Jump to content

Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

People should be afraid of their governments... oh no its the other way around!

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." What part of the book is it out of ?--Brown Shoes22 04:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I recently read it again i can say with a good deal of certainty that it's out of nowhere. Nowhere in the comic I saw that sentence, but I did notice the one about flesh and idea that appears at the end of the trailer. Even though in the trailer he's talking to Creed and in the comic he's talking to Finch. --Fmafra 15:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

O.K., that phrase was coined by the super mega assholes "The Wachowski" brothers, so it's not representative of the comic.209.124.116.145

This is movie.. not comic. It is different medium. And who said it is representative of comic? 130.102.0.176 15:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I also can confirm that it does not appear in the book. Nonetheless, it clearly appears in the promotional poster (see image in article). --Sycron 22:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"When the Government Fears the People, There is Liberty; When the People Fear the Government, There is Tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson quote, must have something to do with him? --Oronzo 23:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

JMS script review rebuttal at [1] Co-creator David Lloyd's support of the film at ComicCon V4V panel interview67.129.74.10 08:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Added brief synopsis from Warner Bros, clarified speculative nature of why the film was delayed. Film makers said it was not related to the July London bombings, but that the Nov 4th date was too oppressive.Factual data 04:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Tagline 2: Remember, remember the 5th of November.

I'm sorry if I'm getting too personal here, but I believe this is a valid question in essence:

Anyone knows what that tagline means?

I haven't read the comics although I did had the chance when my father introduced them to me a long time ago, a portuguese version of it. I don't have them anymore, boy I wish I had them.

I was never a fan of DC Comics...

The thing is, the whole association I personally have with Matrix and with November 5th really made me want to know more about this whole movie.

Once again, sorry if this looks to be too offtopic (of the wikipedia concept).

Thanks for understanding.

--Cawas 01:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Considering the movie had been set for a November 5th release, due to the tie in with Guy Fawkes, it was also telling people to remember when the movie was opening. — Linnwood 07:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess its easy to take this for granted if you're from England, as it's so well known from childhood here; it's the first line of a little childrens rhyme about the Gunpowder Plot, and Bonfire Night is celebrated on November 5th. TR_Wolf

Massive Attack's Contribution

According to the Massive Attack page they are no longer involved in the music for this film, or at least their contribution is not as substantial as it once was. I've heard that Gang of Four are now involved but this is only hearsay. Does anyone have any solid information? --Ajplmr 22:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Timeline

As I've not read the book or seen the movie yet, Im interested if maybe someone could write a timeline as it were showing how events took place (and from where they diverged from our reality), in either/both the film and book? TR_Wolf

About Berlin

Unless it is taking place in Berlin, then it is not being filmed on location. The article says "filmed on location in Berlin"--- the film takes place in London, thus was not filmed on location. It should simply read "filmed in Berlin."

"On location" doesn't necessarily mean that the location of filming is the same as the location being fictionally depicted. Star Wars was filmed on location in Tunisia, but the location being depicted was Tatooine. "On location" is usually used in contrast with "in studio". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The plot section was copied directly from http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com and has been removed. I will replace with a brief synopsis for now and will write a better one after I see the film tommorw (I got tickets to a preview...I will write as long as they don't swear me to secrecy..)Flying Canuck 02:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

should we mention...

...that some conservatives in America are afraid of this movie?—This unsigned comment was added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) 12:16, March 15, 2006 UTC.

Conservatives should not be afraid of this film, this film should be afraid of conservatives. I can see a bandwagon of censor-happy folks ready to pound this sucker into the groundFinite 03:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There's already discussions in online forums (not too sure about public statements though) how this film glorifies terrorism. It should be emphasised that it's a struggle for freedom and breaking control, not for mindless violence.--Vindicta 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's Fahrenheit 9/11 all over again. 70.23.209.225 06:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If we were to write anything about this, we would need solid evidence first. Feel totally free to post that evidence and those sites here. --P-Chan 08:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ever hear the expression "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" ? I've seem this film, it does *not* glorify terrosim, it's blatantly a cautionary tale of what could happen if we all take everything we hear at face value. Anybody with any sense should be able to spot that, it's like modern day animal farm almost without the horses and pigs. 81.108.0.100 20:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that the movie is out . . .

