"V for Vendetta" Movie News and Early Reviews Thread (Possible Spoilers)

[James Harvey]

Let's kick off this new V for Vendetta news and discussion thread in style!

The trailer for the Warner Bros. film V For Vendetta has launched on the official site earlier today at 6pm (ET)

Encoded in QuickTime 7 (and QuickTime 6, for those not yet upgraded), it is being released at its largest in high definition (HD), far better than DVD resolution, with 5.1 surround sound.

V for Vendetta Trailer 1 (http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/trailer.html)

http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/

Comments?

[Lord Dalek]

It won't play.

[ManicWebb]

It won't play.
Same here. It keeps telling me to wait until 6:00. What time zone?

[BatKid]

Hmm, I like it. Portman looks great in the role. And talk about a "one-take only" in that head shaving scene.. :anime:

[Stewie]

Yeah okay, that looks kind of cool. More of that "oppressive government bad guys" stuff from the Wachowskis. This is a comic or something, right?

At first, I thought, "Man, Natalie Portman is hot." And when she cries, she's adorable. It's weird.
Then I started having flashbacks to Leon. Not so much hot, but still cool.

I'm gonna go watch Garden State.

[Superperson]

Mmmm, Natalie Portman...er yes, well...I hope it's good, after the last Matrix which wasn't too good.

[Elf]

I'm all for this film.

[ManicWebb]

Woo! Bring it on!

[Cogliostro]

Yeah okay, that looks kind of cool. More of that "oppressive government bad guys" stuff from the Wachowskis. This is a comic or something, right? Yes it is a comic called 'V for Vendetta'.

Written by Alan Moore with art by David Lloyd.

A powerful story about loss of freedom and individuality, V FOR VENDETTA takes place in a totalitarian England following a devastating war that changed the face of the planet. In a world without political freedom, personal freedom and precious little faith in anything comes a mysterious man in a white porcelain mask who fights political oppressors through terrorism and seemingly absurd acts. It's a gripping tale of the blurred lines between ideological good and evil.

I'm going to try and pick up the graphic novel before the movie comes out, I hope by reading it first it won't make the movie dissapointing. I would suspect this tale to be dark and gritty, in the trailer it certainly dark (light wise) it doesn't seem to give off much of a gritty mood. I certainly hope the movie is done atleast decently and not made too much into a "hollywood" movie.

http://www.dccomics.com/graphic_novels/?gn=1731 (http://www.dccomics.com/graphic_novels/?gn=1731)
http://www.dccomics.com/graphic_novels/?gn=4077 (http://www.dccomics.com/graphic_novels/?gn=4077)

[Eddie G.]

I just... the trailer worries me. In the book V is this feels like this supernatural phantom, but in some of the scenes I saw in the trailer he looks like a lot more straight forward asskicking character. I also cringed at the bullet-time-esque shot with the knives, it just takes me out of the trailer, slaps me on the face, and reminds me that this is a movie with the guys who made The Matrix.

I also don't like how the trailer just screams out one of the book's best lines and the point of the book. With V I want a truly inellectual film, not a psuedo-intellectual film that just screams, "PEOPLE SHOULDN'T FEAR THE GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD FEAR THE PEOPLE!"

I still have hope that this will be a great film... but... I'm worried.

EDIT: Thanks Dark Knight.

[The Dark Knight]

"THOSE MESSED UP GUYS FROM THE MATRIX ARE DIRECTING THIS, THOSE MESSED UP GUYS FROM THE MATRIX ARE DIRECTING THIS! THIS IS A MOVIE YOU GEEK! IT'S JUST A MOVIE!"They're not directing it, James McTeigue (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0574625/) is, the Wachowskis are writing and producing.

[Eddie G.]

They're not directing it, James McTeigue (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0574625/) is, the Wachowskis are writing and producing.My bad, but the bullet-time knives still feel a little jarring and unnessary.


