Jump to content

Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/Archive 7

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

Section "Differences between the film and graphic novel"

I hope I'm not offending anyone here, but the section Differences between the film and graphic novel seems like it was written by someone who had just learnt the proper usage of the word "whereas". Some variety would be nice. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Assessment

This article was listed for an assessment to upgrade to B class. Although the article is very close, and I commend the interest in improving the former featured article, there are still a few things that need to be done before reaching B class: *The plot needs to be reduced in length. Currently it's sitting at over 1,200 words, and it should be somewhere around 400-700. See WP:FILMPLOT for guidelines.

  • For an article of this length, the lead should have another paragraph. Make sure each section of the article is touched on, and it won't be too difficult to expand. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
  • The article for the most part is very-well sourced, but there are a few sections that could use additional citations including the "Home media", "Music", and the "Tie-ins" sections.
  • There are a few one or two-sentence paragraphs throughout the article, be sure to expand on these or incorporate them into another paragraph to improve the flow of the article.
  • Some of the citations need to be better formatted (some are only links). Try and include the author, title, publication, date, access date, etc.
  • There are numerous links that are dead. Consider using the Internet Archive to fix them.

Altogether, this article is mostly in good shape, but some changes are still needed. Please address the above issues and then again ask for a reassessment and I or another editor will take a look. Although not a requirement for B-class, it would also be helpful to pursue additional sources from journal articles and books for the themes section. Consider using Google Scholar & Books to aid your research. If you have any questions about the points raised above, please let me know on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC From Wiki project Films

The current plot for V for Vendetta (film) is at 1200 words. I have made several attempts to condense this but I do not believe that it can be reduced to the 400-700 word range that is customary.--Iankap99 (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Looks like someone dealt with this. Doniago (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Title

The first line says "V for Vendetta in the United States/United Kingdom, V de Venganza in Latin America"

Is it really necessary to say what it's name in Spanish is? We can't translate the name of every film in Wikipedia into every language. Foreign language names belong in foreign language versions of Wikipedia. Since the film wasn't made in Latin American, why is it's Latin American name notable? McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Add guy fawkes prologue in the plot segemtn

Its true there was a guy fawkes prologue in the film that tells a meaning about fawkes failure and how it leads to the legacy to V by accomplishing his fulfilling task blowing up the parliment it even has a woman felt pity on him if you dont believe me look at this video link:[[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belrien12 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The addition is overly wordy (lots of "the film does this" junk) and barely makes any sense. I don't feel that prologue is really necessary to understand the plot in terms of a Wikipedia summary. If others disagree, that's fine and I hope someone will construct a nice concise version that has some semblance of sentence structure. Millahnna (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is an argument to be made that knowledge of the prologue is essential to understanding the primary events of the film, I have yet to hear it. Doniago (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): ; b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): ; b (citations to reliable sources): ; c (No original research):
  • Please correctly format reference #36.
-Done--Iankap99 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Please fix reference #58.
Web archive does not have any sources for this, I removed the ref.--Iankap99 (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I moved the reference "V for Vendetta – Graphic Enough? by Kurt Jacobsen" to "Further Reading," although it doesn't quite seem to fit there or as an external link. Ideally it should be worked in as a reference. It needs to be properly formatted or else removed.
I formatted it properly (I think)--Iankap99 (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Please provide additional references for the Marketing section.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): ; b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): ; b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Congratulations on a very well-written article! I will be happy to award GA status once the minor edits above have been completed. Review on hold for seven days to allow these issues to be addressed. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to fail this article within two days if someone doesn't take some kind of action to redress the one remaining issue identified in the review (or at least tell me they are working on it). It's a pity because this article is so close to GA and absolutely deserves it with just a few minor fixes that I am not able to make myself. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on it, the sales numbers are somewhat hard to find, I'll source more statements and let me know if it's good. then.--Iankap99 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I see a ref improve banner on the Soundtrack section, and a red link in the External links section. BollyJeff || talk 21:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Almost there - we just need to deal with the Soundtrack section and then the article will be ready to go! - Lemurbaby (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I source the entire section to the amazon soundtrack article?--Iankap99 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any reason why not. I say go for it. If another reviewer wants to weigh in with another opinion after the GA has been awarded, we'll respond to those concerns as they're raised. - Lemurbaby (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good idea, usually amazon is not seen as a reliable source. I think that the prose is mostly original research, it explains where the songs appeared in the movie. The soundtrack section should contain information on either how the music was created or selected. It could also explain how well it sold, when it was sold, and if there were any other interesting facts while it was it being recorded. --Peppagetlk 06:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay so that section needs to be rewritten per these suggestions. Anyone want to give it a try? -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
OK I will give it a try --Iankap99 (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Iankap99, thank you for your hard work to bring this article to GA. I noticed in rereading that there are a number of points where it is indicated that citations are needed. I also added two more today. Would you please read through the entire article and find an appropriate reference for each of the points where a citation is needed? Then this article will be complete. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I fixed most, the rest I can't find sources for. Feel free to remove the statements if you see it fit.--Iankap99 (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This is looking excellent. We're almost there. I'm going to allow the links to amazon.com for now, and if anyone else finds "better" links to prove these points about related merchandise, please feel free to improve the references. I noted that more recent links haven't been archived. This can be done using Webcite, and once that's complete, all the citations in this article that have a link to a website need to add the "archiveurl" and "archivedate" fields. Then this article should be ready to go to GA. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I substituted the Warner Bros' website for the amazon.com links, not the perfect source but far better. Otherwise I think this article is looking fantastic. Browsing through its long history, I notice a pedigree but it has never been so deep or polished. Hearty congratulations to all involved. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm going to award this article GA. Although references will need to be archived before it can be raised to FA status, the current reference information is adequate for GA. Congratulations to everyone involved for all your hard work. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"libertarians used this as a conservative statement" is POW (United States)