Just figured, since I went and saw a random free pre-sceening tonight (yeah, it surprised the hell out of me, I guess my Students' Union can get things accomplished after all!) I would mention verification of all the spoilers (as in, I can speak for the veracity of that section). It is also definitely the "most faithful adaptation so far", while one can still see all the changes that would make the creator of the original work distance himself from it. I'm very interested about what the reaction might be now that the film is out; I agree with Finite above that it's quite possible that there will be a conservative charge against the film. I mean, a film that says that The War On Terror will bring about worldwide disaster, and that terrorists will save the day? (It's rather undeniable that V fits the bill for a terrorist with any non-biased defition, which is another kind of grey area that people seem to always be protesting against, upset against any infringment on the painting of everything as black and white). An eye should definitely be kept out for the reaction to this film, especially as comic book films are so in-vogue recently that it's that much more likely to be caught in the U.S. media's radar. Phil Urich 05:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reactions to the Movie

Beautiful.... it was simply beautiful...

I have never said that about a movie before. I just don't know how else to decribe how the movie left me feeling. I'm shocked how pitch perfect it was. I only wish that the movie would have gone on longer.

Remember, Remember the 5th of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

I only wish that this would have come out on the 400th anniversary of the original gunpowder plot. It would breathe new meaning into Guy Fawkes Night. A movie this good would have had a better shot at an Oscar if it came out just before the Oscar noms, instead of waiting an entire year to get its recognition. By doing this it will only fade from people memories. I only hope that others leave with the same feelings that I did -- UKPhoenix79 08:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just came back from seeing the movie. All I can say is that it was great. I think when you use a theme like the one in V, you run the risk of making it cheesy, preachy or overly political. This film was none of those things. It captures you so quickly that you don't really ponder the message as much as be swept away by the events. Great movie, I was just in awe. --P-Chan 09:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It was fairly good. Different than its predecessor in both general setting and conclusion, but it was preferable to a strict scene-by-scene copy of the original. Definitely a good story in its own right, and the additions were appropriate. I have mixed feelings about the fact that it was updated, but they did a good job of doing so - similarly, it would have been interesting to see a more restrained, less overt totalitarian regime, as in the original graphic novel. Overall, very pleasing. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is already easier to forget. 71.132.17.26 06:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User should realize that Michael Medved has been a film critic for almost 3 decades. Inserting "..conservative radio talk show host.." without mentioning his being a film critic is an attempt to dismiss and belittle Medved's critique even before the reader has finished the paragraph.

69.39.172.99 23:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that he is primarily known as a conservative commentator. That he does movie reviews is secondary to the fact that he is a man who is generally paid to espouse a certain political viewpoint. How about "conservative commentator and movie critic Michael Medved" as a more balanced statement? Fightindaman 00:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Fightindaman, you should be aware that Medved does not let his political viewpoints affect his movie reviews.
A good example is the Motorcycle Diaries, a sympathetic film about the Marxist guerrilla leader Che Guevara. Medved gave this film his highest rating, even though the chief character in the film was Guevara.
Compare this with Roger Ebert's review of the film Red Dawn, a film about an invasion of the U.S. by the Soviet Union and Cuba, and the resulting guerrilla actions of a group of American high school students. Ebert not only gave it a "thumbs-down", he implored his audience not to see the film.
Now in order to be consistent, if we label Medved a "conservative" movie critic, then we would have to label Ebert a "liberal" movie critic. Until we label everybody, let us not label anybody.
69.39.172.123 14:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
No actually, we don't have to label everybody. Ebert does not get paid to espouse political viewpoints, Medved does. Do you have some proof that Ebert gave it a thumbs down because of politics? It only has a 5.6/10 user rating on IMDb.com, which would seem to indicate that it wasn't that great of a movie. If Ebert was not primarily a movie critic, but primarily somebody who talked on the radio about evil "Repuglicans" then I'd say he should be labeled for exactly the same reason. I don't think Medved should be labeled simply because he's a conservative, but because he's paid good money to be a conservative. As for politics and movies, to say that one's political beliefs do not influence one's opinion of movies is a ludicrious statement. His Motorcycle Diaries review notwithstanding, his article on Wikipedia details his extreme distatste for "Hollyweird" and their "dark, pessimisitc subject matter" as well has one of his cutesy little partisan nicknames "Alexander the Gay" for the film "Alexander the Great." Fightindaman 14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In the "Reception" section of the article it says that "Despite Alan Moore's complaints, the critical reception of the film has largely been positive." Yet in the UK the press reviews have been largely negative. The Times, The Independent, The Guardian and The Telegraph were all generally disparaging about it, Jonathan Ross, the BBC's film critic (and a huge Alan Moore fan) said "Throw in Matrix veteran James McTeigue's flat direction and you have a woeful, depressing failure. If it had been called V for Vasectomy I could scarcely have found it a less enjoyable experience, so please don't let your curiosity get the better of you when it arrives down your way." The London-based culture magazine, Time Out, also gave it a poor review. There have been a few positive reviews: Empire_(magazine) and Hotdog_Magazine gave it a 4/5 rating and Mark Kermode rated it highly on the BBC arts programme, The Culture Show. I just feel that saying the reception has been 'largely positive' isn't strictly accurate at the moment and perhaps the section should better reflect this.Demos99 20:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