They gotta sell the movie first, hence the focus on the ass-kicking. Don't worry. I think we'll get plenty of cerebral stuff.It's not really V kicking ass that bothers me, he's supposed to kick ass. It's just that in the book there was something phantom like about V, from the trailer he just feels like a more straight up ass kicking ninja. I'm not saying that he'll be like that in the movie, it's just the impression I'm getting. You could be right though, they're trying to sell it as a straight up action film.

[ManicWebb]

I'm going to try and pick up the graphic novel before the movie comes out, I hope by reading it first it won't make the movie dissapointing.
See, I'm planning to do the opposite. After all, 99% of the time, "the book was better." The way I see it, if I see the movie first and like it, I can read the graphic novel later and really be impressed. Everytime I read what's going to happen first, then see the movie, the movie disappoints me (ie. "that's not what I imagined someone sounding like," "hey, they skipped a scene I liked," "they changed a character in some way," ect.)

I read part of LXG first, and the movie disappointed me. I read a few trade paperbacks of Hellblazer first, and the Constantine movie disappointed me (although not nearly as much as LXG).

Plus I really hate having the ability to pick a movie apart by comparing it to its original medium. I just want to see a movie, then read the story later.

[Ben]

Nice. I enjoyed the comic, and it'll be good to see an old-fashioned Orwellian anti-totalitarian film on the big screen. Somehow the story becomes even more relevant and provocative in this environment of terrorism.

[Cogliostro]

See, I'm planning to do the opposite. After all, 99% of the time, "the book was better." The way I see it, if I see the movie first and like it, I can read the graphic novel later and really be impressed. Everytime I read what's going to happen first, then see the movie, the movie disappoints me (ie. "that's not what I imagined someone sounding like," "hey, they skipped a scene I liked," "they changed a character in some way," ect.)

I read part of LXG first, and the movie disappointed me. I read a few trade paperbacks of Hellblazer first, and the Constantine movie disappointed me (although not nearly as much as LXG).

Plus I really hate having the ability to pick a movie apart by comparing it to its original medium. I just want to see a movie, then read the story later.
Yeah, you make some good points. I'll more then likely just pick it up after seeing the movie to see the story as it was truly ment to be.

:cool:

[Ben]

OK, now I'm looking at the credits, and I see the "Written by" and then next to it I see "The Wachowski Brothers" and then I'm all like BWUH? and then OH CRAP. and then WHY?

These people need need need to have someone else do their writing for them. All of it. Unconditionally. At the very least they need to have someone go in and rewrite all the dialogue to make the characters sound different.

This is a serious strike against my expectations for this film.

[MonkeyFunk]

Alan Moore's comments on the script he read:


It was imbecilic; it had plot holes you couldn't have got away with in Whizzer And Chips in the nineteen sixties. Plot holes no one had noticed... They don't know what British people have for breakfast, they couldn't be bothered. 'eggy in a basket' apparently. Now the US have 'eggs in a basket,' whish is fried bread with a fried egg in a hole in the middle. I guess they thought we must eat that as well, and thought 'eggy in a basket' was a quaint and Olde Worlde version. And they decided that the British postal service is called Fedco. They'll have thought something like, 'well, what's a British version of FedEx... how about FedCo? A friend of mine had to point out to them that the Fed, in FedEx comes from 'Federal Express.' America is a federal republic, Britain is not.

[Spider-Man]

If I was someone who never read the comic I'd say this trailer looks excellent and I can't wait to see the movie. But having read the comic I am a bit worried. There does look to be some great stuff in there but I'm just worried about their overall approach to the project. As long as it's not as terrible and stupid as Fox's adaptation of Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentleman then we may be in for a good movie.

There's also a talkback for the original V for Vendetta comic book here (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=146319).

[Hades]

Cool, looks good. I loved From Hell and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, so I'm sure this will be good, especially with the Wachowski's at the helm.

As for Moore's comments, from what I've read about him, he just whines all the time saying he wouldn't allow any movie to be made based on his comics if he had his way because they are "bastardizations." However, if he actually helped with the script as Miller had done, he wouldn't have that problem now would he?

