Jump to content

Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Norsefire (book) = Conservative Party (film)?

The film changes Norsefire's name to the real-life Conservative Party. In a pie chart showing the results of the election that brought dictatorship to Britain, the piece of the pie with around 90% of the vote is clearly labled "Conservative Party." SteveSims 06:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I recall the 90% black segment on the pie chart said NORSEFIRE, and there were two 5% segments in red and blue, saying Conservative and Labour. TR_Wolf

Criticism.....or lack there of.

This Article needs a better criticism section, the current section needs expanding. It seems a tad bit biased. Zerath13

No kidding. --Haizum 06:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... yeah

Isn't it kind of appropriate that V for vendetta is a FA on guy fawkes night? Richardkselby 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be done a lot - I know Night of the Living Dead was FA on Halloween this year. Applejuicefool 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sequel

I saw this website about a sequel. Is it true & should it be commented on this site? www.darkhorizons.com/news06/060401b.php

I doubt it. Moore doesn't want anything to do with this movie; he said so in an interview. This article quotes it. Besides, there was no sequel to the graphic novel, so they wouldn't have any source material.

Looks like an April's Fools Joke.

I sure hope it's a joke. It would be stupid. All that would be left would be for Evey to make the final leap for England, to bring about true anarchy, or the "land of do as you please," as V so eloquently put it. There would be little more of interest, except to see Evey claim V's place, and maybe to see Dominic take Evey's place (assuming that Evey took up the mask and took in Dominic... I don't remember the end of the movie very well. Just the novel.). Ravenicus451 00:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned points comments

  • It is also worthy of note that the references to the political leaders profiting from selling the treatment to the "pandemic" disease are allegorical. Donald Rumsfeld, the current Secretary of Defense of the United States, was Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences from 1997-2001, and he remains a member of the board today. This places him in a strategic position to profit from the Bush administration's decision to purchase $2 billion of Tamiflu, a treatment medicine for avian flu.
Again, totally laughable attempt to connect irrational points to this film. The best comparison to the biological experiments in the film would be to the Nazis and the Soviets. Trying to connect Donald Rumsfeld is absurd. Jtpaladin 16:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The government in the movie preaches “Strength in Unity, Unity in Faith.” This is similar to the original Gunpowder Plot in its religious undertones. The Gunpowder Plot was an attempt to assassinate King James I of England on the opening day of the Houses of Parliament over the separation of England from the Catholic Church.
Of course, the film attempts to glorify the Gunpowder Plot which was nothing but an attack on England sponsored by Catholic forces, primarily Spain, because England rejected Papal domination of its' country. Jtpaladin 16:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Alan Moore later states in the foreword to the trade paperback edition of V for Vendetta that scientists now felt that even a "limited" nuclear war was not survivable. Thus biological weapons would be considered more plausible in the film.

IMDB 8.2/10 (38,206 votes)

Alan Moore was wrong about the lack of ability to survive a limited nuclear war as he was in much of his bizarre political thought throughout the story. In the film, the comparison of the "Coalition of the Willing" and "Nazism" is just more laughable nonsense. Jtpaladin 16:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This really needs to get added back into the article, and the novelization article needs to be expanded (this blurb says more about the novelization than the article itself). I haven't read it so I don't want to go editing it, and I'm not sure where in this article the novelization belongs. I am adding it to the adaptations section of the main V for Vendetta article, however. Lord Bodak 13:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Novelization

Ok, we can def not end the article with this. I say we merge it into the differences section, just write at the end how there is one and briefly talk about V's escape from Larkhill etc. Its just random. We should merge it into diff.section - but not create a sub-heading, just merge. Thoughts? Cvene64 15:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the whole thing needs to be removed into the talkpage, until we can figure out what to do with it... it's not going to grow much bigger than it is already.--P-Chan 17:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Without the novelization, the article looks cleaner now.--P-Chan 00:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Upon pondering over this whole Novelization thing.... I think it may only end up being a wikilink somewhere, or a See Also. It's a little hard to incorporate.--P-Chan 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How does the novelization of a film not fit in the article about the film? Let's be realistic here. It needs to say more, but it belongs here. Look at Return of the Jedi or any number of other films with novelizations. Something more than my one-liner should probably be there, but I haven't read the novelization so I can't write about it. But I am adamant that it belongs here, and if it keeps getting removed, no one can improve it. Lord Bodak 22:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Star Wars novels are fairly notable, the Vendetta novelization had a very small release, and in the big picture of things is not that notable. There have beeen efforts to include it, but it just doesnt look/flow right. The best it can do right now is be in the V category. This is an FA, but that doesnt mean it cant be taken down, and a stub like paragraph at the end of the article doesnt do us any favors. Cvene64 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it should be improved beyond just being a stub paragraph. But the novelization exists, it is relevant to the movie, and not including it in the article is a major omission. Being an FA should not be justification to omit relevant information. Lord Bodak 22:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Well it should be noted in the text then, a whole heading is just crazy. But a heading or subheading will just comprimise its ability to maintain FA status. Cvene64 23:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I agree Cvene64. Lord Bodak, in regards to your comments on the ommission, keep in mind that this article is 51k and is less than half a year old. That's pretty big, and the DVD hasn't been released yet. There is a tendencie at Wikipedia that once articles reach a certain size veteran editors will start to request the article be split up with daughter articles. So, while we probably could put in a whole section on the novelization, we probably shouldn't as it may not be that important in terms of content. Does this address your concerns?--P-Chan 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Movie vs. Graphic Novel