(Being someone who didn't like the film) I think it's rather leading towards a positive review in general, although I can't put a finger on how. Sarge Baldy 20:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that too. The UK reviews were way more negative than the North American reviews. (I think can see why. In my opinion, if the movie was based in the United States, there would be whole new issues that would be distracting for US viewers.)

--P-Chan 20:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Liam Neeson?

Anybody else think it sounds like Neeson's voice reading Creedy's line, "Do you know why you're here, Evey Hammond?" in the original trailer (from the official website, July 2005)? Any reason to believe he was ever involved in this project?

Yeah it does sound like him now that you mention it. But as far as I know he was never associated with the film. Cvene64 10:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thelema in the Film?

Having seen the film, I was blown away at the strongly thelemic storyline and symbolism. VVVVV being perhaps one of the more overt symbols? Anyone else?

well, since they refer to Crowley in the original graphic novel, the reference to OTO seems appropritae. Lowmagnet 02:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to this Article

I believe that the core of this article should be reorganized to better provide the information that people would typically find informative.

1) Create a true summary/synopsis:

Currently, there is no synopsis in this article. The closest thing that exists is the section titled "Differences from graphic novel". While an important, I don't believe it should serve as the main core of the article, as the majority of the people who would see the film would not have read the original comic by Alan Moore, and thus see less relevence in it. A synopsis is typically the core of most major film articles. This should be written, and then followed up by a section on the differences from the graphic novel.


2) Add a section on Symbolism/Refernces/Influences:

Near the end of the article, there should be a section specifically dedicated to the historical and modern day references in the film, since they are such an integral part of the film. There should an emphasis in particular on the modern day references, since these won't overlap with the Vendata graphic novel article. Some of these include mention of the: "Coalition of the Willing" (direct reference to Iraq War), the "black bags" and orange jumpsuits the prisoners in Larkhill are wearing (most likely a reference to Abu Ghraib), etc.

That's my 2 cents.

--P-Chan 19:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Music

This may be a silly question, but I'm dying to know: who is the composer or what is the title of the piece "V" plays during the destruction of the courthouse and during the demolition of Parliament? --AWF

I would like to see what and by who the end title music is. It doesn't seem to be on the soundtrack album, and I can't manage to google it up, either. -- Björn Lindström 11:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the same question posted in a few forums, if I can dig up the answer I will let you know. Cvene64 12:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

They answer your question in the movie. It's the 1812 Overture, by Tchaikovsky. CAH

Hi. it IS on the soundtrack album - its part of the piece called Knives and Bullets (and Cannons too). :)

Just got back home after seeing this at the cinema tonight, I thought 'V' clearly stated what the music was??? maybe I imagined it... quercus robur 23:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In relation to that, what is the music playing during the destruction of the Parliament?

Remember, remember, the eleventh of September.

Below is a bunch of quotes from the movie that I think sum up what I think:

Sutler:"I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want everyone to remember *why* they need us! "

(Sept 11th happens)

V(changed): "Remember, remember, the 11th of September.