[Harley_Quinn]

My bad, but the bullet-time knives still feel a little jarring and unnessary.

I agree, just when the rest of Hollywood had finally start to move away from bullet time they have to bring it back. The movie looks very cool, haven't read the comics.

[The Clown Prince]

From Comingsoon.net...



"Pat" at Sci-Fi Wire (http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?category=3&id=32070&type=0) hipped us to the fact that Warner Brothers (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=10844#) adaptation of Alan Moore (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=10844#) and David Lloyd's V for Vendetta (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=7810) has been pushed back until March 17, 2006, according to an anonymous source at the studio. This move has been confirmed by BoxOfficeMojo (http://boxofficemojo.com/), the box office site that often gets release date changes directly from Exhibitor Relations.

According to Sci-Fi (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=10844#) Wire, the move was made not because of the subject matter and its similarities to the recent terror bombings in London, but to give them more time "to accomodate the post-production schedule."

Produced by the Wachowski Brothers and Joel Silver, the film (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=10844#) stars Natalie Portman (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=10844#) and Hugo Weaving.


Hmmmm, "post production work" huh? I don't know if I believe that. WB was pretty keen on releasing it in November ever since they started promoting this thing.

I think it's funny because now the trailer will have to get pulled from theaters and so will movie posters.

The Clown Prince

[Hades]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooo

[Ben]

Dammit! Do they realize what an incredible thing it would be to release this film in the middle of a national dialogue over these issues? Post-production time my ass. Idiots.

[Bird Boy]

The wonderful tagline for November is now useless.

Damn.

-BB

[Spider-Man]

I was really looking forward to this movie. I understand they just started filming in March so a longer post-production schedule would make sense but I'm just not sure if I totally believe it. It's November release date was perfect timing and it's disappointing to see that not happening anymore.

[Mike Spartz]

Goodness me, I hope this doesn't happen to Goblet of Fire! :ack:

[Patrick Bateman]

Son of a... argh. I saw the trailer with the Dukes, and it had me hyped for November. This really doesn't sit well with me.

[Hades]

You know, I've been thinking about this, and someone made a good point. V for Vendetta would bomb horribly if it came out in November. It would be like sending a lamb to the slaughterhouse as you have Harry Potter, King Kong, and Chronicles of Narnia to deal with.

If it came out the week before HP, it would only have one weekend to do anything. If it came out the week after, it still wouldn't do anything. If it came out in Dec, King Kong and Narnia would stampede it. And we all know how badly movies that come out on Xmas or NY do.

[James Harvey]

Warner Bros. Pictures has issued a press release concerning the new trailer for V For Vendetta.


Warner Bros. Pictures has revealed the new trailer for director James McTeigue's V For Vendetta, hitting theaters on March 17, 2006. The action-thriller was produced by Joel Silver, Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski and Grant Hill. The Wachowski brothers (The Matrix trilogy) wrote the script.

Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked man (Hugo Weaving) known only as "V." Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and deception, V ignites a revolution when he urges 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 plan to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption. You can watch the trailer in High Definition QuickTime here (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/v_for_vendetta/hd/) and regular QuickTime formats here (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/v_for_vendetta/trailer/). You can also discuss the comic book here (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=146319).

(When you watch the trailer, you may notice someone's name is missing (http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2005/12/moores_name_off_v_for_vendetta.html) in the credits.)

[Stewie]

They should release two versions of this at the same time.
One normal. And one with all of Nataloe Portman's dialogue completely muted so we can't hear her accent.

Otherwise, I'm looking forward to it. One of those, "could be interesting and fun", "could just be worth a rental" movies.

[Hades]

This movie is going to be so awesome. WHo's name is missing in the credits?

[Bird Boy]

Looks nice. I really wish it was able to make the Nov. 5th date as that tagline was awesome, but what can ya do? Looks to be a good flick...


