and Larry, gurus of "The Matrix." The first-time director -- it shows -- is John McTeigue, who assisted on the "Matrix" trilogy as well as "Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones." As Orwellian visions go, this one doesn't have much black magic in its corner. Only here and there do you find the spark and kinetic zap delivered by the first "Matrix" picture.
Portman plays Evey, orphaned daughter of activists. She is rescued from shadowy government abductors one dark evening by a man in a cape and a Guy Fawkes mask. (For those who don't know Guy Fawkes from Guy Smiley, look up "Gunpowder Plot of 1605.") The masked avenger is known only as V, and by his flaming logo, a V with a circle around it. Apparently he used to work in marketing for Warner. V wants to take back England from its oppressors. Life is no fun in this near-future world: Nuclear disasters and "America's war" have lead to permanently whacked-out weather patterns and rampant, murderous xenophobia, no Muslims or homosexuals allowed. John Hurt plays the nail-spitting Chancellor, who is seen on huge video screens in a Hitler haircut, bellowing every line as if he were saying: "Fee-fi-fo-fum!"
The picture is based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd, published in its entirety in 1989. What was originally an attack on the social policies of Margaret Thatcher's England now speaks directly to George Bush's America. One character adjusted from Moore's original story -- Moore has already disowned the film version -- is a Bill O'Reilly-inspired TV pundit with a sinister secret.
All the free-floating dread and dress-up games aren't bad for about an hour. The second half, like so many second halves of movies taken from graphic novels -- everything from "Road to Perdition" to "Sin City" -- grinds on, growing increasingly flabby and yakky. By the big finish, the queasy feeling in your stomach tells you that you haven't been convincingly swept into the film's call to arms.
In the masked role of V -- all the time, he's got that infernal mask on -- we have plummy-voiced Hugo Weaving, the unstoppable killing machine in shades from "The Matrix." Weaving replaced another actor early in the shoot. In interviews Weaving has addressed his primary acting challenge here: As he told one writer, V "has a fixed expression, yet he talks a lot." And how! In his elaborate underground Shadow Gallery, decorated with "White Heat" posters and other artifacts banned by the Ministry of Objectionable Materials, V whiles away the hours quoting Shakespeare while playing the Julie London version of "Cry Me a River" on his precious jukebox. Or else he's speaking in the most ungodly clauses ("This world -- the world I'm a part of, that I helped shape ... ") To his credit, however, he does not make Evey listen to "The Phantom of the Opera."
In order for Evey to become a good little freedom fighter she must undergo a concentration camp like survival test. This section of "V for Vendetta" is a bit mad, yet Portman brings a fierce commitment to it. (It's easier to take than the interlude wherein she dons an ickily sexual schoolgirl costume for the delectation of a salacious vicar.) She grounds the heavy doings of the cautionary tale in an emotional reality, which is a way of saying she's a good actress.
Stephen Rea lends his hangdog, doleful authority to a generic role of an investigating officer trying to stop V before he makes good on his destructive promise. No suspense here, really: If he stopped him, there wouldn't be a "Matrix"-style showdown, this time with bullets and swords instead of bullets and aerial kung-fu. This scene, with its computer-generated sword-swooshes, no doubt will work with an audience, even though it's not half as cool as anything Neo got up to. "V for Vendetta" qualifies as "an uncompromising vision of the future" only if monotony qualifies as a lack of compromise.
mjphillips@tribune.com
I finally saw it and boy was I let down. There was little more than a straight adaptation, minus a few key scenes and plus more focus on the action.
I didn't imagine V to sound like Hugo Weaving, either. It worked, but I still imagined a more secretive voice, one sort of distorted through a vocalizer.
I'm still a huge fan of the comic, the movie did little for me that the comic book didn't do a million times better.
i'm seeing this tonite, but if this was a straight adaptation with a little more emphasis on action why didnt you like it? what did the comic do a million times better?
Quote from: modage on March 17, 2006, 07:29:36 AM
i'm seeing this tonite, but if this was a straight adaptation with a little more emphasis on action why didnt you like it? what did the comic do a million times better?
... you might as well throw Watchmen in the fire right now.
Quote from: Walrus on March 17, 2006, 12:24:51 AM
I finally saw it and boy was I let down. There was little more than a straight adaptation, minus a few key scenes and plus more focus on the action.
I didn't imagine V to sound like Hugo Weaving, either. It worked, but I still imagined a more secretive voice, one sort of distorted through a vocalizer.
I'm still a huge fan of the comic, the movie did little for me that the comic book didn't do a million times better.
Was this more or less of a letdown than From Hell?
From Hell doesn't even count as an adaptation, compared to this.
I'll be seeing it again on Sunday, to see if it lives up to that crazy morning in Decemeber...
i expected it to be a little more intriguing visually, and some of the nuances they cut from the comic in order to make room for more action seemed like unnecessary losses. [i didn't read the whole thing, but i have read sections of the graphic novel(s) at work] in the movie, i thought that natalie portman's character's motivation for helping V was ambiguous... she's not as neutral in the comic, and i don't think that changing her personality for the screen really serves any purpose.
i think that a lot of people are tempted to compare this to sin city, in which case, V will come up short. even on its own, this flick didn't do much for me.
as for the message of the movie, i think that there's really a lot of work to be done on the audience's part to figure out what, exactly, the message is and whether it's really helpful to society.
i'm sure i'll have more to say later.