V: "Fear became the ultimate tool of this government. "

Finch(changed): "If our own government was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people... would you really want to know?"

(People think, isntead of being slaves)

Tagline: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

And perhaps the best statement was, as highlited in BOLD: "An uncompromising vision of the future from the creators of 'The Matrix' trilogy" key statement there in BOLD.

Think of what I posted what you will. Furthermore go to IMDB and see the comments to see what people "really" think about the movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/usercomments

Edit this post if you like, thats fine, I will not try and post this message again. While I think this has to do with the movie, since this is the movies point, other may not agree. But I shall not argue about it. BestBuyBeast666 22:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

V and his background

Who is V. What is his background

There is some discussion on Talk:V for Vendetta. Mrtea (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference or coincidence?

Given that the 7 July bombings happened during the shooting of the film, can the fact that there is a bomb on the underground (subway) really be said to refer to them? Surely it is more of a coincidental link than an actual reference. — Paul G 13:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Pure coincidence. The original story has the bombs in them. So unless Alan Moore peered some 25 years in the future, it wasn't due to the bomb scare.--Toffile 17:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, that's what I thought. So how many of the so-called references stated in the article were in the graphic novel (whether or not they are in the film itself) and do not refer to actual events (even if they could be seen as foreseeing them)? These should be removed from the article. — Paul G 10:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
there's alot of archive footage used at various times in the film - the fact they used that is coincidental, but they obviously chose it because it was bombings of london --Streaky 22:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of taglines section

I don't think the taglines should just be thrown at the top of the article as they are—they are really out of place there, and disrupt the flow of the article. I personally think they should be removed entirely, as they're not important information (they're just marketing terms that don't add much to the background of the film), but if they must be retained, I think they should be placed in a section near the bottom—either their own section, or a trivia section, or something like that. I very much disagree with their seemingly random placement in the opening paragraph of the article. – Mipadi 16:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a little about them into the marketing/release section, but I think that should be the end of it. Lets try and avoid a trivia section. I did not metnion the Only verdict is... as I don't know that was even a tagline? Anyway, they have been talked about/mereged into that section. Cvene64 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...

In the final scene, Steven Fry takes off his mask, I thought he was dead... Any ideas? This film has more plot holes that a fish net, I can understand why the author hated it, though it was very entertaining. -- Tompsci 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See the "Errors" section. The reappearence of dead individuals in the last scene has already been discussed. Fightindaman 00:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I went to edit my post and you had already replied. :P -- Tompsci 00:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Two different "James Purefoy" stories

Under casting there is a story about why Hugo was used instead of James. However, in the James Purefoy article, there is a different story about why Hugo was used instead of James that seems to contridict the first story.

Who was the first choice for the V role? James or Hugo?

I think we need to find some references on this.

--P-Chan 18:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)\

I have never heard that version on James' page. I will also look for some sources, as we dont want to say he was replaced by Weaving or whatever, if its not true. Cvene64 12:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I can't find anything support the story on the James article either. It sounds like James quit or was let go, and then Hugo took the role afterwards (which is what we have down). So it should good.

Cheers! --P-Chan 19:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


How about we call this what it really is?

More anti-Bush, anti-American leftist political garbage? Sure, it was a novel, but one cannot dismiss the timing so convenient for the left. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.46.133.119 (talk • contribs) 22:13, March 19, 2006 (UTC)

Or how about we reserve the debates over politics for other, more appropriate fora, and use this talk page to discuss the encyclopedia article about the film? Just a wild thought. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I think there is a place here for discussing the political nature of the film, esp. where there are clear deviations between the film and the source material. Isn't this really a film about rugged individualism against a corrupt totalitarian state looking to reduce the power of the government? Surely, that's a pro-American philosophy? Ok, our rugged individualist uses what could be seen as terrorist tactics to overcome the state but these aren't that dissimilar to standard guerilla tactics used by small groups of soldiers, e.g. Special Forces, around the world and by Steven Seagal in every film he's been in. Eyetie

Since the film does have a lot of political content and has caused discussion in the media, it's appropriate for us to discuss how that should be covered in the film's article. I'm just worried that people will get distracted by arguing over the politics themselves, to the detriment of the article. But I don't want to censor anybody, just encourage what I think is best for the encyclopedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I want to censor you all. No seriously though - what will come out of it will be fan fiction - there's clearly no direct reference to american polotics at all, except the genious bit of writing at the start, and that's hardly what you'd call noteworthy. Why does everything always have to be about americans? There's clearly important stuff in there - the banning of the quran, the split uk/us flag, whatever, but a discussion about how people with no intelligence got scared? come off it. 81.108.0.100 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT - "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". 205.188.116.202 05:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Errors?