(When you watch the trailer, you may notice someone's name is missing (http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2005/12/moores_name_off_v_for_vendetta.html) in the credits.)

WHo's name is missing in the credits?

Are you incapable of clicking on links?

-BB

[Mr. Obsession]

(When you watch the trailer, you may notice someone's name is missing (http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2005/12/moores_name_off_v_for_vendetta.html) in the credits.)Why did he want his name removed?

[James Harvey]

Why did he want his name removed? 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. And as a result, he has cut his remaining ties with DC Comics, including future volumes of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Moore did not like the screenplay for the movie, and made his opinion on it quite public, but when a representative for Warner Brothers stated Moore supported the movie, Moore became quite furious. The Alan Moore Fansite (http://www.alanmoorefansite.com/) has more:


Alan Moore was made aware of a press release sent out covering a press conference producer Joel Silver and the cast had held.

In this press release, Joel Silver, as well as announcing that the release date November the 5th 2005 was the 100th anniversary of Guy Fawkes attempt on Parliament, instead of the 400th anniversary, also said of Alan, "he 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 UK. We'd just like him to know what we're doing and to be involved in what we're trying to do together"

Alan felt, basically, that his name was being used in vain. Not only had he expressed the opposite to Larry, but his endorsement was being used as a selling point for a movie - the reason he'd requested his credit and association be dropped from all of these movies.

[Damien]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. There were upcoming volumes of the League? Good riddance.
Still, isn't he overreacting? I can understand taking the name off from V, but cutting all ties with DC? Doesn't this hurt chances for a future Watchmen movie, or at least any decent one?
Well, now I'll definately have to read the rest of the graphic novel, just to know what all the differences are that made Moore so upset. Feel bad for seeing it when not even the creator likes it. Still, it looks wicked cool.

[Nobuyuki sama]

Doesn't this hurt chances for a future Watchmen movie, or at least any decent one?Yes and yes, not that there were any realistic chances for it in the first place. ;)

And this isn't the first time that Alan's felt he was being taken advantage of by DC; this goes back all the way to Watchmen.

[Ben]

Saw it at a press screening last Friday for a review, which I just finished, and felt like sharing, since I usually only get to see these movies after they've come out in the States. :p This is the raw copy; the edited version will be in the paper (http://joongangdaily.joins.com) on Friday.


Alan Moore is not your typical antisocial anarchist comic book author paranoiac, and his comic “V for Vendetta,” a miniseries he wrote with artist David Lloyd for DC in 1989, is more than a simple tale of the salvation of the oppressed.

The comic’s protagonist, a man with a Guy Fawkes mask known only as V, who has been terribly wronged by a dictatorial Britain of the near future, is undoubtedly a terrorist, and though Moore’s own ambivalence about both sides of the political spectrum comes through more clearly in his landmark “Watchmen,” V is far from the clearcut good guy.

The new film adaptation, penned by the Matrix trilogy’s Wachowski Brothers and directed by “Matrix” first assistant James McTeigue, makes major changes to the original, sacrificing much of its complexity and moral provocation for a more straightforward story of romance and good versus evil. Some of the controversy can’t be cut — V is still a terrorist bomber in London — but Warner’s reaction to the July underground attacks, to push back the film’s release by four months, is emblematic of the adaptation’s cowardliness. The book’s oddest and most challenging elements, such as its near-endorsement of anarchism and its unapologetic intellectualism, have been amputated, and the harsh cruelty of both V and the Party has been dulled.

Still, even the skeleton of Moore’s original work puts “V” a cut above the average silly sci-fi action thriller, and good acting and appealing visuals make the film an entertaining diversion.

The Britain of “V” could be called an intermediate step between today’s U.K. and George Orwell’s hegemonic dictatorship. In the film version, Adam Sutler (John Hurt), the replacement for the book’s Adam Susan, has used international chaos, political manuevering and public scare tactics to build a strong executive backed by a sneaky and omniscient secret police force known as “fingers.” Again unlike the book, the film opens with the destruction of the Old Bailey and leads up to the climactic bombing of Parliament, the fulfillment of the Nov. 5, 1605 Gunpowder Plot of V’s ancestor Fawkes.