I will say, i've read a few vertigo titles (100 bullets, Sin City, Y The last man, and others) i never got the chance to pick up this one, from what i've read they stayed pretty true to the graphic novels? was, this an overall let down to a V fan?
Personally i enjoyed it, i really like a film that when you get finished watching it you say, "man, i can't believe that was 2/3 hours long"
where as they didn't succeed in doing this to the fullest extent, i was overall interested for the majority of the time.
Visually, i didn't think there was anything that revolutionary, and as for this
Quote from: Xidentity Crixax on March 17, 2006, 12:11:15 PM
i think that a lot of people are tempted to compare this to sin city, in which case, V will come up short. even on its own, this flick didn't do much for me.
I aagree with that, but i really didn't put much into comparing the two, i knew they were both on the vertigo line, however, i just kind of tried to look objectively at it.
I'm trying to think of more to say, so i'll get back on that.
SPOILERS SPOILERS
Here was my favorite part. Everyone will probably ridicule me for it, but I haven't read this, I don't know if the action overpowered the story:
The last big fight scene, where, of course, V is killed. I thought it was where the Wachowski's shone. I just really liked the knife fighting. I get into stuff like that. Fight scenes are my favorite.
SPOILERS SPOILERS
Quote from: sheshothim on March 17, 2006, 01:19:52 PM
Here was my favorite part. Everyone will probably ridicule me for it, but I haven't read this, I don't know if the action overpowered the story:
The last big fight scene, where, of course, V is killed. I thought it was where the Wachowski's shone. I just really liked the knife fighting. I get into stuff like that. Fight scenes are my favorite.
remember to put SPOILERS before typing something like that.
Oh, my bad!
:oops:
:yabbse-grin:
Quote from: RedVines on March 17, 2006, 01:45:36 PM
Quote from: sheshothim on March 17, 2006, 01:19:52 PM
Here was my favorite part. Everyone will probably ridicule me for it, but I haven't read this, I don't know if the action overpowered the story:
The last big fight scene, where, of course, V is killed. I thought it was where the Wachowski's shone. I just really liked the knife fighting. I get into stuff like that. Fight scenes are my favorite.
remember to put SPOILERS before typing something like that.
ahaha.. for sure. you got me, you should probably modify that.
I'm planning to see this tomorrow and so far it seems like not a good out look.
I wasn't excited over the trailer to be honest. But I figured the fight scenes could be enjoyable. We'll see.
admin edit: [size=9]SPOILERS[/size]
i hear that the last one where V gets killed is pretty good.
How do you like THAT!? ^^^
[size=9]SPOILERS[/size]Quote from: Xidentity Crixax on March 17, 2006, 04:30:52 PM
i hear that the last one where V GETS KILLED is pretty good.
Oh, you have no idea.
You shutup Neil! I know where you live!
Quote from: Neil on March 17, 2006, 01:02:40 PM
I will say, i've read a few vertigo titles (...Sin City...)
I believe Sin City was Dark Horse (not that it matters much).
The more I thought about this movie the less I feel for it. I think that, as a film, V for Vendetta is to anarchy what Crash is to racism.
Quote from: Walrus on March 17, 2006, 06:42:05 PM
The more I thought about this movie the less I feel for it. I think that, as a film, V for Vendetta is to anarchy what Crash is to racism.
i agree, except that it requires the audience to do a little more thinking than crash did.
with crash, it's fine if you take everything they feed you at face value, cause their purpose is overwhelmingly obvious and beaten to death.
at least with V for vendetta, the audience has to actually look at the characters' reaction to the end while thinking about what the movie means to society.
from the early word of mouth from you guys it seems like this film is what i though it would be-a letdown...i sort of figured it anyways from the previews..its an obscure dorky comic book character that appeals to people like us [socially challanged] and its from those uber-douches lary and andy and one of those guys is more fucked up than new york inner city youth...i'll wait for mod's review for a decision about theater or renting...mod is a great baromoter when it comes to films like this...i've seen his lists and he does equal parts art house and popcorn flicks...i'm predicting a C+
no, it's better than Crash. yea it's obvious at times and has some cheesy parts. but it has some smart stuff in there. Portman is great except for the accent (which comes in and out). and still beautiful (even with a shaved head). couldn't stop thinking of Sinead.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.general-anzeiger-bonn.de%2Fnitf%2Fbilder%2Fjpeg-1vd01950-20051011-img_9972348_onlineBild.jpg&hash=3d41ca1b794dd943ac146d1344277780693c7b4f)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kino.de%2Fpix%2Fnewspics%2FGALERIE%2F182844_1.jpg&hash=8fca3c6072abcd9d9afe39008167a0dd020dace8)
anyways, it's not perfect but I enjoyed it FAR more than the Matrix films.
i hate to be so predictable but i have to agree with most everyone here. even though i've never read the book i really liked how especially in the beginning of the film, it really
felt like a comic. but like samsong mentioned, the film seemed to stumble as it went along and couldn't keep its momentum. i think there were better dystopian films made in the 80s like Robocop, but back then there was no controversy about people extrapolating on current events for fiction like there is for this movie. so when you strip away the shock of the parallels, the film itself is not that great. it's great that it got made and it's as good as it is, but not great alone. that said, i liked the film, but i think i liked it better than it actually is. its nothing like the matrix, but the matrix is a much better film. (the sequels are dead to me. there are no matrix 'films', only one). but i enjoyed myself a lot and it made me want to read a bunch of graphic novels, so :yabbse-thumbup:
Quote from: pyramid machine on March 17, 2006, 08:31:47 PM
C+
My mistake on calling the Sin city a vertigo, when in fact is a dark horse, i guess i just kind of consider it to be more along the lines of something that would be on vertigo, little more racy than most stuff.