Errors

  • Throughout the movie, a girl with large glasses is shown. When V delivers masks to everybody, she is shown running down a street with it on and getting shot in the back by a Fingerman. She falls over, presumably dead. However, later when Parliament blows she is shown with her family, perfectly okay.

-- This is listed as an error, but I did not perceive it to be such upon seeing the film: a few characters said or thought to have been dead show their faces at the final climax, and it seemed to me that their supposed "deaths" were misdirections. In the case of the girl with big glasses, her being shot was during a rumination of Det. Finch, and the montage ended with him stating that he did not know what was going to happen, that it was just a "feeling".

Thoughts?

207.145.216.38 21:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)pterantula

4.237.202.86 21:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)It is most definitely not an error; Valerie (the lesbian actress) and her lover also appear there, as I'm sure, do others who died.Their deaths were not misdirections, their appearances later were symbolic. This is to represent who V was fighting for: everyone, especially those who had died because of those he faught against. I suggest this information is removed as it in no way can be seen as an error. I'd have done it, but it could be seen as vandalism to remove an entire portion of a page.

--I believe the reappearence of those characters was symbolic. It could indicate that even though those people were killed by the state they're deaths were not meaningless or unnoticed. I was instantly reminded of the ending of Long Time Companion where the remaining characters have a brief vision of all the friends they had lost to AIDS alive and healthy. I think the mention of the little girl along with Gordon et al. should be moved to the symbolism section. SamuellusSoccus 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

--It didn't occur to me till looking at this page, but who is the person who is shaving Evey's head? Its not V (V in a latex mask looks very different as we see later in the movie). But V is supposedly the only one responsible for Evey's imprisonment. --Jherico 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that you don't see that person's face in the actual film — the image on the article page is probably from the actual shooting rather than from the film proper (that is, in the film the image was cropped so you couldn't see the face of the person doing the shaving). Perhaps we should have a note about that in the image caption, though? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
We should do that or change it to something else. If it's not a movie pic, then I personally don't think it should really be in the synopsis.--P-Chan 06:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think V was the only one imprisoning Evey, or at least the imprisonment didn't actually happen. It's definitely not V who kidnaps (after she climbs out her boss's window) initially. -- Rmrfstar 02:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
And where do you get this from? Both the movie and the comic are pretty unambigious about the fact that V was the one doing it. There's not really any suggestion that he liberates her from a real jail only to put her in another one. Fightindaman 07:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It does look like it is V who kidnaps her outside Gordon's house, if you look carefully the eyes seen in the black balaclava are surrounded by red burnt skin like V's hands as seen earlier in the film. --Achmelvic 12:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Tis a minor production error but I noticed that in one scene Finch is in his appartment and the sockets on the wall are european 2-pin instead of British 3-pin, I'm guessing because this scene was filmed in Berlin, unless in the next 20-odd years the UK chances socket type. Tiny importance I know! --Achmelvic 13:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivia references