V for Vendetta was one of the first movies in a long time to peak my interest to actually see it in the theater, not once, but twice. Shortly afterward, I reaquainted myself with the graphic novel. For his sake, Alan Moore should be greatful anyone would be able to make sense of his works, let alone be so invoked to to put them on the big screen. I deeply admire integrity, and Moore has that. But he seems to lack a real understanding how you present an idea at the right time. When the graphic novel was first published, it was relevent for the time, but as governments and societies change, the same theme will be lost upon people. Asked many high school of college students who Margret Thatcher was, and you'll get, "Who?". Thatcherism, as it is termed, has past. But the story can still hold value if it is changed to fit modern times. And the movie does just that, keeping with the basic ideas while adding elements that make it more plausible and interesting for the moderen masses. In fact, contrary to Moore, the movie is far more realistic than the original story. Moore views the movie villains as caricatures, but the opposite is true. Moore uses very stereotypical images for the villains, such as a heavy set and pompus Prothero and 'un-named' Leader, business poster child Creedy, and burnt out and ragged Finch. Various element of the books are caricatures, if not down right silly and unbelievable. The movie fixes many of these problem, untilizing actual people instead of editorial cartoons. The 'leader' has a name, Prothero is arogant, but realistic,...in general, the characters are more crisp in the movie. V is is less of a mental patient and more of someone with a genuine vendetta, someone who is actually human. The change of Evey from prostitute to working girl makes the relationship between she and V even more interesting, since the viewers will less likely see both of them as outcasts. The movie Evey represents a far more logical personna to which the viewers can relate to the story, stepping into her shoes and really absorbing the experience. The novel Evey is the more stereotypical tragedy girl and not too believable, at least not today. The graphic novel strays a lot and can be hard to follow. The subplot involving Almond seem trivial, even though Moore tries to justify it at the end. Eliminating it from the movie allows the viewer to focus more on the prime theme of the movie, the politics...cont.

  • It's very true that the graphic novel was a child of its time, and likewise the movie is a child of its own time. That way, it has an impact on the world around it, instead of reiterating old themes that are no longer current. There are no "right" or "wrong" interpretations of the story, and Moore is certainly entitled to his opinion. For me, the movie works better as a commentary of contemporary issues. --Agamemnon2 08:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. The film is better. I just don't like the idea that he was an anarchist, I like the idea he was an Anti-hero. --69.67.229.117 03:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

DVD section

Whats everyones view on this? It doesnt have to be there, and righth now it is the poorest section of the article, its really just a trivial list. Cvene64 07:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree when you say it sticks out like a sore thumb. It probably will be added eventually once we see all the special features and directors comments, but right now it certainly can be removed. Your call.--P-Chan 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I'm just worried that it is not really of the quality that the rest of the article is. Also, I just want to say that a DVD section is not by any means a necessary part of a film article. So yeah, I'm justs not too sure we should include just a date and special features. Also, we should consider how the article is going to deal with awards and nominations in the future. But yeah... Cvene64 08:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed it for now. I don't have any plans to keep it out, but it needs to look like Revenge of the Sith's section to be acceptable, and it can't have weird stuff like how Portman reveals her dark side in an SNL skit. Cvene64 08:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is released on HD DVD now. See a review at http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/vforvendetta.html. Worth adding I think. (AndyPennell 23:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Today's Feature Article

[1]

V for Vendetta is a 2006 action-thriller film set in London in a not-too-distant future. The film follows V, a freedom fighter who uses terrorist tactics in pursuit of a personal vendetta and to force sociopolitical change in a dystopian Britain. The film is an adaptation of the graphic novel V for Vendetta by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. V for Vendetta was directed by James McTeigue and produced by Joel Silver and the Wachowski brothers, who also wrote the screenplay. The film stars Natalie Portman as Evey Hammond, Hugo Weaving as V, Stephen Rea as Inspector Finch and John Hurt as Chancellor Sutler. The film's release was originally scheduled for November 5 2005, but was delayed; the film opened on March 17 2006, and has been generally well received by critics. Due to ongoing conflicts with the film industry, Alan Moore did not endorse the film. The filmmakers removed some of the anarchist themes that were present in the original story and added a current political context to the film. Due to the politically sensitive content of the film, V for Vendetta has been the target of both criticism and praise from different sociopolitical groups. (More...)