Sorry.
Did you guys really think this film (along with crash) was all that didactic?
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2006, 12:50:15 PM
Did you guys really think this film (along with crash) was all that didactic?
shhhhh keep it down. there's been heated discussions about Crash for months. we kinda don't need another one on the Vendetta thread. we all need to move on. you can see for yourself on the Crash thread.
(https://xixax.com/header_caps/index.php?1142659823796)
I had a fun time. Nothing terrible or great here. I'm surprised that this movie was made. I feel that you can say that, all of the individual parts are greater than the whole, and that the whole is greater than the parts, and either would be true. It's weird I really like all of the performances, except John Hurt (ie hello Hitler) and everything else, but I guess it's all just so average it can go either way. At least for me. But I'll welcome 'smart' genre pictures any day.
The last fight scene was worth it.
I agree with most of you about the forced love sub-plot, problems with continuity, and a little spoon fed... okay maybe not just a little. The whole idea about coincidences was nice, could have been executed better though.
They should have had a real director.
Quote from: musse on March 18, 2006, 06:30:30 PM
The last fight scene was worth it.
:yabbse-thumbup:
Quote from: Pas Rap on March 18, 2006, 06:50:56 PM
They should have had a real director.
this is the exact reason why this was doomed from the start. sure, it was good to give some jerk AD a chance, but could he really have been expected to deliver something of pre-transexual-era Wachowski quality? wachowskis shoulda known, being a female director is tough, let alone trying to direct through a glorified AD.
Saw this also tonight and unless you are a right wing extremist you'll enjoy it. I am not going to reiterrate what has already been said so I'll leave you with something new: the song that ran when the credits "Street Fighting Man", fit perfectly. I LOVE The Stones
SpoilerSpoilers
Although i didn't see that tune coming, i thought it was highly appropriate...Great choice. It caught me off guard because the rest of the films music wasn't like that at all as far as i remember, i could be wrong however. (I wasn't sure if i should have put the spoilers thing in there or not, i was just being safe, didn't want to make anyone mad)
the song was great, as was the movie.
Spoilers
even though the wachowski fellas didn't direct this, i seems like James McTeigue attempted to make a few sequences look wachowski/matrix esque. Although he obviously didn't emulate this very well, i still got that vibe during a few shots.
Does anyone know what I'm talking about, or was i way off base with this?
this was sin city all over again. new rule: unless you're david cronenberg or fumihiko sori you shouldn't be allowed to adapt comic books. and fuck the rolling stones very much, tchaikovski rocked in this movie's musical department. that was the only scene i liked actually, parliament, and even that scene was dumbed down by adding four hundred billion fawkes' masks to it. way to rape the subtlety of a decent superhero story, wachowskis. i don't remember the comic being as naive as the movie was.
Quote from: cronopio on March 20, 2006, 04:37:04 PMway to rape the subtlety of a decent superhero story, wachowskis. i don't remember the comic being as naive as the movie was.
i didn't mind the heavy-handedness in this. i haven't read the comic so i can't really comment on the adaptation, but maybe you could elaborate on how this was dumbed-down?
subtlety isn't always the best route to take, you know. sometimes it's good to get up and shout.
i'm all for loudness but in this case my sensation is that the wachowskis fucked up where they tried to mark their own touches to the story. v doesn't sends masks to every child and person in london. and then there's the pompous speech he gives at the beggining with every word that starts with v in a pocket english dictionary. that's not in the comic, that's just show-off. if i'm a prostitute (evey's way more sexual in the comic) and get saved in the middle of the night by a guy in a mask and a hat i'd say that's impressive enough. there's more stuff, you never get to see any of v's scars. i didn't needed to see a crap 3D render of fulgore from killer instinct to explain his origin. i think the comic made a more concise point about what you mentioned , getting up and shout, than the movie did. nthat was what i liked about it. he's more of a moralist in the comic too, he condemns the anarchy he sort of puts the country through and you don't get that. here he ends up sounding like the hobo in the episode 'charity' from Dilbert:
DILBERT:"excuse me , do i know you?"
HOBO:"i'm your neighbor, i'm your friend, i'm your relative, i'm the one you won't make eye contact with, the one you're afraid to say hello to."
DILBERT:"so in other words no."
HOBO: "meh."