Can someone clean up the references/cites/footnotes in the Trivia section? I don't understand them well enough to do it properly. Bdoserror 20:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the article is really well done, I hoestly think there should not be a triva section. Sunlc 02:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I would say that Trivia definitely belongs. Many movie pages have trivia including The Wizard of Oz!! I dont see why this article should recieve less... -- UKPhoenix79 03:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with UKPhoenix on this. Of the top 4 film articles in Wikipedia, 2 of them have trivia entries (3 of them if you count the Star Wars Movie). Metropolis ♦ Ran ♦ Star Wars ♦ The Lion King
Note that the quality of the trivia in those articles is really high, therefore I think that if we do have a trivia section, we should keep it real tight in terms of quality.
One of the definitions of a good article is that it has great coverage. Some of these trivia points, simple don't fit right in other parts of the article, but still have value. Thus I think we should keep the trivia section. Out of curiosity, what is the argument against keeping the trivia? That it's a distraction? --P-Chan 04:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The main problem is that when people see a "Trivia" section it becomes a magnet for adding every piece of unverifiable and/or unimportant nonsense that has even the slightest relation to the article. A lot of trivia is, as the name would imply, trivial. If it's well-guarded and well-cited there's nothing wrong with it though. Fightindaman 04:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking through most peer reviews/fac reviews, Trivia sections seem to be a target of discrimination, and for the most part, I agree with. It is generally viewed that if it is not/does not fit in the article, it should not be mentioned.

As Fightindaman said, people will just add garbage to it. Also, look through the article, its all paragraphs (bar, symbolism), it is not aesthetically appealing to have random dot points at the end of the article. Such trivia can be viewed/submitted to the IMDb, which there is already several links to. I mean honestly, the only thing that is marginally worth a mention is perhaps the Blair controversey. I say it should be removed asap. Cvene64 08:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Upon seeing the "Shaved her head" and the "Van Eyck's picture" trivia added to the list, I now agree with your comments that this section could be a dumping group for pretty much anything. I recommend we find some way to relocate the Swedish Show, the Tony Blair point and the Rookwood point. --P-Chan 07:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I think there is one great thing about the trivia section, that should be noted. People tend to be less inhibited about dumping stuff there. And while that might sound bad... think about all the information that first appeared there, that eventually found it's way into other parts of the article. I think we should keep it for now, in a controlled format. Maybe if this article goes to a FAC assessment, we'll get rid of it them. But until then, we could just monitor it. --P-Chan 23:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


"Differences from graphic novel" section seems too cumbersome

This section seems to be growing and growing without too much structure. (Also, there is quite a bit of material in that section that just doesn't belong). In it's current state, it's rather cumbersome. I think we may need to divide it up into a few sections just to make it more readable.

Just as an example, these sections could be... character changes, background, setting, world, other changes, etc. Anything that would allow a reader to skim through the materials and pick-out the relevent points.

That's my 2 cents. --P-Chan 21:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I had a lot of it working at one point but people would add things in between and around and eventually it stopped really making any sense, just a lot of random lines often not related to one another. Sarge Baldy 08:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any ideas as to how to revive it?--P-Chan 05:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Brixton

I was wondering if anyone else caught this, but in the first couple scenes where chaos is starting to unfold (albeit in Finch's insight), there is a noticeable mention of Brixton. Was there an intentional reference to The Clash's "The Guns of Brixton" (When they kick out your front door, how're you gonna come: with your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun?... You can crush us, you can bruise us, but you'll have to answer to the Guns of Brixton)? Or this pure coincidence due to the London locale? Kenzilla 21:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Pvnish The Wrongdoer

A closeup of Old Bailey before it is destroyed shows the phrase "DEFEND THE CHILDREN OF THE POOR & PVNISH(with the 'V') THE WRONGDOER". At first I thought that the 'v' was just a reference for the character, spelling it that way instead of the usual 'punish', but in the photos of Old Bailey I have seen it does seem to be v. I am having trouble getting info on this. Can I get some clarification? Also there is a device that Finch uses in the movie, when talking about the government using the virus on it's own people, that kind of looks like a cell phone projecting a red light. I am assuming that it blocks anyone trying to listen in, but I don't remember it being explained in the movie. Jynx980 08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

From U, "U was originally a positional variant of the letter V, as I was of J, used only in lower-case writing and only medially, and representing both the vowels now written with U and the consonants now written with V. The use of the two forms to distinguish the consonants and vowels which they now represent was not standardised until modern times." Fightindaman 14:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, U's were often written as V's in old stone carvings and sculptures, because it was very hard to carve the curved "U" as opposed to the angular "V". For this very same reason, O's are often carved as hollow diamonds64.112.183.66 18:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

V and the Matrix

Suprisingly enough, there is little talk about V's connection to the Matrix. Do people not see it?