"Libertarian" and "conservative" are only synonymous in the (somewhat two-dimensional) US political debate. In the rest of the world, these two terms have two distinct meanings. Treating them as synonyms is POW. I'm removing the word "conservative".


Oops, I forgot to sign. And I meant POV, not POW. And I meant one-dimensional, not two-dimensional. Unplugging 06:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Occupy movement resource, Businessweek.com

http://images.businessweek.com/slideshows/20111222/occupiers-and-evicters/slides/6 Occupy: Protesters donned masks of the 17th century English revolutionary Guy Fawkes. In doing so they padded profits at Time Warner, which owns rights to the ­image from its 2006 release V For Vendetta

99.190.86.5 (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Props for Norsefire Troops/Analogies to Nazi Regime

Perhaps the article should note that although this is a near-future film, the troops are carrying H&K G36 rifles, which in layout itself are outdated while modern British forces carry bulpup L86 rifles. Also, the choice of German weapons is perhaps another analogy to the Nazi German regime, while the V symbol is perhaps derived from the V for Victory campaign is Occupied Europe circa WWII? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.241.155 (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be original research and synthesis. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
yeah, i think the producers just picked stuff at random - what a load... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

England prevails?

Does this mean that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland left the United Kingdom or was it just ignorance on the directors part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.206.185 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

having just watched most of it before finally giving up, i'd say it is hard to underestimate the ignorance of the director or anyone else associated with this movie's production... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you quite understand the film.......it's not real and it's set in the future......ever heard of devolution, nationalism and fascism? Cls14 (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Release Date

V for Vendetta (film) was released in 2005 (IMDB source). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.131.138 (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was shown at a festival in Dec 2005, but theatrical release was in March 2006. The 2005 date is mentioned in the infobox. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Date format

I note that this British film carries the US date format (ie. December 11, 2005), rather than the preferred British version, (which would be 11 December 2005). Does anyone have any valid objections if I bring it in line with the correct format? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't, so long as you change all the dates. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
All done, I think. I caught a couple of US spellings and terms in there too, which are now more British. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Set in the year 2020?

Simply, this is impossible. We know from the film that Valerie starred in The Salt Flats in 2015 and then had "3 years of roses" with her partner Ruth before being captured and imprisoned at Larkhill where she was held in the cell next to V. After her death, V destroys Larkhill and escapes. Before his death, V tells Evey that it took him 10 years to clear the tracks to Parliament, and that he's been "waiting for this night for 20 years." This suggests the earliest possible date for the events of the film is 2037-2038. Perhaps taking all this information from the film borders on OR, but nevertheless I think it's clear that the 2020 date cannot be correct. I'm going to remove it on this basis. Stile4aly (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well he could be including 10 years BEFORE his escape from Larkhill so the earliest could be 2027, but then 2020 would still be incorrect. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
If you own a copy of the film, you will be able to pause the film at the times the characters are viewing information on computers regarding previous events. Near the middle of the film, Inspector Finch and/or his assistant are viewing material on the computer which firmly places the events at Larkhill in 2016, the election of Norsefire and Adam Sutler in 2015, and the St. Mary's Viral Attack in 2014. This placing of St. Mary's in 2014 also coincides w/ images showing that Evey's parents were arrested in 2015 at an anti-Sutler riot in Leeds, and considering Evey's recounting of events saying, "After my brother died, my parents got political," this makes perfect sense. Characters at least more than once refer to St. Mary's occurring "14 years ago", thereby placing the bulk of the film in 2028, with the detonation of the Old Bailey occurring on November 5, 2027. The only piece of information I've encountered which may even potentially conflict with this course of events involves Valerie. She claims to have met Ruth in 2015 and to have spent "the best 3 years of my life" with her, until they were captured and Valerie was sent to Larkhill. This would place the events at Larkhill in 2018, but prior information shown on Inspector Finch's computer clearly states that Lewis Prothero, Bishop James Lilliman and Delia Sturridge were employed at Larkhill in 2016. Hope this all helped haha Liberal92 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
It's possible the events of Larkhill took place over several years. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Political perspectives on V for Vendetta

I like the commentaries currently presented here, which include anarchist, LGBT, and other perspectives, including an interesting note on censorship in China. I believe however that David Walsh's commentary currently under discussion should be restored, because that perspective will be of interest to readers, and because there is no consensus against notability (the reason the commentary was removed). -Darouet (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Critical Reception discrepancy

The very first sentence dictates that the reception for the film was generally positive, but then spends a whole paragraph enumerating several negative appraisals of the film by respectable critics.