I understand some points you're making. I've never read the comic book, but a few of those things you mentioned didn't work well. if it weren't for the "too preachy" stuff, it would've been flat out great (cuz everything else here is top notch). but very good is good enough for me. and particularly with all the shit they're releasing this time of year, "Vendetta" is the best thing playing in wide markets. I really did like it a lot. :yabbse-thumbup:
Quote from: cronopio on March 20, 2006, 05:35:13 PM
and then there's the pompous speech he gives at the beggining with every word that starts with v in a pocket english dictionary. that's not in the comic, that's just show-off.
wow, i figured that part HAD to be from the comic because it seems like something that would work better on the page and notasmuch in the film.
Well... I must say I'm very happy and impressed...
I went in thinking it was going to be crap, and I enjoyed it very much. Yes it was predictable, sometimes cheesy, whatever you want... but very entertaining and clever at the same time. I loved Hugo Weaving and his monologues a la Agent Smith... it was like seeing the character reborn. And Natalie is always excellent.. although the accent wasnt great.
Overall I liked it a lot, and it was good to see that the Wachowskis are not a total fraud after all.
This movie is damn entertaining, super liberal and up front about it. It's not liberal in an offensive way. There are few action scenes and they are pretty cool. If you want to know why this movie is worth seeing, there are two reasons, and they're below...
SPOILERS
This film, albeit up front with its message but not with its morals, which made it tolerable, has two scenes which make the entire thing worth it. There's the scene where V goes to kill the doctor from Larkhill. The minute she gets the rose to when we see V's face in the corner to when she dies, it's so beautiful and empathetic. I love that line V says, "I killed you ten minutes ago." Such a peaceful ending for a woman who truly regretted her actions.
The other scene/sequence is that in which Natalie Portman finds the toilet paper autobiography. The woman's story seemed so poignant and moving, and goddamn, I really wanted to cry. There's so much emotion behind her voice and the images are really amazing. The reveal that she's the woman we see at the camps is a nice touch. I loved it.
END SPOILERS
So yeah. V for Vendetta? More like T for Tepid.
(just kidding, I liked it, but I like that review more).
Quote from: Neil on March 20, 2006, 02:13:46 PM
Spoilers
even though the wachowski fellas didn't direct this, i seems like James McTeigue attempted to make a few sequences look wachowski/matrix esque. Although he obviously didn't emulate this very well, i still got that vibe during a few shots.
Does anyone know what I'm talking about, or was i way off base with this?
SPOILERS
agreed... the tracing of the knife movement, the shots of V jumping, etc. but that's not too far from what the comic shows.
Quote from: Xidentity Crixax on March 21, 2006, 09:40:21 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 20, 2006, 02:13:46 PM
Spoilers
SPOILERS
agreed... the tracing of the knife movement, the shots of V jumping, etc. but that's not too far from what the comic shows.
Yeah, see, i haven't read the comics, is that something you guys think i should check out? I'm very interested, but i was just curious as to know how great the comics are?
I agree with the comments on the brilliant use of the 1812 Overture and "Stree Fighting Man." Those were two bright spots in an otherwise wretched film. Here's my review, if anyone's interested:
V for Vendetta (2006)
After terrorists bombed the London subway system on July 7, 2005 ("7/7," as it's come to be called), the producers of V for Vendetta announced that they would be pushing back the release date of out respect for the victims. Making an allegorical film about the post-9/11 United States with a terrorist hero probably seemed like a good idea to the Wachowskis Brothers in 2004 and early 2005. Set an ocean away from New York, the sci-fi futuristic fable was too far-fetched to bear any direct relation to "Islamo-fascists" flying passenger planes into skyscrapers, right? The British wouldn't mind if we borrowed their capitol for a little ultraviolent political grandstanding, right?
We'll never really know. Apparently the filmmakers perceived a close enough correlation between the events in their movie and the suicide bombings of the London Underground (which factors integrally into the climax of Vendetta) to give their film an air of reticence, another nail in the coffin of this poorly-conceived adaptation of Alan Moore's masterpiece graphic novel.
Originally serialized throughout the 1980s, V for Vendetta savaged the rule of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative Party, alongside the paranoia of the waning days of the Cold War. As long as the governments of the West were willing to use the Soviets to symbolize an "Evil Empire," then Moore would respond in kind. His antihero V created himself in the comic as the symbolic, dehumanized answer to the Gestapo rhetoric of the government and their potentially fascist leanings.
From the moments of Natalie Portman's opening voiceover, it's clear that the Wachowskis' Vendetta is a different animal. More romantic and gallant than Moore's incarnation, the V of the film forges an uneasy relationship with Portman's Evey Hammond, one that blurs the lines between mentor/mentee, captor/captive, father/daughter, and lover/lover. Depending on the scene, one or another of these relationships will be foregrounded, but never satisfactorily integrated, making the relationship much less sophisticated and much more purely incestuous.
If not for the superlative skill of Hugo Weaving, V would be worse than an amalgamated cipher, he would be entirely flat. By far the film's strongest element, Weaving's crafty, theatrical performance melds with the Guy Fawkes mask V wears at all times. Almost overcoming the indecisiveness of the Wachowskis' script, Weaving makes V the very nexus of charisma, his versatile voice plucking hammy dialogue like strings on a warped cello.
Weaving is also the strongest living reminder that the film exists in a separate sphere from the book. We must follow Moore's example and sever completely any ties the film may have to the V for Vendetta that exists in the four-color world of the graphic novel.