Cvene64 brought up the point earler that we should probably get going on the Today's Featured Article. (For the Fifth of November of course!) :) It's also probably a wise idea that we get this done now, as it would be a tragedy if we were beat by some other article. I placed a temporary TFA box above.... and I say temporary because I just cut and past the movie poster and the lead. It most likely needs to be changed. Any ideas or comments? --P-Chan 23:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me. To be honest I don't really know a whole lot about TFA, but yeah, we should definantly reserve that November spot. I guess if there is anything to be changed, someone at TFA or an admin will handle it. Nice work. Cvene64 08:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I would think that there needs to be something included about Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot to make it relevent to the November 5th date otherwise the connection between the two will be lost by most people, and the very reason for wanting this date would be negated. For all we know by the time November comes around some other Gunpowder Plot related article might become featured and want to be a Today's Featured Article also!
I would say that the introduction should tie in with its anniversary and then flush out information about the general theam of the movie: set in a dystopian Britain about an anarchist freedom fighter who uses terrorist tactics etc... Also even though it mentions the Wachowski brothers I would think that it should also mention The Matrix trilogy also! I don't think that we want a long list of names but we need to get at the heart of what this featured article is, the reason why its relevent to November 5th and why people should read it. -- UKPhoenix79 09:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should definantly keep the dystopian comments. But we should try and integrate all of what you mentioned..but we cant make it too long..so I suggest:

  • Replace action-thriller film set in London in a not-too-distant future. with film.
  • Merge Due to ongoing conflicts with the film industry, Alan Moore did not endorse the film. into first mention of Moore.
  • Remove , but was delayed; the film opened on March 17 2006, and has been generally well received by critics. Tie in of what remains to Gunpowder plot, though we still might mention it was released in March.

These are just suggestions though...Cvene64 09:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also if for some reason we cant get Nov. 5, we should get August 1 so its still relevent as its R1 DVD is released that day. Cvene64 09:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh I didn't mean to get rid of them I ment that we need to expand on those ideas (since there key to V for Vendetta)... sorry I think I used the wrong phrase. And I would agree with what you say but I think that if we do get November the 5th the Gunpowder plot/Guy Fawkes themes etc should be made more predomant inside the article and if we dont get it August 1st should be our alternative! -- UKPhoenix79 10:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
We certainly have a bit of time to think about this. (There seems to be a copyright issue on the Today's Feature Article page regarding this article's image).--P-Chan 03:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

For the 401st anniversary of the Gunpowder plot, we should have a V for Vendetta/Guy Fawkes theme. Also, were the images we had copyrighted? We have posted several different scenes on there and they keep disappearing. I think we should post an image of V fighting the Fingermen at the beginning and perhaps the destruction of Parliament at the end.- JustPhil 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about in the article? If so, that probably wont happen, as a reduction in images is one of the things that got it through the FAC. Cvene64 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Shorter version

V for Vendetta is a 2006 action-thriller film set in London in a not-too-distant future. The film follows V, a freedom fighter who uses terrorist tactics in pursuit of a personal vendetta and to force sociopolitical change in a dystopian Britain. The film is an adaptation of the graphic novel V for Vendetta by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. V for Vendetta was directed by James McTeigue and produced by Joel Silver and the Wachowski brothers, who also wrote the screenplay. The film stars Natalie Portman as Evey Hammond, Hugo Weaving as V, and Stephen Rea as Inspector Finch. The film's release was originally scheduled for November 5 2005 (Guy Fawkes Night), but was pushed back to March 17 2006. Due to the political content of the film, V for Vendetta has been the target of both criticism and praise. (More...)

I edited this on the requests page before I saw the discussion here. This version reworks two fo the sentences and removes a few of the details which belong in the into, but not on the main page necessary, in my opinion. It really shouldn't be much longer than this, if past TFA's are any indication. Comments? savidan(talk) (e@) 05:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes to differences

This was recently added:

Characters and events are changed, switched or omitted. In the film, Lewis Prothero was a radical television personality that dealt outpersonal opinion on a racist scale on television, inciting people to be wary of foreigners. In the graphic novel, however, Mr. Prothero, the Voice of Fate was unseen on television, leading the public to believe that his was the voice of the computer Fate. Also in the graphic novel, Mr. Prothero was not killed in his home but was kidnapped by V and subjected to a reconstruction of Larkhill Detention facility and is driven mad by the destruction of his vast doll collection. In the film, no mention is made of his dolls, and he is killed in his home, however it is possible to see some of his dolls in the sequence in the shower. Near the end of the film, Creedy kills Sutler and his men then fire on V. In the novel the omitted character Rose Almond, kills the Leader (who is named Adam Susan in the novel) as he steps out of a car to speak to the public and Eric Finch mortally wounds V in a showdown in the underground.