Either the person who compiled this list has projected their own appreciation of the film onto critical trends, or the section is just poorly written.

If it was generally positive, then obviously more positive positions should be detailed. --96.228.233.42 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct names for Credits

Having no idea as her wishes, I'm curious if anyone has input on whether or not articles on past movies should be changed from crediting "Larry Wachowski" to "Lana Wachowski"[1]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.14.79 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The credits in the film say "Larry". The article should reflect that. In the event Warner Bros ever goes back and does a definative vision which changes it to "Lana," it can be noted. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I changed it. Someone changed it back. I think it is rude towards Lana Wachowski. Why can't you do it like this: "Lana Wachoski (back then known as 'Larry') ..." at the beginning of the article and refer to her as Lana in the rest? Judith Sunrise (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Mention of Norsefire?

Is there actually any mention of the name "Norsefire" in the film? I assume this it's specified in the comic, but where is it anything but "the party" in the film?

Peter Isotalo 13:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't remember a particular line of dialog but the newspaper shown of the party victory during V's disguised story to the cop shows it is called Norsefire. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 13:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Most of those who have seen the film are unlikely to have noticed this unless they are very attentive (or have read the graphic novel). I think it would be more appropriate if it was referred to mainly consistently as "the party" in the plot summary but with mentioning that it's actually called Norsefire.
Right now it's a summary catering very much to dedicated fans of both film and graphic novel. And it's even edging a tad towards the description of Norsefire as a real political party...
Peter Isotalo 16:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The Misgendering of Lana Lachowski Absolutely Needs to Stop

To continue to refer to a transgender person by their birth name when speaking of past events and/or early work is both extremely transphobic and inaccurate. Lana Wachowski is a woman and should be recognized as such. When you speak of a transgender person's life and their accomplishments, you should ALWAYS use their current name, gender pronouns, etc even when you are discussing events that occurred prior to their transition. Yes, she went by "Larry" at the time and yes she was recognized as being a part of of the "Wachowski Brothers" but both have since been renamed out of respect for Lana's transition and the credit should be given to the current name of the individual and current title of the group. At the very least, the name on its own should be changed in each article from "Larry" to "Lana." To leave it as it is now would be blatantly transphobic, disrespectful, and harmful. As someone who is transgender and as someone who has taught multiple month long courses about the transgender community, I feel I know what I am talking about much more so than a group of cisgender (non-transgender) individuals who most likely have had no personal experience in dealing with the transgender community. Unless you can show me evidence that Lana Wachowski herself wishes to be referred to by her birth name and be recognized as being a part of the Wachowski Brothers when speaking of her early work, I believe my suggested changes to be valid.

I see absolutely no reason to give credit to old names and titles (other than stubbornness and/or hostile feeling towards the transgender community) that no longer exist, especially when you are linking said names and titles to the Lana Wachowski and the Wachowskis' individual pages. Tristianjjm (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Good luck...Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive 48#Describing transgendered individuals seems to have the matter discussed at length. If you want to raise it again you'd likely have to start a new thread at WT:FILM, and I don't think you'll change the consensus. DonIago (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hoods and Brazil

The article says that the violent arrests by secret police, using hoods, is an allusion to Abu Ghraib. Isn't there also the possibility that they allude to Brazil (1985 film), where the regime also sends heavily armed police to arrest people, who then bag them and transfer them to torture facilities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.176.188.16 (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Gordon Dietrich's death and resurrection

While I was watching the movie on Cinemax, I noticed a scene where Gordon Dietrich was beaten and then executed by Peter Creedy. However, at the end of the film, I noticed him alive and wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. I just don't understand how Gordon could've survived his execution. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That scene isn't meant to be taken literally. DonIago (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Alan Moore

Why is Alan Moore denoted as "uncredited" in the credits, under Based On? Of course he is credited of having wrote the screenplay of the original graphic novel. - Filippo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.238.185.25 (talk • contribs) 14:00, November 29, 2015‎

The official WGA credits (available here) and the film's onscreen credits do not list Moore. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Soundtrack and Russian Theme

The 1812, which appears at critical moments, and the Dies Irae ['last judgement' the rum-pum dum-pum dum-pum bom-bom theme], are elements of meaning: combined, they are eschatalogical. The perverse misuse of religious language by Norsefire is contrasted with the [unspoken, unsung] words to the tune that plays as the broadcast speech opens, familiar to anyone who knows Russian church music: 'O Lord, sa-ave Thy people'. It matters, just as the leavetaking scene mirrors a similar scene from Kazantzakis in "The Last Temptation of Christ".Cyranorox (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Royal Family

In the film there is no mention of the fate of the Royal Family. Does the book say what happened to them following the takeover of Norsefire?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

-They were probably killed by the Norsefire, like the Czar and his family in Russia during the Russian Revolution. --Signed by GreatBritain1843 —Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC).