Usually a forceful, appealing actress, Portman limps along with an overly studied, unconvincing accent and nothing but the story to tug her along. Not quite back in Star Wars territory, Evey is lifeless because she has no character outside of what she is called upon to do by V and by the polemical bent of the writers. The same is true of Stephen Rea, who shambles along valiantly like the pro he is to the substantial paycheck waiting at the other end of the shoot. Their performances sharply contrast with Weaving's, who reminds us with his vitality that the picture exists apart from the page, a simple fact clearly neglected by the rest of the cast and director James McTeigue, who will, by the grace of God, never direct another feature film.
Attempting to illustrate the regimented social fabric of a totalitarian regime, the sets and photography are unnaturally antiseptic. However, this aseptic aesthetic scrubs clean the texture of basic setting and exposition. The whole productions suffers from a look that can only be described as amateurish, as if the prop masters had no idea what the production designers were building. It's worse than mundane: it's hollow—even V's hidden lair, the Shadow Gallery, which ought to be sarcous and haunting, but instead feels like an empty stage stacked with props, the only one of which with any substance being the iconic Wurlitzer jukebox that forms the core of V and Evey's emotional bond.
McTeigue's vacuous execution mirrors the vacant script, which is packed with wisps of potentially incendiary ideas that are mere loosely tied wet fuses. V dedicates himself to bringing down the evil, right-wing, fundamentalist government by engaging in some high-profile demolition antics intended to shake the complacent masses out of their stupor and into action... against what? Well, that's not entirely clear. V babbles on quite endlessly about freedom and oppression. We learn that the government is behind some mysterious plague that catalyzed the current, Hitler-like leader's ascent to power. But V's goals, like his motives, are murky. He hates the government for experimenting on him with the plague (which gave him mild superpowers, natch), and he certainly feels that the government has violated enough human rights to warrant a revolution. Beyond that, the film's protagonist has about as much coherence as a high school student's socialist manifesto.
Is V a socialist or an anarchist? The Wachowskis paint V as a freedom fighter driven by ideals, rather than a nutcase on a philosophically-fueled power trip, though the film's wrongheaded approach to his character is made abundantly clear by the aggrandizing of his fighting prowess (against several state workers who, while part of the problem, certainly did not deserve to be slaughtered like sheep) and the elaborate justification of is tactics and goals. In the end, all V wants is the current government out of power, with nary a stray thought for the aftermath. Once he gets everyone marching to his beat (indeed, he even gets them all wearing his mask!), he's accomplished all he set out to do.
V's gunpowder treason and plot revolves around the destruction of the Parliament building on November 5. Never mind that Parliament has stood for centuries, not as a symbol of autocratic abuse, but as a symbol of the power of democracy to change over time in response to the needs of the country. If Vendetta is taken seriously as a political comment on American society, it boils down to an "Anybody but Bush" bumper sticker arriving a little late on the heels of history.
The problem is that the film isn't even sure about its point. Clearly, it calls for revolution, but not in the name of any clear idea. It just wants blood. The thematic incoherence and jackleg direction demand anything but serious cerebral consideration: they demand that the film be taken as another in a long line of pseudo-intellectual, sci-fi action thrillers that depend on quasi-philosophical shorthand to trick the audience into thinking the film has something to say.
As an action thriller, McTeigue is competent in staging the first two major sequences, then throws the whole thing in the shitter with his "knife-time" climax, in which V's gleaming blades trail gray computer-animated comet dust as he slices, dices, and chop-socks a platoon of soldiers for no apparent reason (since he'd already achieved his sophomoric endgame). Between these sequences, interminable stretches of obvious social commentary and cliché character development fill screen time, with several scenes that, on their own, might even be considered strong, but stitched together as they are, are blotches in a variegated, flimsy quilt.
If appealing to the base glee the adolescent-minded take in seeing stuff blow up real good is the ultimate goal of V for Vendetta, it fails. If appealing to the self-righteous anger of the progressive armchair philosophers is the ultimate goal of V for Vendetta, it fails. In striking a balance between those two goals, V for Vendetta fails. The worst thing for a tentpole blockbuster or political allegory to do is achieve complete irrelevance, and that's precisely what V for Vendetta did. The act of pushing back the release date, in retrospect, is symbolic of the subconscious lack of confidence the makers of a symbolic film had in their product to contribute anything but a gaseous burp to the political firestorm that has been brewing for well over three years. It can't be taken seriously on any level, a shrug of the collective shoulders that amounts to the revelry of children burning a mask just because it's fun, a spit in the eye to everything Fawkes thought he stood for.
God save the Queen.
Quote from: Split Infinitive on March 21, 2006, 01:49:39 PM
Here's my review, if anyone's interested...
Woa woa woa... I'm here to waste my time, but not that much time.
Quote from: The Artist Formerly Known As on March 21, 2006, 02:06:07 PM
Quote from: Split Infinitive on March 21, 2006, 01:49:39 PM
Here's my review, if anyone's interested...
Woa woa woa... I'm here to waste my time, but not that much time.
You see, that review is central to the plot of my new play,
Six Posters in Search of an Editor.
Quote from: Split Infinitive on March 21, 2006, 02:11:20 PM
Quote from: The Artist Formerly Known As on March 21, 2006, 02:06:07 PM
Quote from: Split Infinitive on March 21, 2006, 01:49:39 PM
Here's my review, if anyone's interested...