I remember that a lot of this info was removed in the past, as the section got really massive. Someone may want to re-write/edit some of it. Cvene64 08:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

FAC and images

We can't have too many images for the plot? I just posted three new images. Please don't come down on me for this! They said that Lost wasn't good enough because there were no screenshots.- JustPhil 14:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phil, I'm sorry, but I removed the three new images, only because they come under fair-use, and the image situation on here was quite controversial, and thus, just the one image was decided upon for the plot, and subsequently, the rest of the images were allocated throughout the article,which all have fair-use rationales. The current images (one in plot etc) was one of the passing conditions at the FAC. Cvene64 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

'Strength through blah blah'

Isn't that more similar to The Wave than the 1984 slogans, as the article states?

Strength through discipline, strength through community, strength through action!

Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith.

What do you think? Joffeloff 20:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

They both are pretty similar. I'm not sure I can answer that, but when I saw the film, I immediately thought of 1984 with its slogans. The film draws more parallels to 1984 than I think to your book which I have never read; I'm not going to run out now to get the book just to see what you are talking about (no offense). One quick thing, the Norsefire slogan ultimately comes down to "Strength through Faith".- JustPhil 13:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Date of the film

I agree (I have no idea if there was another discussion) that 2020 cannot be the time of the film. In the novelization, Finch states that "he has been a party member for 27 years". Unless, they have an altered timeline of the past before 2006, this means it is not 2020.- JustPhil 13:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We discussed this before and thought it was closer to 2040. Unless we can verify 99%, we can't say the date.--P-Chan 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I found the Valerie Story on YouTube. She states that her first film was in 2015. Valerie and Ruth have a wonderful relation for three years. Then America's wars in the Middle East cause chaos in England. They unleash the bioweapon, hold the Reclamation for some time, and then there are, according to the novelization, 14 years of oppression. Yes, it is closer to or is 2040.- JustPhil 22:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with the 2040 timeline, but I'd also say that being DC Comics, it's probably set in an alternate universe and point out that it could thus be any given year, even in our time frame (i.e. it could be set in 2006) if it wasn't explicitly mentioned otherwise in the movie.. --Streaky 20:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Political scene

Also, the novelization pretty much describes the political scene in beautiful detail. America begins a bunch of wars in the Middle East and China, tries to develop bioweapons to the point that lead to England pulling out of NATO before the government launches its own bioweapon.- JustPhil 15:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

heh - BF2 (yeah, sorry, totally irrelevent) --Streaky 20:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Is V a superhero?

Should we include this article in the superhero films category?--P-Chan 15:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who (spoiler!) keeps moving after being shot as many time as he was is a superhero. :) To say nothing of his preternatural fighting abilities. RobertM525 06:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Under some definitions, yes. He's not supernatural, though, which some might consider a requirement. He just has skills, equipment, and a costume. But if Batman is included in that category, then V should be included. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This is largely an artifact of the Wachowski interpretation. In the novel, V is certainly a skilled fighter, but not obviously to superheroic levels. More importantly, a superhero is someone of clear moral integrity, something V is explicitly made out not to be. Batman has his dark side, but in the end he's a Good Guy, and that's why he's one of the heroes. V is a Guy, but not necessarily Good; in fact, a large part of the point the novel makes is that his morality is in the eye of the reader. The movie is a less explicit about this; V is called a "monster" but there's nevertheless a clear distinction between good and bad, with V on the good side.
V for Vendetta may be considered a superhero movie, with a guy in a costume kicking the ass of the bad guys, but it's at least slightly misleading. Alan Moore would probably agree, though, but not in a positive way. :-) JRM · Talk 14:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

V recurring theme

It might just be my imagination, but doesn't V put some emphasis on the last syllable of Evey's name to empasize the "v" in it (e-VEY) in their first scene together? Is it worth to mention under the "v and 5" heading? 213.212.33.74 06:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Gay Theme?