The Graphic Novel (set in 1997) mentions Queen Zara celebrating her 16th birthday (thus Zara Philips). Catiline63 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Sovereign opens Parliament on November the 5th. No Parliament [the body]; we are to conclude there is no Sovereign at that time.Cyranorox (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Plot

The plot section refers to "... Valerie Page (Natasha Wightman), who occupies a nearby cell". However, isn't the premise that Page was a previous occupant of the cell Evey is now in? —BillC talk 22:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No. The cell Evey is in was created by V. The cell Valerie was in was at Larkhill. It's a re-creation. DonIago (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I've changed it to read "a former prisoner", which is a bit facetious under the circumstances, but also true in a manner of speaking. DonIago (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware that the cell she's in in a replica created by V. My point was that the hole in which she finds the rolled-up diary entries does not appear to be a tunnel to an adjacent cell. Rather the it appears to be a hole in the wall and the notes placed there by its previous occupant. Yes, they were placed there by V in reality. —BillC talk 07:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I always read her to be the prisoner in cell IV, but I don't believe it was ever explicitly stated either way. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I was under the impression that V places her in the cell he himself was in, but I agree that I don't think it's explicitly stated, and even if it were I'm uncertain that it's important to understanding the plot of the film. DonIago (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on V for Vendetta (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Wachowskis" Vs "Wachowski brothers"

There seems to be inconsistency in the article, which was reverted when I tried to correct it. They are refered to as both "Wachowskis" and "Wachowski brothers" at different points in the article.

Now I'm not up for a fight over which is correct, more which is to be used. I've read through this but surely once a decision has been made, it should be broadly applied through out the entire article, infobox notwithstanding? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, nobody has seen fit to comment in the last 12 days, so I've gone ahead and changed the relevant entries from "Wachowski brothers" to "Wachowskis", which is deemed acceptable. Note that I'm doing this because in the article there are (were) three instances of "Wachowski brothers", and six instances of "Wachowskis" - this is not some attempt at a gender crusade, but consolidation of use of terms in the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with "Wachowskis" being more suitable. However, someone seems to keep reverting it, again and again. Seems like an all out edit dispute. --Ifrit (Talk) 20:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before[2] and my understanding was that the decision at the time was to credit them here as they're credited in the film. I don't have much of a horse in this race beyond that the situation should be discussed and a consensus reached, not simply changed without discussion given that it's been contentious in the past. DonIago (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Prior consensus (linked above) was to reflect what the film credits actually show. If you check the DVD box or watch the film, it was written and directed by the Wakowski Brothers. If the page must be updated to reflect Larry's current GI (which I don't think is appropriate for this article), then I think it should be handled the same way as, say, Richard Bachman books like The Long Walk: "Lana Wakowski as Larry Wakowski". Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty ridiculous to keep calling them "The Wachowski Brothers" at this point. They're both women and I think most people know that. It just seems a bit silly. 50.5.121.175 (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, unless they release a special version of the film and change the credits, it would seem a bit silly to misrepresent the credits. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
More important not to misrepresent the credits than to misrepresent the people who deserve that credit? 2602:306:CD66:2F0:94FE:BAB7:587A:F93A (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The article's about the film, not about the people behind it, and the credits are linked such that those curious about the people can learn more about them. DonIago (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Good point, DonIago. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I started this thread over two years ago - and the reason I did so (as I was at pains to point out) was not for any gender reason, but because there was no consistent usage in the article. There still isn't! They are referred to as both "Wachowski's" and "Wachowski Brothers" at various points throughout the article - in fact both terms are used in the same sentence at one point: "A novelisation of the film, written by Steve Moore and based on the Wachowski Brothers' script, was published by Pocket Star on January 31, 2006. Spencer Lamm, who has worked with the Wachowskis..." I removed the term "brothers" simply because at the time it was the term less used. Nobody else saw fit to comment, so I changed it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I think when referring to them as they were credited at the time, they should be called the "Wachowski Brothers". However, when we're just discussing them in the Production section or what-not, Wachowskis seems reasonable to me. DonIago (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Would it not make the most sense to do what the imdb page does, for example, and put something like “The Wachowskis (as The Wachowski Brothers)” or “Lilly and Lana Wachowski (as Andy and Larry Wachowski)” so you are both respecting the artists themselves AND the credits of the film, at the same time? This is similar to how other “reality vs credits” differences are handled, for example someone involved with the film who isn’t credited may have a “(uncredited)” tag after their name. B-RyeO12 (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I would support this. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on V for Vendetta (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on V for Vendetta (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

British English?