Over the course of the film, V (Hugo Weaving) befriends Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman), the adult daughter of activist parents killed by the police. Sheer bad luck makes her a public enemy, and she lives with V in his lair, a museum of banned material in the abandoned Victoria Station, out of fear.
The film’s best moments come in its exposition of the persecution homosexuals have suffered in the new order. The story of Valerie (Natasha Wightman), whose autobiography Evey finds written on toilet paper while in prison, is genuinely moving, and Deitrich (Stephen Fry), a closeted TV comedian who sacrifices his life for a blaze of satirical glory, is a very good addition.

It’s easy to see why Warner Bros. was afraid to produce a faithful translation of “V for Vendetta.” An anti-totalitarian hero is nothing new, but forcing a corrupt priest to eat a poisoned communion wafer? Confronting the reality of a lawless, lustful society? Recognizing the paradoxes of a revolution undertaken through revenge? That’s just too real for a Hollywood blockbuster.

And considering what happened the last time the Wachowskis got philosophically ambitious — the awful “Matrix” sequels — maybe it’s better this way. The end result has much of the style, conflict and ideology of the original, and it's sure to make a political splash.

But it’s an ironic example of Hollywood hypcrisy that such an engaging and wrenching dystopian portrait was softened because of fear of causing offense. After all, isn’t political correctness anarchy’s worst enemy?
ben@joongang.co.kr

[Hades]

So is that a positive or negatvie review? Either way, I look forward to the movie. I don't expect it to be like the book since you can only do so much in 2 hours, and V had many things going on on just one page.

It is a shame this movie is destined to failure though just because of those who worship Alan Moore like the Egyptians worshipping Ra. They listen to anything he says and will hate anything he hates, especially movies off his works.

What's the movie rated anyway?

[Tube Dude]

It's rated R.

[Mek]

After all, isn’t political correctness anarchy’s worst enemy?

Good point.

Aniwho, my sis and I will probably see it this weekend. It looks promising and I'm not picky about comic-to-movie adaptations either.

[Lord Dalek]

So is that a positive or negatvie review? Negative.

The problem I have with an adaptation of V is that the original was so rooted in the mindset of the 80's that any attempt to update its sensibilities would seem to negate its point. Apparantly The Wachowskis have confirmed my point.

[brakattack]

I dont know much about this, but i saw the trailer and it looked pretty good. plus i really like natalie portman

[Hades]

Good point.

Aniwho, my sis and I will probably see it this weekend. It looks promising and I'm not picky about comic-to-movie adaptations either.

You mean next weekend since this weekend is the 10th, it comes out on the 17th.

[Juu-kuchi]

I have my reservations to how the adaptation of V for Vendetta will pan out once I see it in theatres, because I really enjoyed the graphic novel.

[Ben]

It is a shame this movie is destined to failure though just because of those who worship Alan Moore like the Egyptians worshipping Ra. They listen to anything he says and will hate anything he hates, especially movies off his works.

Don't get me wrong. The book is flawed. It has serious pacing problems and could've been more original in its ideas. But it's still better than the movie, because the book at least made you really think. The movie is just political philosophy lite; people who agree with the standard liberal agenda will stroke their chins over it and people who don't will dismiss it. It's a shame, because the moral ambiguity of the comic could've provoked some genuine debate had it made it into the film. Though I do take comfort in that the movie will make more people read the book.

And for the record, I haven't even heard what Alan Moore had to say about the movie. I assume he didn't like it because he's a curmudgeon, but my opinions are 100% my own. I strictly avoid reading critics' reviews of movies I know I'm going to write about for just this reason.


Negative.