I haven't watched the movie, but one of the categories lists this film as having an LGBT theme to it. Can anyone explain what this is? Thank you. Artemisboy 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The state oppresses homosexuals, "Voice of Britain" mentions this close the the beginning of the film. We find out later that Stephen Fry's character is a closeted homosexual who fears for his life. We also hear Valerie's tale; she and her girlfriend are executed by the state for their homosexuality. V and Evie are both sympathetic to Valerie and Fry's character's plight as, it would seem, are many of the people who protest against the state. --Oldak Quill 04:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I also read somewhere that the comic book was rejected, or downplayed, because comic-book publishers (DC?) were not interested in a gay terrorist. I think that this assertion can be found in the wikipedia comic book article.In other words there seems to have been a suggestion that V was gay in the original? He was definately hetro in the fim. Was Evey a terrorist in the original? In any event, being gay, or realising that one is gay and accepting it seems to be part of the freedom from bondage, dominance, idea of this film. It is not made entirely clear but when V tests Evey in his dungeon, it seems that she comes to realise that she is gay (a lesbian) too? Or not?--Timtak 01:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not for LGBT, it is for the freedom to choose. --69.67.234.220 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality is a minor theme throughout the movie. Valerie is both V's and Evey's inspiration and Gordon is a voice for good on the heavily state censored media. It's definitely important to the storyline but I think it was downplayed when the movie was released in the face of its political and religious criticism, nobody paid much attention to the LGBT stuff because so many major themes in it are already controversial.

Year of the events in the movie

The article says that it happens roughly 20 years from now. That's quite vague, since there are enough facts in the movie to determine the exact year. The lesbian woman who wrote the autobiography (kill me, I can't remember her name) says she met her last partner in 2015. She goes to say they had a "wonderfull three years together" before being taken by the police. That puts her arrest at 2018. Now, we know that V was imprisoned at the same time as her in Larkhill, and near the end of the movie, he says he's been "waiting for this day for 20 years". 2018 + 20 = 2038 (not even counting the time V spent at Larkhill, although that was probably short). That's about 32 years in the future , well off the "roughly 20 years" mark.

So if noone minds, I'm going to change the article accordingly. And it's not original research since it's in the movie. Anyone needing reference just needs to see it and pay close attention. xompanthy 01:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There are also plenty and plenty of dates in computer files. just wait a week for the dvd and then get pausing! Morwen - Talk 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Some anon changed it back to the '20-ies. Why don't they ever read the talk pages, or the HTML comment for that matter? xompanthy 20:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stuff that was put on the main page:

update reason - V says that the gunpowder thing happened OVER 400 years ago, and the gunpowder thing happened in 1663 (about) which would put the movie in at least that time frame. Plus, you add 20 years to the war date, and that sets you around 2088 -posted 22:18, August 8, 2006 70.17.91.87

update 2, wrong the Gunpowder plot took place in 1605, I also don't agree with 2020s; 2040s seems the best date--Gdo01 02:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should ignore some of the computer dates and files, if not all. My dad says that it is just "white noise" or something; stuff that is not meant to be read so they just write whatever they want. Lilliman's file says that he was at Larkhill in 2016 and Valerie’s first film was in 2015; she "had roses for three years" so presumably it would be 2018. When Finch searches for Lilliman, the search bar says that his first name is Anthony and later in the Larkhill staff file, I think I made it out to be "Peter". Also, the files for Percy, Keyes, and Rookwood (the guys who unleashed the bioweapon) say that Percy and Keyes died on 8/8/14. Also, they have a reporter talking about Sutler closing the tube stations, probably during the virus outbreak (or it was just one thing the administration tried to do before Sutler came). Of course, I was watching the dates by zooming in on my TV and when zoomed up, it doesn't have complete crystal resolution.- JustPhil 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

St. Mary's Virus

Is it mentioned that the St. Mary's Virus is an allusion to something? I know we are not allowed to have "original research", but I think it is clear that the bioweapon is an allusion to the Reichstag fire. After the fire, Hitler blamed the Communists and assumed complete control of Germany. After the virus, Sutler blames Islamic extremists and assumes complete control of England.- JustPhil 14:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha not it isn't. The whole movie is anti-Bush; the virus is alluding to 9/11 conspiracy theories. And oh, what a rhetorical device it is! If this fictional government attacked its own people, the United States did too. I love how the author of the original series said this movie was a joke. Haizum 02:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not all anti-Bush. There are still allusions to the Nazis in there.- JustPhil 11:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't the inception of this film predate 9/11 conspiracy theories?--Timtak 01:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The radical left loves to try to make Bush=Hitler parallels, so naturally there'd be allusions to the Nazis in an anti-Bush film. Blainetologist 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But the comic which the movie is based on was made well before President Bush. So if the Virus was an allusion it makes alot of sense to be with relation to Hitler Persept 06:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if its anti-bush, its a great movie! I love George W, and I love this movie. --66.218.11.146 08:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As I state in one of posts below, the St Mary's monument is very similar to a famous one in Stalingrad. --MacRusgail 19:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

p.s. To say it is purely anti-Bush is a bit disingenous. There are references to Tony Blair and various other people in there. It's not solely about the USA all the time.