As this is not a British film, why is British English used (some of the time) and why are we using British date formatting? This has been discussed on the talk page previously, but that was a few years ago, and it bears repeating that this is not a British film. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The change was made by User:SchroCat, who appears to be retired from Wikipedia. I don't oppose reversing it, so long as it's consistent. The comic book article has the same issue - the lead identifies it as a British graphic novel despite being an American publication by an American company and features 6 instances of "colour". Argento Surfer (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the source material's "nationality", the comic is primarily by two British creators and the majority of the story was initially published in the UK before being reprinted and completed in America. Whether this should influence the style used by this article is another matter entirely.IrishStephen (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Well it certainly isn't an American film by any stretch of the imagination. It's set in Britain, filmed in London and Berlin, stars primarily British actors, is directed by an Australian, based upon a graphic novel by two very British authors, it's fundamentally about Britain and follows a line of utopian/dystopian literature begun by Sir/Saint Thomas More in 1516 (who subsequently rose to the office of Lord High Chancellor of England) which includes such notable British works as Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and Orwell's (Blair's) Nineteen Eighty Four. It couldn't be more idiosyncratically British unless the Wachowskis decided to reassign their nationality along with their sexuality. As for the date format, THE ENTIRE INTELLECTUAL WORLD EXCEPT THE US and its virtual colonies uses the international date format established in Europe, not just Britain. It is the only date format used in the academic world. As for the language and spelling, the language is English and Wikipedia is multinational, not uniquely American. How English authors decide to spell their own contributions is entirely up to them - not some old Jacobite. Still stung by the losses of 1746 are we? Is it rightfully a Scottish film then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.8.78 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The Wachowskis vs. The Wachowski Brothers

For their pre-name-change films, it seems like a consensus has formed to use "The Wachowskis" in the opening paragraph and "The Wachowski Brothers" in the infobox. This is how it is done on the article for The Matrix. I want to apologize to Argento Surfer for making this change without discussing it first or explaining my reasoning. I do still think the change makes sense to enact, however. What do other people think? Becca (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking through, I found this RfC. You can undo me if you'd like - I was unaware of the change. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
OK thanks, Argento Surfer! :-) Becca (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
There was wider agreement that we use the name that a work credited at the time of its release. The Wachowskis have not said that they want the name "The Wachowski Brothers" retroactively changed on their pre-name-change films, and in fact that name remains on all of them. You should not go and make edits like this, removing or changing hidden notes that tell you to get consensus first. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I agree with you here, Gothicfilm, but I'm certainly open to changing my position! I'm curious how you respond to the RfC that Argento Surfer linked that states consensus was reached to go with "The Wachowskis" in the lead for articles such as this? I would also be interested if you can provide any link to a discussion where folks agreed that filmmaker names in Wikipedia articles should match the names that a work was credited to at its time of its release. I'd love to see such a discussion! Currently, I'm aware that it is Wikipedia convention to do this in the article's infobox but I'm aware of no such convention to do this in the article's lead paragraph. And in fact, the Wachowskis' most notable film, The Matrix, refers to them as "The Wachowskis" in the lead. This appears to have been the status quo in that article for quite some time. Why do you believe the V for Vendetta article should follow a different style? Anyway. . .I love the Wachowskis as filmmakers, but just to clarify: my position here has nothing to do with what they may or may not want in Wikipedia articles about their movies. I am simply hoping thst my contributions here will render this article as clear and as accurate as is possible. It is true that at the time V for Vendetta was released, they were known as "the Wachowski Brothers." This is reflected in the Infobox on V for Vendetta. Currently, however, these filmmakers are known as "The Wachowskis." This is how they are referred to in the Wikipedia article about them, in the lead to the Wikipedia article about their most famous movie, The Matrix, in current news articles about them by reputable sources, in write-ups of their movies on imdb.com and Netflix, and so on. I believe referring to them as the "Wachowski Brothers" in the lead of this article is outdated and confusing, even if it is consistent with how their name still appears in V for Vendetta's credit sequence. Wikipedia is a present-day encyclopedia, not a historical manuscript. Becca (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Respecting and preserving history is one of the most important functions of all encyclopedias, including present-day encyclopedias. Anyone confused by the name "The Wachowski Brothers" can click on the link to their article. This has been the subject of many discussions. If there had been project-wide consensus as you suggest it would have been done that way at that time. That didn't happen. No one should come months later and change content or hidden notes on much-discussed issues without getting a wide consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The issue has come up repeatedly across several talk pages, but I believe this was the biggest scale. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what other people think about this but as this is a question of identity and how the Wachowski's self-identify, I would be inclined out of respect for their identities to have The Wachowski Brothers removed and replaced with The Wachowskis. From an identity perspective, they were always female and so referring to them as brothers was always erroneous, whether anyone else knew it or not. Bjbeamish (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