Woa woa woa... I'm here to waste my time, but not that much time.
You see, that review is central to the plot of my new play, Six Posters in Search of an Editor.
I'll give it a shot...
Quote from: Split Infinitive on March 21, 2006, 01:49:39 PM
V for Vendetta (2006)
...the... film... is... Not quite... competent. God save the Queen.
from imdb:
V For Vendetta creator Alan Moore is desperate to be disassociated from the screen adaptation of his classic comic strip - and is begging the producers not to credit him for his work. The cartoonist, who also conceived From Hell and The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, hates seeing his work diluted by movie-makers, and refuses to put his name to the result. He says, "I want them to say, 'We're not going to give you any money for your work, you're not going to get any credit for it and we're not going to put your name on it.' To see a line of dialogue or a character that I have poured that much emotional involvement into, to see them casually travestied and watered down and distorted... it's kind of painful. It's much better just to avoid them altogether."
Ouch!
i'm kinda glad i skipped this. i'll definitely rent it though
Quote from: polkablues on March 21, 2006, 02:20:06 PM
I'll give it a shot...
Quote from: Split Infinitive on March 21, 2006, 01:49:39 PM
V for Vendetta (2006)
...the... film... is... Not quite... competent. God save the Queen.
Yes, thank you. That's what I
meant to say, only I couldn't find the words.
Quote from: squints on March 21, 2006, 02:54:04 PM
from imdb:
V For Vendetta creator Alan Moore is desperate to be disassociated from the screen adaptation of his classic comic strip - and is begging the producers not to credit him for his work. The cartoonist, who also conceived From Hell and The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, hates seeing his work diluted by movie-makers, and refuses to put his name to the result. He says, "I want them to say, 'We're not going to give you any money for your work, you're not going to get any credit for it and we're not going to put your name on it.' To see a line of dialogue or a character that I have poured that much emotional involvement into, to see them casually travestied and watered down and distorted... it's kind of painful. It's much better just to avoid them altogether."
Ouch!
i'm kinda glad i skipped this. i'll definitely rent it though
huh...
well whatever. the weirdo should be happy his work is even getting made in the first place.
Quote from: ©brad on March 21, 2006, 04:45:28 PM
huh...
well whatever. the weirdo should be happy his work is even getting made in the first place.
Are you serious? Why should it necessarily be pleasing to an artist who specializes in one medium that his or her work is being adapted into another medium? Especially if that adaptation is missing the point of the artist's original work? The way you phrased that makes it seem like Moore should be incredibly honored that his work was deigned worthy to be made into film.
if the guy believes movie adaptations can't work, oh well. i thought this movie kicked ass.
so...did this movie actually use miniatures instead of cg?
Quote from: ©brad on March 21, 2006, 04:45:28 PM
well whatever. the weirdo should be happy his work is even getting made in the first place.
why? he doesn't need hollywood or whatever transexuals besmirching his work's already-brilliant status.
anyway it's already common knowledge that alan moore hates his adaptations. and rightly so.
EDIT: split infinitive said it better.
Why does Moore allow his films to be adapted, then? Looking at the track record From Hell was slaughtered, LoEG was well... the book kind of sucked, but V for Vendetta was cut up a little, too. Will we never see any more Moore adaptations or will he continue to grumble through them?
He said in an interview that he wrote for the art of it, if he wrote for money then he would've penned the Robocop screenplays like he was asked to. How the hell would that have turned out if he had?
Quote from: Walrus on March 22, 2006, 12:18:16 AM
He said in an interview that he wrote for the art of it, if he wrote for money then he would've penned the Robocop screenplays like he was asked to. How the hell would that have turned out if he had?
not much better. frank miller was involved with Robocop 2 & 3.
Quote from: Split Infinitive on March 21, 2006, 05:27:53 PM
Quote from: ©brad on March 21, 2006, 04:45:28 PM
huh...
well whatever. the weirdo should be happy his work is even getting made in the first place.
Are you serious? Why should it necessarily be pleasing to an artist who specializes in one medium that his or her work is being adapted into another medium? Especially if that adaptation is missing the point of the artist's original work? The way you phrased that makes it seem like Moore should be incredibly honored that his work was deigned worthy to be made into film.
yes, yes, yes, look i agree, but...
Quote from: Walrus on March 22, 2006, 12:18:16 AMWhy does Moore allow his films to be adapted, then?
exactly. he's obviously cashing the checks right? the movie will no doubt send ppl running to the stores to pick up his books right? i just don't feel too sorry for the guy is all.
Quote from: ©brad on March 22, 2006, 08:39:04 AM
Quote from: Walrus on March 22, 2006, 12:18:16 AMWhy does Moore allow his films to be adapted, then?
exactly. he's obviously cashing the checks right? the movie will no doubt send ppl running to the stores to pick up his books right? i just don't feel too sorry for the guy is all.
here i agree completely. he's saying things as if someone had stolen his books' rights after raping him.