Banned?

Has the movie been banned or edited in Germany because of the swastika in the "Coalition of the Willing" flag?- JustPhil 14:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


No. It is absolutely legal to show swastikas in movies because movies are considerd art in Germany. This makes it legal. --84.172.232.245 12:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Der Untergang and Aimee und Jaguar both contain swastikas, but are popular (critical) German films, which have been shown on terrestial TV. --MacRusgail 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

James Purefoy

This article says James Purefoy quit the role because of problems with wearing the mask, but the article on Purefoy says he was "discarded" from the film when Hugo Weaving became available. Does anyone know which account is correct?

Critical Recepetion

An anonymous IP editor keeps changing this section to say that the film received "mixed" reviews. I contend that a 75% is a positive reaction, anything higher than that is amazing by Rottentomatoes standards. Please, whoever you are, stop reverting it back to say that it was mixed unless you can provide reasons beyond your own POV. Konman72 22:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I thought that this film was, as a film (but not as a thesis or something), pretty rotten but it is true that the RottenTomatoes rates it as 75% good i.e. well, and RT is the most objective 'review of review' AFAIK. So, while I would rate V as rotten, I think that it deserves to be said to be 'well recieved' or similar. I suggest therefore, in spite of myself, that "Due to the politically sensitive content of the film, V for Vendetta has been the target of both criticism and praise from political groups." should be changed to "Due to the politically sensitive content of the film, V for Vendetta has been the target of both criticism and praise from political groups, while being well recieved by critics in general"

British totalitarian party?

Guys, help me on this. Mention is made of the "British totalitarian party" but I haven't found a single reference on Google to such a political party. If it never existed, why is it treated as a factual trivia point? Jtpaladin 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Its talking about the movie. See here: Norsefire Gdo01 00:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank for the response but the link you gave me says that the comparison is made with the "British Union of Fascists". There is no mention of the "British Totalitarian Party". Additionally, the trivia tries to make a connection to a real-world issue by saying,
"The symbol of the British totalitarian party is an ancient heraldic symbol called the "Croix de Lorraine". It was adopted as the official symbol of General Charles de Gaulle's Free French Forces between 1940 and 1944. It was later used for various Gaullist political parties in France, notably the RPR (Rally for the Republic)."
So what I'm saying is that the wrong name is being used in the historical comparison to the film and then goes on to discuss Charles De Gaulle as part of a real-world person. In other words, they are mixing fact and reality and doing incorrectly at that. Does this make sense? Jtpaladin 01:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well Norsefire in the movie uses a sideways Cross of Lorraine. The Cross of Lorraine is associated with nationalist movements most notably the Free France movement. The Wachowski brothers or someone involved with this movie combined the realistic Cross of Lorraine with Nazi colors in order to create the Norsefire flag.
The closest real life example of a party similar to Norsefire is the British National Party which embraces the use of the English flag (a red cross on a white background)Gdo01 01:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way I changed the trivia point. It now says Norsefire instead of British totalitarian party.Gdo01 01:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well done on changing that trivia point. The Cross of Lorraine actually has various designs, so you may or may not want to consider adding that info as well. http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/lorraine.html As for the British National Party, it's not the closest real life example to Norsefire since, for one thing, the BNP is not pro-free market. That is the bedrock of any conservative political party. Consider:
The BNP is generally not regarded as economically right-wing, i.e., as having a strong belief in laissez-faire economics. Rather, the description of them as 'far-right' relates to their authoritarian policies, and beliefs concerning racial segregation [27]. The Thatcherite former Conservative Party Chairman Lord Tebbit has said on the BNP’s position on the political spectrum that having “carefully re-read” the BNP’s 2005 general election manifesto that he is “unable to find evidence of right-wing tendencies” believing it to be “pretty left-wing” in his opinion [28].
If you want a party that is closer to Norsefire, check out:

Of course not all of these parties would make an exact fit to Norsefire, but the left-wing parties are far closer to the kind of tyranny that was associated with Norsefire. The communist parties are certainly far closer to Norsefire, including the racism aspect which is not usually stated in their Party platform, however in practice, as in the former Soviet Union, there was not only anti-Semitism but White Russians always were placed first in all societal aspects. While this is a discussion best fit in a political spectrum forum, authoritarianism is merely a looser form of totalitarianism, where some private ownership is allowed. Both are left-wing idealogies. As for the film itself, I found it so laughable (especially the Koran issues) that I can't believe it received such a high rating in IMDB. Nevertheless, I appreciate your time and effort in correcting the trivia issue. Thank you. Jtpaladin 17:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

While we're quite sure you would like to believe this, the facts actually point to right-wing ideology; the fascist corporatism and Nazi symbology combined with the name (many neo-Nazi groups have some version of pro-Germanic psychopathology) 'Norsefire'.