They knew that from birth and chose to be referred to as brothers anyway? No. This is how they CHOSE to be credited and so it is how they SHOULD be credited. You don't rewrite history out of respect for someone's feelings, or by a "history is written by the winners" stance. Especially since you're speaking on their behalf without either being them or being able to back up anything you're claiming on their behalf. But even if they registered for Wikipedia, came on here and said they wanted to be referred to as Punk Unicorns, it wouldn't be the Punk Unicorns who made the Matrix, it'd be the Punk Unicorns who made anything from today. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
DWB is correct, and I'd like to add that your (Bjbeamish) thoughts would carry more weight if you didn't start by admitting a lack of interest in the thoughts of other people. Directly above your comment, there's 600+ words of what other people think, along with two links to other discussions about the same topic. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I feel strongly that the gender identity of the Wachowski sisters should be respected in articles about their work. According to the current Wikipedia Manual of Style, "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." Therefore, the incorrect gendered noun "brothers" should not be used. It's true that the Wachowski sisters are misgendered in the credits of the film, because they were not openly transgender at the time it was made. However, I do not consider a film's end credits to be holy writ. (Neither do most people, apparently - usually whenever I go to a movie, most people in the theatre walk out during the credits. :) Although, as an avowed film lover, I always stay to the very end.) Incorrect or pseudonymous credits are usually ignored in wiki articles. The end credits for the film Fargo, for example, list the editor as "Roderick Jaynes", a Coen Bros. pseudonym. However, the wiki article ignores this and names the editors as "Joel Coen / Ethan Coen". Nobody considers this to be "rewriting history" or declares that that Roderick Jaynes "is how they CHOSE to be credited and so it is how they SHOULD be credited." I'm in no way trying to rewrite history - I'm perfectly happy for the main article on the Wachowskis sisters to talk about their history and the fact that they are trans women who were both assigned male at birth. What I do want is for the sisters and their identity to be respected, because it's the right thing to do. As a nonbinary person who is dating a transgender man, I know first hand how much it can mean to a trans person for their identity to be respected, and how much it can hurt when it's not. In our society, trans people are far more vulnerable than cis people - as a group they're far more likely to attempt suicide and far more likely to face violence, and this stems from a lack of societal love and respect. Somewhere out there there's a transgender kid who found out the filmmakers behind some of their favorite movies are trans. When that person browses articles about the Wachowskis I want them to see that the Wachowskis are respected and I want that person to know that they are worthy of respect. (For more guidance on writing about trans people correctly, check out The Radical Copyeditor's Guide and The GLAAD Media Reference Guide) WanderingWanda (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that if you're serious about changing this in general, you're going to need to initiate an RfC on the matter. In fact, that's almost a certainty given that there was at least one prior RfC on the matter. I wouldn't accept a change based solely on a Talk page discussion without significant editor feedback, in any case. DonIago (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Made one, as requested! Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis WanderingWanda (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment - How should we credit the Wachowskis?

Talk:The_Matrix_(franchise)#Request_for_Comment_-_Crediting_The_Wachowskis

Please give us your feedback. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Argento Surfer Please post that in the survey at the link above. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I did. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Just a few days left on this RfC and opinions remain sharply divided. Have any insight into this issue or good conflict resolution skills? Your input could be very valuable. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The footnote credit for "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers"

How the footnote should appear in relevant Wachowski film articles is being discussed at Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 3#Footnote implementation. Please join the discussion and weigh in with your thoughts and suggestions. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Genre

Can other editors shed some light on where the genres listed in the lead for this film are originating? I checked Allmovie and BFI and they didn't support what we currently have listed. I'll give it some time before I make any edits. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Differences between film and graphic novel

I'm currently expanding this section with objective, verifiable information taken straight from the comic and movie. However, it's getting erroneously accused of being "original research". It's NOT original research. Stop removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe it was at WP:FILM that a consensus was established some time ago that "differences" information should not be added unless sources have discussed the differences. If nothing else, every film adaptation will differ from the source material, and it is not for us to make our own determination as to which differences merit being mentioned. Hence we rely on sources. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring by IP

If there are other editors who believe that this edit is appropriate, please let me know. My feeling is that this is adding original research, and that the IP responsible for adding the material has thus far deigned to provide a rationale for their edits. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The IP tried to start a conversation in the section directly above this one... Argento Surfer (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
And it looks like the IP has responded to various template warnings on their talk page. Am I missing a conversation where you explain to the IP (without a template) what OR means here? Otherwise, I see you biting a well-meaning newbie and getting them blocked. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I may not have been as courteous as I could have been, but I undertook no actions to get them blocked, unless you're counting leaving them messages at their Talk page and here. FWIW I also apparently missed that the comment above this thread was made by them. If you're going to assume good faith of the IP, perhaps you might do me the same courtesy? DonIago (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Apologies if you feel I didn't. TBH, I was expecting you to point out something I missed. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