This is why I wish I had more space. I really did enjoy the film. Hugo Weaving does a wonderful job, and Portman is also very good. Heck, all of the actors are excellent, and the art direction is extremely effective. Plus, as I said, many of the story's biggest points do come through. It's just that with only 500 words I really have to pick one point and stick to it without much room for nuance. It sucks.


The problem I have with an adaptation of V is that the original was so rooted in the mindset of the 80's that any attempt to update its sensibilities would seem to negate its point. Apparantly The Wachowskis have confirmed my point.

I don't think so. Though it's not as good as the book, the movie is still relevant. If anything, the increased awareness of terrorism, particularly in the UK, over the past year has made this the perfect time. Sure, it seems less likely now that the US will implode in the next 10 years, but that was just as unlikely in the 80s. The point isn't the plausibility of the specific events in the film, it's the importance of the ideas. And if anything our dangerous trust in technology, susceptibility to fear as a propaganda tool and conflicted feelings about revolutionaries have only increased in the last 15 years.

[Hades]

Don't get me wrong. The book is flawed. It has serious pacing problems and could've been more original in its ideas. But it's still better than the movie, because the book at least made you really think. The movie is just political philosophy lite; people who agree with the standard liberal agenda will stroke their chins over it and people who don't will dismiss it. It's a shame, because the moral ambiguity of the comic could've provoked some genuine debate had it made it into the film. Though I do take comfort in that the movie will make more people read the book.

And for the record, I haven't even heard what Alan Moore had to say about the movie. I assume he didn't like it because he's a curmudgeon, but my opinions are 100% my own. I strictly avoid reading critics' reviews of movies I know I'm going to write about for just this reason.

No no, I respect your review as a valid one. ;) You gave a good description on what you didn't like it, unlike those knuckle heads who say, "Alan Moore said blah blah blah.." instead of coming up with their own opinion over the movie itself.

As for it compared to the GN, is there truly anyone who thinks it would be better? I honestly don't, and neither does the Wachowskis. They even said in an interview that they had to change some things around because they can't fit everything into a 2 hour movie, so they were taking the important parts, but they were required to change the ending since it was banned to blow up a subway in England in a movie now.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


And for the record, I haven't even heard what Alan Moore had to say about the movie. I assume he didn't like it because he's a curmudgeon, but my opinions are 100% my own.

If you're interested in what Moore had to say, this column at Comic Book Resources (http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?article=2153) details what his problems with the film were (mostly, that early drafts were really stupid and seemed to miss the entire point of the exercise). Apparently, some of the issues he had with it have since been addressed (based on comments David Lloyd made more recently (http://www.newsarama.com/general/DavidLloyd/DavidLloyd.htm) when the film was finished).

Part of Moore's general problem is that he doesn't write things to be adapted to other media. He has never stopped anybody from trying, but he doesn't want to have anything to do with the effort. That point of view and a lawsuit triggered over The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen have led to him withdrawing from film deals entirely and, in the part that really gets people confused, turning over his share of the profits to his creative partners.

In hindsight, I think Moore acted prematurely, but I certainly can't fault him for being hypocritical or indecisive. Say what you will about him, but he puts his money where his mouth is.


The point isn't the plausibility of the specific events in the film, it's the importance of the ideas. And if anything our dangerous trust in technology, susceptibility to fear as a propaganda tool and conflicted feelings about revolutionaries have only increased in the last 15 years.

What he said.

I'm still torn over seeing the movie or not. I'm certainly more curious than I was before, though. However, this decision may be taken out of my hands, since if the wife doesn't want to see it, we ain't gonna see it :p.

-- Ed/Ace

[Ben]

They even said in an interview that they had to change some things around because they can't fit everything into a 2 hour movie, so they were taking the important parts, but they were required to change the ending since it was banned to blow up a subway in England in a movie now.

Well that can't be right, because it does end with them blowing up a subway train with V's body inside, which then blows up Parliament.

Ace, thanks for the link to the CBR article.


