Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

V for Vendetta


Skins24

Recommended Posts

Awesome!

It's clear to me that this "film" is little more than a thinly veiled attack on the principles of Collective Bargaining and Revenue Sharing. Are any of you aware of the fact that the original "comic" was financed and published by - a then unknown - Ari "Bud" Selig...or that it took almost 20 years of clandestine, nefarious activity by the mysterious SternBrenner Umbrella Corp. to secure irrevocable global distribution rights. I even heard a rumor that a significant percentage of the investment was underwritten with laundered funds provided by the infamous arab warlord Yusef "Stevie the Cat" Islam....and I believe it!! Fellow Redskins, this is a call to arms! Do not let this propaganda undermine the ideals upon which the very future of our blessed Redskin nation relies. We owe it, not to ourselves, but to the next generation of Redskin youth.

Nice! :applause:

This movie was supposed to be released last fall, but after the London bombings - they held it up out of respect (and of course, out of common capitalistic sense).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Jews must really be guilty over the death of Christ since so many in the ADL and other individuals spoke up about Passion of the Christ. Anytime Jews speak up against potential anti-semitism, even subtle variants, they should think about what kind of group they are supporting/belonging to."

I'm really late coming into it, but let me at least say this. Passsion of the Christ was a historical movie or historical interpretation about Jesus and Jews. Passion plays historically have created anti-semitical reactions including violence towards Jews. Some Jews were skittish about the movie for that reason. V for Vendetta is a dystopia work of fiction that never once mentions Republicans and doesn't even take place in the U.S. (I believe.) Very different.

If V for Vendetta painted Republicans or even the U.S. government as villianous, suppressive tyrants hell bent on supressing and enslaving its citizens then you would have an argument. If it were written during this era to satirize this era, feelings of defensiveness would be understandable. Goodnight and Goodluck clearly attempted to compare the current day situation with McCarthyism. V for Vendetta is a classic Dytopia wasn't written to talk about terrorism or Bush. It was written in the tradition of classic dystopias.

Not everything is about Bush or the Republicans. In fact, even though some on this board would believe otherwise, despite its title, 1984 by George Orwell was not a treatise on the Reagan Presidency. (Now, Dantes Inferno was actually a prophetic examination of Rove and Bush, but that's splitting hairs.)

If you view dystopias as a direct assault on your principles or your current government, then a chord has been struck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone been able to find out when the script made it to it's final form? I think that this is key to determining if the film is a slam to this administrations current political moves. For this film to be accused of slamming NSA wire taps the script would have had to be rewritten recently. I wonder how much else falls under that category.

Was it even written afer 9/11?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone been able to find out when the script made it to it's final form? I think that this is key to determining if the film is a slam to this administrations current political moves. For this film to be accused of slamming NSA wire taps the script would have had to be rewritten recently. I wonder how much else falls under that category.

Was it even written afer 9/11?

well, this gives a clue it was taken from the V is for Vandetta press conference. It may be a bit of both, but seems like it was primarily written several years ago.

MC: I would like to welcome you on behalf of Warner Bros. and the Babelsberg Studios to a very special press conference in a very unique location. This upcoming Monday the Babelsberg Studios and this set - that will be the rooftop of the Old Bailey - will be the center of attention for one of the most anticipated movies that are currently being filmed. The Wachowski Brothers and Joel Silver have gathered an amazing team of in front of and behind the camera to bring Alan Moore’s and David Lloyd’s comic book, V FOR VENDETTA, to life.

So let’s welcome the cast and crew of V FOR VENDETTA, starting with the Director James McTeigue, Golden Globe winning actress Natalie Portman [in the role of Evey], Producer Joel Silver, actor James Purefoy [in the role of V], and last but not least, Producer Grant Hill.

Welcome to Berlin.

Mr. Silver, let’s get started straight away, you’ve been working with the Wachowski Brothers on a couple of movies; how much convincing did it actually take them to get you working on V FOR VENDETTA?

JOEL SILVER: [COLOR=Red]We worked on V FOR VENDETTA long before we made The Matrix. The Brothers had done a script for this project several years ago and they then jumped onto The Matrix [/color] and we did all those three movies. They came to me in the post-production of those movies, saying they’d like to revive that picture. James had worked very closely with us on The Matrix films and had directed all the advertising, publicity and promotional things we did for The Matrix, so the boys said why don’t we have James direct it. That was a great idea, so they went back to the script and re-crafted it and thought about what it would be like today, and they re-wrote it and brought it to the board and here we are today.

http://newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28910

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first draft of the script was written in the '90s (before the Wachowski brothers did the Matrix tril). Filming didn't start until last year though.

The original adaption written by the Wachowskis during the end of their Matrix saga was “almost a blow-for-blow retelling of the graphic novel”,[8] director James McTeigue recalls. So the screenplay was rewritten to move the story forward, making present day London around 2020. Evey Hammond's background was apparently altered and she appears older than she originally did in the graphic novel. Natalie Portman, who plays Evey, read the graphic novel after reading the screenplay said that “it really keeps to the graphic novel, it keeps the integrity of the story and a lot of the dialogue is directly from it”.[9]

The plot has also been updated to current 2006 times/heavily adapted (depending on the audience's point of view). Rather than a totalitarian regime coming to power in Britain as a result of a limited nuclear war (as in the comic), in the film it is vaguely explained that the ultra-right wing totalitarian government came to power after Britain got heavily involved in "America's war". Later in the film "America's War" is said to be a civil one, with "heavy fighting in the midwest".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_(film)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really late coming into it

Indeed. I explained earlier to CDave that I wasn't referring to a SPECIFIC reaction to a SPECIFIC film, just oversensitivity from any number of groups not necessarily being a reflection of some 'chord being struck' by whatever draws their ire THIS time.