This film takes place in 2020 (not in 2032 as a user changed it to say on June 9th). 2600:1700:8461:29F0:8D00:4ABF:4CC4:F96C (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

under plot please change "In 2020" to "In 2032". The source for the year saying its 2020 is not reliable if you go to all the past versions before June 14th of this year the year is 2032, I can't believe you let someone edit it without checking to see if that source is legit. 166.70.52.11 (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Question: Another request above requests the year be changed to 2027 or 2028 - Is there a definitive answer here? --allthefoxes (Talk) 09:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: Duplicate request. If the correct date is 2032 then an investigation with better sources will reveal this; no need to have two of the same open. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Under Plot, the year the film takes place is incorrect

The film can not possibly take place in the year 2020, due to numerous context clues throughout the film. 1) When Eric Finch and Dominic Stone go to Evey’s apartment, Finch sees Evey’s old BTN ID card on her mirror. The expiration date on that ID is December 2024, and it is already expired, so it must be at least past that date. 2) In Lewis Prothero’s military records, it states that he was put in charge of the Larkhill detention facility in 2016, meaning V could not have arrived at the facility prior to then. It also says he received a reward for bioscience research in 2017, establishing the St. Mary’s virus as occurring in 2017-2018. 3) in Valerie’s letter, she states that she met her girlfriend, Ruth, in 2015, and they were together for three years before her imprisonment at Larkhill. Therefore, her letter to V could not have been written before 2018, meaning 5 November 2018 is the earliest V could have escaped from Larkhill. 4) In a newscast Evey sees shortly before the end of the film, which takes place a year after the beginning, the St. Mary’s virus is stated as having occurred 14 years before. By the timeframe the movie establishes, that could not possibly have been 2007, as St. Mary’s was created at Larkhill, which opened in 2016. 5) V states that it took ten years to clear the tracks below Parliament. As his escape from Larkhill occurred no earlier than 5 November 2018, the ending of the movie can be no earlier than 5 November 2028.

Assuming that St. Mary’s was unleashed on England at the end of 2017, and V escaped Larkhill on 5 November 2018, it is loosely established that the movie begins on 4 November 2030 and ends on 5 November 2031. 108.53.71.106 (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

✗ Not done This request duplicates a discussion already underway in an above section. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Change from:
In 2020, the world is in turmoil and warfare
to:
In 2027, the world is in turmoil and warfare

That the Plot section of the Wiki article be updated to not reflect that the film is set in 2020. The current reference being used to state that the film is set in 2020 is from the article 'Dystopia' with a capital V[2] which is not a referenced piece by Roger Ebert, but only an opinion and review of the film, and doesn't accurately reflect details that are apparent in the film. The first example of this can be seen at 16 minutes and 14 seconds into the film. There is an image of a computer record being accessed by Inspector Finch, of Evey Hammond, which states 

Jan 2021, JRP Wycombe Unit 789 
Workplacement by Juvenile Workforce Prog.
JORDAN TOWER TELEVISION CENTRE
Employed as a Personal Assistant

This record specifically refers to when Evey had been put in workplacement to work with Gordon Deitrich, which has occurred before her introduction in the film.

Also, as per a response to the question "What year was this movie set in?" in the FAQ on IMDB [3]

2027 and 2028. About 1:30 into the film, the news anchor mentions the St. Mary's terrorist attacks "14 years ago." In the following scene, the detectives discuss two covert intelligence agents who suspiciously died "the day after" those attacks, and the computer screen reads their deceased dates as 06.05.14 (May 6th, 2014). So the film ostensibly is set from November 5th, 2027 to November 5th, 2028.

Please see about updating this, as having the article refer to the year 2020 will only mean that people will try and use this for Memes and jokes that appear to make it look like V for Vendetta is real and relates to the worlds current situation.

  1. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/matrix-director-sex-change-larry-wachowski_n_1720944.html
  2. ^ Ebert, Roger (March 16, 2006). "V for Vendetta movie review & film summary". RogerEbert.com. Retrieved 15 June 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ "V for Vendetta (2005) - Frequently Asked Questions - IMDb". IMDb: Ratings, Reviews, and Where to Watch the Best Movies & TV Shows. Retrieved 15 June 2020.

Griffmiester (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A review of the scenes referenced from IMDB shows that it is correct. The movie is clearly set in 2027/2028. I agree that this is the final answer and the article should be updated. Theyoyomaster (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous

I don't see the relevance of the Anonymous section under the heading "Reception", since there is no reference to Anonymous having made any comment on the film whatsoever. I suggest delete it completely.--Shantavira|feed me 14:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed; as that section is currently written, I have no idea why or how it belongs in this article. Editors who wish to retain it should rewrite it to draw a direct line between the group and the flim. DonIago (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Date

The article summary states that V for Vendetta is set in 2020. this edit changed it recently and then it's gone back and forth. While the virus in the film started in 2020, the film was set in 2032. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.226.195 (talk • contribs)