In this press release, Joel Silver, as well as announcing that the release date November the 5th 2005 was the 100th anniversary of Guy Fawkes attempt on Parliament, instead of the 400th anniversary, also said of Alan, "he 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 UK. We'd just like him to know what we're doing and to be involved in what we're trying to do together"

My dad was best friends with Silver in high school but said that he's now essentially turned into a huge jerk. So he ruined a deal with one of the greatest graphic novel authors of all time. I don't imagine he cares much; I mean, he collects Frank Lloyd Wright houses. COLLECTS.

EDIT: So I guess with the thread title change this has turned into a poll rating how good my review is? Bring it on. :p

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

More on Alan Moore vs. DC (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/movies/12itzk.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), courtesy of the New York Times (login required, or visit www.bugmenot.com for a free login and password). I think "absurdly principled" would be a good way to describe Moore, and not entirely in a flattering way.

-- Ed/Ace

[Lord Dalek]

Apparantly Ebert and Roeper reviewed it (http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/today.html?CMP=AFC-ERTV) last week, confirming the comments here that it is a very good action film but a completely confused political one.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Big Big Big interview with Alan Moore at Heidi MacDonald's The Beat (http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/03/a_for_alan_pt_1_the_alan_moore.html), where he gets to tell his side of the story without filtration. Heidi even tweaks him with a few questions that lots of fans want to ask (like, "Aren't you throwing the baby out with the bathwater?"). Part 2 coming soon. (EDIT: Or, right now (http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/03/a_for_alan_pt_2_the_further_ad.html). I liked his comparison to Jack Kirby and Gardner Fox, who are largely uncredited in their best known comic book works as well.)

Meanwhile, I think this blog entry about Moore (http://estoreal.blogspot.com/2006/03/steals-from-poor-and-gives-to-rich.html) is pretty astute and manages to point out how everybody manages to look bad in this situation.

Ah, the comics biz. Where deficiencies of business knowledge, understanding of human nature, or ethics are no hindrance to your success...

-- Ed/Ace

[rggkjg1]

saw it last night/this morning. i thought it was an alright movie. it wasnt as bad as i thought it would be. although, i think i can see why alan moore wanted his name off the film. i re-read the graphic novel before i saw the movie and i thought some parts of the movie was a little "off". i thought the beginning was hard to follow since the tv station scene was very early in the film. i was more confused at how they did prothero, i literally thought of him being the "voice" of fate. not seeing him on tv show. i had no idea who this guy was until the bathroom scene in which we see dolls in the background. i wasnt particularly fond of evey not fully supporting v and then leaving v in the middle of the film. i thought the way the violence was portrayed correctly, except in the end. i felt all of it should be brief and not really see alot of gore. of course, why am i not surprised that the end fight scene had matrix slow motion.

i dont know why, but i thought blowing up parliament in the very end was "distastefull". it had to have been blown up since it's central to the guy fawkes thing, but i can't see why they couldnt have done it in the very beginning (even though it was blown up in the beginning of the graphic novel, im not making my "distastefull" judgement because this is what they did in the film and what moore did in the graphic novel).

aside from the handful (if even that) of negatives, the film did have its plus moments as well. the superman returns teaser ;) (which had a new backdrop behind legendary pictures logo, making you think its a new teaser or trailer...) and the rolling stones' "street fighting man" in the credits.

i was amused at the product placement. i don't think products like jvc, dell or pepsi would exist in a dictatorship england, who apparently doesnt want "american" food in exchange for medical supplies.

overall, my time wasnt wasted. and thats what is important to me. i will most likely never get my time back for watching the first 45 to 60 minutes of the matrix, but this might be the step in the right direction. please do us a favor mr. mcteigue and wachowskis, DON'T make the watchmen movie. (mcteigue supposedly expressed interest in doing watchmen, click for more info (http://comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=6804))

[James Harvey]

The talkback is now up! Let's take our V for Vendetta discussions there!

"V for Vendetta" Movie Talkback (Spoilers) (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=162521)

Thread closed.