Considerigg that Tebbit was always on the extreme right of the Conservative party, even at the height of Thatcherism, he is hardly a suitable arbiter of whether the BNP is right-wing or not. Nick Cooper 19:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Socialist Workers Party the same as Norsefire? Please, obvious troll!!! While these parties have totalitarian tendencies, all of these are lefty parties, which are homophile and multicultural, and not into Aryan mythology like Storm Saxon. Such groups bend over backwards to appease Muslims, even if it means contradicting some of their own stances when dealing with extremer ones. Hardly anti-Koran. --MacRusgail 16:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
p.s. None of you has picked up on the bleeding obvious. Norsefire = NF = National Front, a far better fit than even the BNP, even if it is defunct.

Trivia

If any of the following is verifiable and important, it should be worked into the article in the appropriate section. A bulleted list of "trivia" is not "Brilliant Prose", which we expect from a featured article. 19:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The symbol of the Norsefire party is an ancient heraldic symbol called the "Croix de Lorraine". It was adopted as the official symbol of General Charles de Gaulle's Free French Forces between 1940 and 1944. It was later used for various Gaullist political parties in France, notably the RPR (Rally for the Republic). It is also the symbol of the American Lung Association.
  • John Hurt, who played Winston Smith in the second film version of George Orwell's 1984, is cast as Adam Sutler who is essentially "Big Brother" in the world of V for Vendetta.
  • The scenes that take place in an abandoned London Underground station were actually filmed at Aldwych tube station, a branch from the Piccadilly line that was closed in 1994. The closed branch still contained tracks and current rails, allowing an operational train to be used.
  • The final scene was extremely difficult to film due to restrictions placed by the Metropolitan Police Service. The cast and crew were only allowed to shoot in the area near the British Parliament and Big Ben from midnight to 4:30 am. Furthermore, they were only allowed to stop traffic for four minutes at a time.
  • During the final scene when the soldiers and the protesters have a confrontation outside The Houses of Parliament the helmets that the soldiers wear are JT brand paintball masks.
  • Natalie Portman, who is an Israeli-American, had to work with dialectologist Barbara Berkery in order to perfect her English accent. Berkery has worked with many other famous celebrities, including Gwyneth Paltrow.
  • Although Guy Fawkes planned to destroy the Houses of Parliament in 1605, V and Evey destroyed a newer building. The original Parliament buildings were destroyed in a fire in 1834. The current buildings, which are on the same site, took 30 years to build and were finished in 1870.
Wow! I never knew! Thanks.
  • Among the features in the special edition's second disk there is an easter egg that is selected on the second page. It is a Saturday Night Live short involving Natalie Portman.
  • When V enters the television station, the audience is given a view of his black boots. He then opens his coat dramatically to reveal a vest of explosives. This pays homage to The Matrix, in which Neo enters a government controlled office building in a similar manner.
  • In the scenes depicting the story of Valerie, even though the year was 2015, the signs of protest showed the words "Bush is a.." cutting off the final word. These scenes were obviously actual filmed protests of the war in Iraq.
  • Evey tells V she played Viola from Twelfth Night when she was twelve. Natalie Portman actually did play the role when she was twelve.

Removal of Trivia section

A recent edit [2] removed the Trivia section, believing it to be unsuitable for a featured article. Personally, I think there's some interesting stuff in there. Is there a guideline in WP:MOS where it specifically states that Trivia sections are not encouraged? --Oscarthecat 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I replaced the Trivia section and i cleaned it up a little. It should be fine now. dposse 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It really isn't fine. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article? for the standards that these articles are held to. If there is non-trivial material that can be properly referenced, work it into the prose, but don't just dump bulleted-list fragments of random facts back into the article. Jkelly 21:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Jkelly, see Debbie Downer. --Haizum 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Jkelly, that's bullsh*t. Trivia adds to the article, it doesn't take anything away. Please discuss it before removing it again. dposse 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can't bring yourself to type a word without asterisking out a vowel, it probably doesn't belong on a Wikipedia talk page. Regardless, did you read Wikipedia:What is a featured article? This article was vetted as part of the FA process, and there is no consensus that a completely unreferenced bullet list of trivia is an improvement. Please take more care in updating featured articles. Jkelly 22:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This article was promoted as a FA w/o a trivia section. Debbie Downer isn't a FA. I say either merge it into other parts of the article, or get rid of it. - Mailer Diablo 22:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Trivia sections are perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia articles, and anyone who's edited Wikipedia for more than twenty minutes should be aware of the precedent for it. wikipediatrix 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
There is precedent for "See also" sections that contain every link already in the article, external link farms, barely comprehensible prose, one sentence WP:LEADs and all sorts of other things. Precedent doesn't equal our "best work". That said, if there is general agreement that people don't want this article to be governed by those requirements, we can bring it to WP:FAR. Jkelly 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
So there isn't a specific guideline saying a Trivia section is not encouraged. Also, I'm heartened to see that today's featured article Illmatic contains a Trivia section! --Oscarthecat 03:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no need to escalate matters over something Trivial (pun not intended), I've boldly merged the material into other associated articles and removed the duplicates (mentioned at other parts of the article). - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
So it looks like someone we know is wrong. Haizum 14:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The information in the triva sections may be encyclepedic, part presenting it in such as fashion is not FA worthy, this has been agreed on numerous times. If its valuable, write about, do not compromise the quality of this article with silly trivia sections. Soapyrules 10:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