Can you provide any information to support your claim, such as when in the film it's stated that the virus starts in 2020? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Checking the edit history, 2032 was the status quo prior to January 2020. I've restored it and added a source. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Beat me to it; I concur with your change. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted back to 2020, all reliable sources I could find mention "set in London 2020" and only Wikipedia mirrors and self-published content (possibly citing Wikipedia) mention 2032. 2032 was inserted in November 2018 by what appears to be a date vandal. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Rewatching the movie tonight, 2032 seems to match better but there isn't anything specific to that date that I've found yet. The flashbacks to the story from the detention center states that in 2015 Valerie met Ruth and then they were both taken by the government after 3 years together. This would put the very beginning of the actual V story arc at 2018. Meanwhile it would seem that Norsefire's rise to power and the situation in the movie would have taken longer to happen due to things like inspector Finch stating he was a party member for 27 years. Additionally, in the scene where Finch is reviewing Prothere's file he states he was one of the richest men in the country before becoming the Voice of London and the info on his screen states that Prothero bought stock in Viadoxic in 2020 and at some point later has been working for the BTN for four years. This would imply that the absolute earliest year the movie could be set in was 2024 (36:51 in the movie). The only other timestamped thing I found is another screen grab from Finch's computer showing that Father Lilliman's position has been Bishop from 2020-present. I think it is safe to definitively say the movie is not set in 2020. While 2032 is a feasible setting, I am yet to find anything that specifies that exact year but it for sure isn't 2020. Theyoyomaster (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Based on the discussion below it appears that the year has been definitively locked down to 2027-2028. Does anyone else have any thoughts on it before making the change? Theyoyomaster (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
If people don't want to cite IMDB that's fine but the rogerebert.com article is directly contradicted in the film. For a page about a movie, said movie should be the ultimate primary source, especially over a movie critic's article. Screenshots easily prove 2027/2028 as the setting so what is the consensus on the best way to cite that?Theyoyomaster (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone have any inputs on either citing IMDB or just considering actual dates visible on screen during the film to be a primary source? If no on else chimes in it would seem there is consensus here. It simply can't be 2020 since it is directly contradicted by the film itself. Theyoyomaster (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't support using IMDb per WP:RS/IMDb, and given that we're even having this conversation, I'd prefer a source other than "dates visible on screen" only because sometimes dates shown on screens in films aren't as thoroughly vetted for accuracy as they should be. DonIago (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not ideal but the dates on the screens are all consistent and point to the same answer. The bottom line is this is a page about a movie and the movie itself presents the answer to this question. A single source of a movie reviewer claiming a date that directly contradicts hard facts from within the movie shouldn't count as the "official" answer simply because rogerebert.com is arbitrarily considered "more academic" than the primary source itself. The desire to use secondary sources shouldn't extend to arbitrary sources (Roger Ebert had nothing to do with the production of the film nor does he cite any sources for his claim of 2020) that directly contradict the primary source. Theyoyomaster (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not just Rodger Ebert. See also Wall Street Journal, Meridian Star, and New York Times. These are all from 2006. Note, the April 2006 version of the article did mention being set in 2020 once in a "differences from the graphic novel" section. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It's still directly contradicted by the primary source. Other than the filmmakers chiming in one way or another I don't see how it can be reconciled that they are not in line with what is shown in the film. Would the plot section get changed to say that Evey dies at the end simply because a reputable source claims it and then it is repeated? Maybe "set in the 2020s" is the best way to compromise between both since it matches both the movie and the articles.Theyoyomaster (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The year isn't significant enough to be obvious in the film, so I don't see a need to put the year in the summary. I think the current version is fine. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I would be inclined to agree except for the meme going around with the incorrect year. People see that and come here to verify it so if the movie itself shows it being in a different year and it becomes relevant. I would bet that a large portion of recent traffic to this page is simply to verify what year it is set in, otherwise I would completely agree "near future" is all that is actually important. Theyoyomaster (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
If it becomes relevant, I'm sure a modern reliable source will let us know. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Date revisited

The "2027" date strikes me as WP:original research. If the date is not clearly stated in the movie, there is no need to mention it in the article. I'm going to remove it. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Phrasing

"the film centres on V (portrayed by Hugo Weaving), an anarchist and masked freedom fighter who attempts to ignite a revolution through elaborate terrorist acts, while Natalie Portman plays Evey, a young, working-class woman caught up in V's mission and Stephen Rea portrays a detective leading a desperate quest to stop V."

Shouldn't this be written as "... a revolution through elaborate terrost acts, while Evey (portrayed by Natalie Portman), a young, working-class..." The way it is currently written sounds like Natalie Portman is a character in the film.

I don't have the ability to edit it since it's semi-protected. So if someone else feels the same and can, they should. 98.19.56.89 (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Setting

FATE (V.O.) 

                   Good evening, London.  It's nine
                   o'clock, the fourth of November in
                   the year 2019 and this is the voice
                   of Fate broadcasting on 275 and 285
                   of the medium wave.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpascoe (talk • contribs) 08:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

https://www.imsdb.com/scripts/V-for-Vendetta.html

That script is obviously not the one for the final film and as such no better than any other fan theories. If you search for it on the site, it will even tell you that it's an early draft. Regards SoWhy 12:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:V_for_Vendetta_(film)/Archive_7&oldid=1241862434"