I was merely refuting the notion you advanced that there is some form of 'guilty conscience' and I merely threw out the Passion of the Christ as something from the top of my head but it is by no means the only example of 'sensitivity' or 'hyper-sensitivity' from that particular group and there are a multitude of examples I'm sure we could cull from reactions of Italian-Americans to the Sopranos to those who scream racism at the first mention of entitlement program cuts or affirmative action.

I don't disagree with what you said specifically about Passion and some of the concern over it. But there was mroe than concern, if you recall. Some who had not even seen the film were already accusing it and Gibson of anti-Semitism. Not a mere expression of concern.

I do appreciate that you did not misread my attempt at parody as something it wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there was more than concern, if you recall. Some who had not even seen the film were already accusing it and Gibson of anti-Semitism. Not a mere expression of concern.

I think critics were more concerned with who was making the movie - someone whose father allegedly had nazi affiliations. Gibson himself belongs to a splinter group (some say radical) of Catholocism, a group which most of the Catholic church keeps a large distance from. And unless the Wachowski's have a history of supporting 'terrorism' or being radically anti-republican(or their father allegedly does) - I think it's like comparing apple and oranges.

I relate the Passion protests to the same as the protests for Dogma. Mostly made out of concern on content (made by people who haven't seen the film yet) rather than actual content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And unless the Wachowski's have a history of supporting 'terrorism' or being radically anti-republican(or their father allegedly does) - I think it's like comparing apple and oranges.

Yet I never directly compared the two EVER on the thread. I only mentioned it as an example of people being sensitive and that sensitivity not being a reflection of a 'chord being struck' as Burgold put it. We don't want to go down that path.

Throughout this thread it seems I've had to explain that the Passion was an EXAMPLE not a comparison and that I did NOT defend AFC or Schlussel's views on THIS particular film. I was countering Burgold's assertion that there is something sinister in being overly sensitive after years of very real slander, abuse or whatever. I can only wonder if the invented comparison between the two continued to persist because it is the easiest argument to counter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet I never directly compared the two EVER on the thread. I only mentioned it as an example of people being sensitive and that sensitivity not being a reflection of a 'chord being struck' as Burgold put it. We don't want to go down that path.

Throughout this thread it seems I've had to explain that the Passion was an EXAMPLE not a comparison and that I did NOT defend AFC or Schlussel's views on THIS particular film. I was countering Burgold's assertion that there is something sinister in being overly sensitive after years of very real slander, abuse or whatever. I can only wonder if the invented comparison between the two continued to persist because it is the easiest argument to counter.

Forgive me Ghost if I misinterpreted your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet I never directly compared the two EVER on the thread. I only mentioned it as an example of people being sensitive and that sensitivity not being a reflection of a 'chord being struck' as Burgold put it. We don't want to go down that path.

Throughout this thread it seems I've had to explain that the Passion was an EXAMPLE not a comparison and that I did NOT defend AFC or Schlussel's views on THIS particular film. I was countering Burgold's assertion that there is something sinister in being overly sensitive after years of very real slander, abuse or whatever. I can only wonder if the invented comparison between the two continued to persist because it is the easiest argument to counter.

Methinks he doth protest too much :laugh:

It's an interesting point you make. If I'm reading you correctly you are contending that the "ownership" of the villiany in this movie by some republicans, the self-identification is due to the perceived persecution of the majority. And that perceived persecution, real or not, has created a level of paranoia that may overextend itself whenever even the concept of authoritarianism, facism, or a dystopian satire peeks its head. In my view, that is a much more dangerous thing than a guilty conscience, because if you start to believe everyone who is not you is always trying to get you and destroy you... then eventually you may fall into a fight or flight choice. And as we all have learned... that is the path to the Dark side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I can't say I can't wait to see it, because with the advent of On Demand, it seems i can wait for just about anything.

But, I do want to see this. I loved the comics, once upon a time I had a collection of the old black and white magazine they originally came out in. (I used to run a comic shop. I had a lot of cool stuff.)

And yea, V is a terrorist like the Dutch or French resistance fighters were.

Since Alan Moore is sort of along for this topic, I may as well say that Watchmen is one of the most boring comics I ever read. I swear, it does have an interesting premise, (Reagans alien idea WAY extrapolated.).. some of the characters are interesting, but overall, YAWN.

Yay, more pages of Dr. Manhattan brooding. Yay, more pages of Owlman (..."Owlman"?) whining about getting old.

Rohrshach was cool, but all psycho characters are interesting. (anyone remember "Grips"?)

The story could have been edited a little, I guess.

Like in half.

I think Watchmen is a comic that got so much publicity for being so good, that comic purists won't say otherwise, even though they know it puts them to sleep.

Now, if they ever make a Miracleman movie,,, oh man, count me first in line. Alan Moore's Miracleman is maybe the best comic ever written, certainly the best superhero story I ever read.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Movie was actually pretty good - not surprised being that AFC was all bent out of shape about it. Yes the main character is a terrorist bu he's a terrorist in the same way that an Iraqi fighting against Saddam was a terrorist. Unless fascism is acceptable to you then I can't see why folks would have a problem with this movie. The bad guy/ruler was clearly a Hitler-like character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...