Please enlighten me. --P-Chan 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget the political philosophy. Remember, remember that the Matrix is an “equation that constantly tries to balance itself out”. The purpose of the architect: “to balance the equation”. The purpose of the Oracle: “to unbalance it”. The ONE is a systemic anomaly (repeat: anomaly), “the remainder of an equation, if left unchecked could threaten the entire system itself and everyone in it”. V says, “They created me, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. Evey responds, “Is this like an equation to you?”. Remember, remember “there is no coincidence, only the illusion of coincidence”. Like the Merovingian, says, “I have told you before, there's no escaping the nature of the universe. It is that nature that has again brought you to me. Where some see coincidence, I see consequence. Where others see chance, I see cost.” It’s time, I must go but I trust my hasty response has persuaded you to reflect deeper on the meaning of both movies. My final question: How many versions of the Matrix are there? Trust me there’s more!

Yeah, and every other movie/story out there with a hero in it is a different Matrix. Like Spider-Man or Batman... RobertM525 18:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Please enlighten me.

V and other works

Don't get me wrong, but I'd just like to put out the words The Phantom of the Opera. MajinPalgen 20:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Redundencies

Just noticed that the statement that Alan Moore doesn't like the screenplay is mentioned 4 times in the article. That's a little much, especially considering it's not that relevent. Just a observation... --P-Chan 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: In the plot section it claims that Evey is actually imprisoned by V the whole time - I'm assuming that the cop who nabbed her was supposed to be V in disguise - and yet the photo next to the section clearly shows someone who is not V shaving her head. So is this accurate? I know the graphic novel says it was V the whole time, but the film seems a bit different, as if she was imprisoned by the police for awhile and then somehow V got her out or whatever. Confusing stuff. V4Victory 16:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It's been a while, but if my memory serves me right, there were two (possibly three) "characters" interacting with Evey that whole time: the interrogator and the person with an american accent. When I saw the film a second time, I absolutely sure that it was V the whole time in different disguises. It fits in with what he did to Finch, his love of theater, etc. (I have not read the novel, but I'm presuming that it wasn't obvious that it was V's place, until the scene ended. And if that's the case, the film matched that.)

Now with the picture.. that's a publicity photo and arguably shouldn't be used here because it didn't really happen in the film (that there was a guy's face). Just looking at it logically, Natalie had her head shaved for real there (one take), so it would make more sense to have a professional barber, than Hugo Weaving do the scene. --P-Chan 17:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a new one. Hope thats okay by all. Cvene64 00:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This new one is better as it looks genuinely terrifying, whereas the other one just looked like she was unhappy.--P-Chan 02:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's relevant that Alan Moore vehemently rejects the film, but even more relevant are his reasons why, which aren't touched on so well at present. Sarge Baldy 02:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Trivia bit almost certainly wrong...

Someone has written the following in the Trivia section: "V's 'V' monologue" contains 55 words beginning with V in the monologue. This could be shown as "V V" or two Roman numeral 5's next to each other..."

Surely that's only if you don't know Roman numerals? If you do, you know it is LV. El T 13:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I originally wrote that section as below. I could never keep up with the edits so I just gave up. I would love to keep the translation if anyone could figure out how!
  • "V's 'V' monologue" begins and ends with a V. The Roman numeral for 5 is V and there are 55 words beginning with V in the monologue. This could be shown as "V V" or two Roman numeral 5's next to each other, but that would not be correct usage. The original "V's 'V' monologue" from the movie is located on Wikiquote

Translation of "V's 'V' monologue"
"Behold! In view a humble vaudevillian theatre veteran, chosen on behalf of others as both a victim and a villian by a change of fate. This mask, no mere layer of vanity, it’s evidence of a voice of the people, which was gone and missing; the mask is now a necessary voice of truth that respects what they once fought against. However, this voice is back standing strong and promises to get rid of corrupt evil and deal with the greedy decisions that have violated us. The only way is retribution, a fight, symbolizing a wish, not lacking substance, for the value and truth that will one day justify the alert and moral people. In fact, this lengthy speech is just a strong introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V"

-- UKPhoenix79 19:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:V_for_Vendetta_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=967193633"