refs 23 and 26

are blank. What's up with that? savidan(talk) (e@) 04:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Coalition of the Willing Flag

The coalition of the willing flag is inaccurate. The swastika in the movie is not turned at an angle like the one picutred, i.e. it doesn't look like the Nazi swastika. Can someone verify this?

The real nazi flag has the swastika turned at an angle, so I assume the coalition of the willing flag in the movie also does. If it doesn't then the Wachowski brothers didn't do their homework since the non turned swastika is a sacred Hindu and Buddhist symbol. Gdo01 23:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a screen capture here: http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?image=flagvw9.jpg

I guess you were right. I still wonder why the Wachowski brothers did that. A right-facing flat swastika represents strength and intelligence in Buddhism and represents evil in Hinduism. Maybe this could be it:"an upright black swastika outlined by thin white and black lines on a white disc (e.g., Hitler's personal flag, in which a gold wreath encircles the swastika; the Schutzstaffel; and the Reichsdienstflagge, in which a black circle encircles the swastika)"
Like I said, I don't know why they used that swastika considering the fact that most Nazi party flags use the 45 degree angle right facing swastika.Gdo01 23:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind it either, but it stood out to me the first time I watched the movie which is why I was suprised seeing it at an angle here, and went back to check. I don't do much editing here, so I'm not aware of copyright rules etc., but is it ok if I go ahead and change the flag picture with that screen capture?
The images says that the author created the image. The author on Wikipedia commons [[3]] is "Rabid Fish." Unfortunately, s/he has no Wikipedia account and was last active on Wikipedia Commons on June 20.[[4]] You could make the modifications and I'm pretty sure the original author won't mind since they just used elements of existing flags. You could do the same and call it your own work.Gdo01 00:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I was a bit unclear. I meant to use the picture I had linked to, which is a capture from the DVD.

Well, I don't have an account so I can't upload the picture. If anyone could upload the picture I linked to that would be great. I'm going to go ahead and remove the innacurate flag for now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.64.237 (talk • contribs) .

Sex Pistols references?

Should it be noted that there are two Sex Pistols references in the movie? 1) The "God Save the Queen" painting in Deitrich's collection 2) The robber in the covenience store shouting "Anarchy in The U.K." after taking the money.

Trivia

Can people please not start trivia sections. This has been talked about, and it really has no place in an encyclepedic article, let alone one with FA status...Soapyrules 10:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Broken references

Someone has likely deleted information that used an original reference, and as such, the subsequent references to that source are now broken. It is sources 23 and 26. Someone will have to dig through older revisions of the article to get the original source back...Soapyrules 10:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

DVD ==features"

I thought it curious that the single disc edition has a menu item for "features" but when you click on it you only get one "feature", a short video on the making of of the movie. "Features" suggests there is more than one feature, if you get what I am saying JayKeaton 16:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


breakfast

While V is characterized as a romantic freedom fighter in the film, he is portrayed as an anarchist with questionable tendencies in the graphic novel. He neither cooks breakfast for Evey, nor is he concerned about the loss of innocent life and is instead portrayed as something bizarre.

i saw the movie last night and i distinctly remember evey being made breakfast by V, she even mentions it at the gay-tv show guy's house when he makes her the same thing.Qrc2006 02:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In that sentence, they are talking about the graphic novel, in which V does not cook breakfast for her.- JustPhil 11:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

1812 Overture

It was foolish of me to ask which part of the overture plays when the Old Bailey explodes. You can't play the crescendo without fireworks or blowing something up (usually). However, the soundtrack music at the opening credits (during the logo part) and part of V's TV speech appears to be the very beginning of the overture.- JustPhil 11:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Plot

People please dont make the plot too long. Its an encyclepedia, not a fan site, its not appropriate to make it so long. Please try to keep it as short as it is now. Sunrise50 08:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:V_for_Vendetta_(film)/Archive_5&oldid=967193703"