If I recall correctly, Moore has not accepted any money for the adaptations of From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and tried to have his name removed from them. His share of the profits went to the artists. V for Vendetta was sold back in 1988 or '89, well before it or any other adaptation of his work was filmed. His subsequent experiences in Hollywood jaded him to the point where he is now. I also believe that the rights to some of his work are not owned by him; they're owned by the comic publishers. So it's up to them to sell the rights to the properties, not Moore. Whatever titles he owns the rights to will probably not be made into movies in his lifetime. The others -- who knows?
Moore also is one of the premier names in comic book writing. His books were selling just fine before Hollywood started butchering them.
Split Infinitive is correct. While Moore may be a little testy, he's one of the few artists who puts his money where his mouth is, and deserves nothing but respect for maintaining such a solid stance.
Ghostboy, were you able to see it again over the weekend?
No, but I'm seeing it tomorrow, and will report back then.
I've read a lot of the reviews, both positive and negative, and I have to say that both sides of the argument seem pretty valid. I think I'll still really love the film, but I can definitely see where some might take umbrage with it.
If the rights do not belong to him, then I fully understand where he's coming from by disowning the adaptations.
However, if he's so closely tied to these characters, and he invented them, at some point wouldn't he have had to whore them out?
Unless I'm missing a big step in the process, he's only setting himself up for disappointment.
Quote from: Walrus on March 22, 2006, 02:56:01 PM
If the rights do not belong to him, then I fully understand where he's coming from by disowning the adaptations.
However, if he's so closely tied to these characters, and he invented them, at some point wouldn't he have had to whore them out?
Unless I'm missing a big step in the process, he's only setting himself up for disappointment.
When you work in the comics industry, it's often part of the bargain that the characters you create become the property of the publisher, not yourself. Basically, it's a choice between not writing in the comic industry or writing for the industry and giving up the rights to your characters. That's how I understand it, anyway. I'm sure there are cases where I'm totally wrong. And after a while, Moore did start his own company to retain rights and independence, but it ended up getting swallowed up later anyway, if I recall correctly.
The thing is, Moore chose to "whore them out" for the medium in which he had creative control. He chose to write in comics, not film. So even if the rights weren't his, he still had the clout within the industry to effectively retain creative control. And he wasn't happy about the lack of control there, either (as the articles bear out). But it's the nature of the beast. He could just work at a gas station somewhere and publish his comics on-line, but I think he made the right choices.
Moore has severed all ties with the big publishers, so I imagine he'll be on his own from this point on. Creator-owned material has always been a big issue in comics. Frank Miller, Mike Mignola, Paul Chadwick and others started the Legend imprint in the 90s to retain control of their characters. I think Image originally had the same intentions when it was formed.
So I saw it again, and being fully sane and critical this time around, I had some big problems with it. I admire the hell out of it, but it's far from the perfect adaptation I thought I saw. I'll be writing a more detailed response to it over the next few days...because I
do feel that it's very much worth seeing and discussing, despite its flaws.
Quote from: cronopio on March 20, 2006, 05:35:13 PM
there's the pompous speech he gives at the beggining with every word that starts with v in a pocket english dictionary. that's not in the comic, that's just show-off. i he's more of a moralist in the comic too, he condemns the anarchy he sort of puts the country through and you don't get that.
I still really liked the V speech; it's in keeping with the mysteriously flamboyant character in the comic, who speaks in endless streams of quotes and clever platitudes, which actually might have grown pretty tiresome if they'd been included in the film. Also, in the comic, Finch has a bit of a v-word fixation towards the end...granted, he's on tons of drugs in that scene, but it is in there. Sort of.
Also, he doesn't condemn anarchy at all in the comic; he's clearly a full blooded anarchist. What he DOES condemn is the chaos that he causes (and he makes no mistake in differentiating between chaos and anarchy). The problem with the film here is that, at the end, there's neither chaos nor anarchy.
But anway, more later, in the form of a link.
Saw this earlier tonight. I was definitely more impressed with it than I anticipated being. But Alan Moore was definitely right to take his name off of it; the Wachowskis added and took out so much that it's more their story than Moore's now. For a Hollywood movie, it's edgy, but had they been even a little more faithful to the novel (particularly in the last act), it might have been amazing. What it did do successfully is capture the spirit of Moore's novel, if not the depth.
Walrus' comment about it being the Crash of anarchy is a bit harsh; maybe if they thought they were making anything more than a popcorn flick, then yeah, but V never pretends it's something it's not.
And Portman was phenomenal. The accent didn't drop out as much as I had heard it did.
Quote from: Ghostboy on March 25, 2006, 04:26:30 AM
Also, he doesn't condemn anarchy at all in the comic; he's clearly a full blooded anarchist. What he DOES condemn is the chaos that he causes (and he makes no mistake in differentiating between chaos and anarchy). The problem with the film here is that, at the end, there's neither chaos nor anarchy.
But anway, more later, in the form of a link.
you're right ghostboy, i confused those two terms . wooops , kind of renders all of my opinions (even more) pointless.
Quote from: hacksparrow on March 25, 2006, 04:39:03 AM
Walrus' comment about it being the Crash of anarchy is a bit harsh; maybe if they thought they were making anything more than a popcorn flick, then yeah, but V never pretends it's something it's not.
All I was trying to say was that V was about as blunt as it gets. I guess it was some sort of stepping stone for people to get into anarchy or something, but I feel that V for Vendetta is destined to have similar fame of Matrix and Fight Club.
Eh. This was a collection of things I've seen and heard before in movies. Plus it could have been directed better (I also thought the editing was unnecessarily choppy). Portman was good, though, even if I felt she didn't really fit.
B-
Here's my initial assemblage of thoughts. (http://www.road-dog-productions.com/cgi-bin/2006/03/vi_veri_veniver.html)
It was pretty boring and silly though I did somehow find myself attracted to the relationship between V and Evey. But it was a two hour plus movie and I left with a feeling of 'They had a nice time together, that's cool.'
I also thought the camera was average and typical. Blah all around.
Probably the best hero based comic book movie I can think of, though. Not a waste of my time necessarily.
Title: V for Vendetta
Released: 1st August 2006
SRP: $28.98 & $34.99
Further Details:
Warner Home Video has sent over artwork for single and double-disc editions of V for Vendetta which stars Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving and John Hurt. Each will be available to own from the 1st August. The single-disc edition will retail at around $28.98, with the two-disc special edition retailing at $34.99. Each will carry a 2.40:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer, along with English Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks. I'm afraid Warner has yet to reveal the extra material for this one - but we'll bring you further details shortly. Stay tuned for that. For now though, here's our first look at the official region one package artwork: http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/v-for-vendetta.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i want to say that i really hate this 2 versions bullshit. and for movies like this which i liked but didnt love, it makes me buy neither version. because i dont want the shitty one and its not worth spending that much for the good version. so :finger: wb marketing dept.
2 Versions is a good deal. It gives people more options... how is that bad?
the better version is always $25+ for what used to be $20 for a 2 disc standard SE. you're paying more money and getting the same thing you used to get for less. how is that better?
I find that the price difference when they first come out is usually only a few dollars, but I see what you're saying.
this is pretty much crap.
spoils for movie and book
- mostly because of horrible writing. this is the kind of movie where someone walks into a room, the lights go off for no reason, and they look into the camera and say "why have the lights just gone off for no reason? note that i walked into this room."
- john hurt. it's as though he was trained by the guidance counselor from mr. show. his performance is basically yelling a lot, all the time, no matter what, and putting as much effort and strain into every syllable as possible. so rather than being intimidating he's more embarassing/unpleasant. in the scene where he's supposed to be parodying his character, he's just doing the same thing. his death scene is the one variation, where he puts as much effort and strain into a sustained whince as possible, over and over. that scene is also bad because he's clearly not listening to v. he's just whincing a lot, yet v keeps talking. portman does this in another scene. and i think the reverend does it as well. it makes v seem like he's not paying attention. much of the other acting was bad as well. for example finch, who's very uninterested in everything. and weaving uses his head to gesture because we can't see his face, but it's a very unrealistic amount of head movement.
- no one believes the fake news reports, including a child who has no apparent reason not to believe them, so the government doesn't seem very powerful at all.
- some kind of satirical benny hill program hosted by stephen fry is constantly cut away from to people laughing. this suggests to me that the people editing the movie understood that the satirical program was shitty. so shitty they thought a montage of people laughing at something the audience can't see would be better than showing the something. not that they don't show it. it's just there's way more laughter than stuff the wachowskis want us to laugh at.
- the speech with every letter that begins with v is impossible to follow. v comes off as desperate. he's also way more... caring about his influence over others. particularly evey. in the book, i never felt he was seeking anyone's approval. it weakens him.
- i wish they had let evey become v. that was such a great part of the book. and i wish v had died after being shot once or twice.
- there are so many parts of the movie that are supposed to be symbolic like the part where v gets shot a thousand times but survives because ideas are bullet proof or the part where people take off their masks like dominos, but they don't make sense as real things that are happening. people don't remove their masks in an organized sequence. v can't survive a thousand bullets.
- the domino sequence was pretty beautiful, except i don't know why he set up the dominos. worked better in the book. there are a couple of cool moments like that. like when v stabs the guy off camera and it's all silent and then he turns around. then the fainting guy ruins it. the cool moments are better out of context, though.
Source: Comic Book Resources
Warners are looking for writers and treatments for a proposed "V For Vendetta" direct-to-DVD sequel projects to be filmed, low budget, in the UK next year. Naturally without the Wachowskis or Joel Silver who made a point of saying the original movie was a one off.
Quote from: MacGuffin on November 27, 2006, 03:33:34 PM
Source: Comic Book Resources
Warners are looking for writers and treatments for a proposed "V For Vendetta" direct-to-DVD sequel projects to be filmed, low budget, in the UK next year. Naturally without the Wachowskis or Joel Silver who made a point of saying the original movie was a one off.
That sound you hear is Alan Moore tightening the noose around his neck.
I can't wait until they get to V for Vendetta V.
Quote from: polkablues on November 27, 2006, 07:14:28 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin on November 27, 2006, 03:33:34 PM
Source: Comic Book Resources
Warners are looking for writers and treatments for a proposed "V For Vendetta" direct-to-DVD sequel projects to be filmed, low budget, in the UK next year. Naturally without the Wachowskis or Joel Silver who made a point of saying the original movie was a one off.
That sound you hear is Alan Moore tightening the noose around his neck.
Funny, I heard him counting sticks of dynamite and googling the WB Studio's address.