V For Very Soon to Film - Page 2

If the tag line on that teaser poster is legit, doesnt that indicate the film will be keeping its english setting?
As for the line meaning nothing outside of England, it means something to me. Im not in England. Dont you people read? Is history really that boring?

Here's my big problem with all of this:

If its a good movie (solid story, a well written script, a well acted and directed film) then Americans don't need to be familiar with the ins and outs of British culture or political history. What we need to know will be conveyed to us onscreen. I don't need to have a background in the field of memory or consciousness to enjoy and appreciate the concepts, themes and underlying points in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I don't need to have any knowledge on Howard Hughes or the time period he lives in to enjoy the Aviator, get a real sense of the world at that age, or understand, emphatize with, and be horrified by Hughes' problems. If the film is built well, the story comes through. And if there are parts that Americans just won't get...well, everyone on this thread "gets" them, dont they? How did you all come by this knowledge?

I first read "V" when I was 14. I had NO interest in history, much less British history at that point, and yet, I found something compelling in the book that pushed me back to contemplate its meanings, research its ideas, and grow to appreciate the sophistication of Moore's storytelling. Given everything i've heard, from Portman's involvement, to the Wachshowski's producing, to the first image seen, this appears to be heading in a thoughtful, faithful direction. Of course, that assumption may be proven wrong. It may end up dissapointing completely. But all signs point to the movie heading in a faithful (and thus, to me, the "right") direction. Say what you want about the Wachowski's - they aren't afraid to challenge their audiences intelligence. Whether the movie will be GOOD is still anyone's guess and no one's guarantee. But faithful? Even the TAGLINE is uber-British.

And for those curious about said tagline, I offer this semi-breif summary, courtesy of Colleen Muran:

Why do the English celebrate the day that their Parliament was nearly destroyed?
On the 5th November, 1605 in England, a group of Catholics who were unhappy at the way they were being treated by the laws of the day, conspired to blow up King James 1 and his Parliament in London.

One of the Catholics, Thomas Percy rented a cellar beneath the Palace of Westminster, and he, Guy Fawkes, Francis Tresham and others stashed away 36 barrels of gunpowder in readiness for their crime.

They were found out when Francis Tresham sent a letter to his brother in law Lord Monteagle advising him not to attend the Opening of Parliament.

Led by the 1st Earl of Salisbury, the gunpowder plot was discovered and Guy Fawkes was arrested as he entered the cellar. Some of the others escaped, some were arrested later and thrown into prison, some turned King's Evidence and told the names of the others involved.

Guy Fawkes himself was tortured until he revealed the names of his associates and he was hanged, drawn and quartered in 1606.

Wags down the ages have said that he was "the only man ever to have entered Parliament with honest intentions."

Unfortunately the incident meant even more difficulties for the English Catholics as the laws against them were made even tougher.

To this day, Guy Fawkes Night or Bonfire Night as it is often known, is celebrated every year in England on the 5th November.

In the week before the celebration, children stuff old clothes with newspaper and fashion a head out of anything they can find to make a Guy, they then display it with pride and ask passers by for 'a penny for the Guy'.

Soon after dusk on the 5th November at school playing fields, in back gardens, at town recreation sites or anywhere else that people can gather to build a huge bonfire and shoot hissing, popping, cracking fireworks into the night sky, the dastardly deeds of almost four hundred years ago are remembered and effigys of Guy Fawkes burned.

I like that look of the mask. It hearkens back to the comic, but adapts the look of it to film.

I'm not so sure about Portman, though, but as long as she's not taking "Where the Heart Is/Anywhere But Here" style roles, it's cool.

Actually, the comic is kind of an ensemble piece. Evey is critical, but she doesn't interact with most of the plot. In many ways, the story is about the villains. We have a hero whose identity is hidden even from the audience, whose story is told in flashback from the perspective of the villains as they try to figure out who he is. Evey either isn't around yet [for the camp flashbacks] or is hiding in V's lair for a really significant part of the action. It will be interesting to see whether the final script allows the experiences of Finch, the Leader, the doctor, etc. to actually drive the story, as in the comic, or if it will be reworked to allow for a traditional "protagonist's-eye view" of the events.

My favourite part was the interrogation scene, simply blew me away when I read it, shows the true power of comic book medium. Wonder how it'll appear on the big screen. I've got faith in this, with Wachowskis producing, though I wish they were directing, they've got the enthusiasm for comics and the ridiculously high attention to detail that is needed in this story.

Is this animated? Because the mask looks pretty cartoonish-looking.

whats V FOR VENDETTA about?

I saw a film once.

It was a film adaptation of a famous British comic character who always wore a mask. It was directed by a hotshot young director. It had fabulous production values, beautiful sets and costumes, and was almost slavish in its devotion to the subject matter. It had a fine ensemble cast and a recognisable lead.

What could go wrong, right?

Anyone who has seen Judge Dredd will tell you...

Saying Judge Dredd had slavish devotion to the source material is as great a distortion of the truth as you're likely to find.

Stallone's Dredd had absolutely NOTHING to do with the comic, apart from the basic concept and character names.

Robocop was a far more accurate adaptation of Dredd.

A very odd viiglante takes on the powers that be in a totalitarian future. In a sentence, that doesn't sound impressive at all, but it is one of the best comic stories I've ever read.

I don't have a problem w/ the Wachowski's, and I'm not even sure I have a problem with a V For Vendetta adaptation. I love the story, but whether or not some tool fucks it up in a different medium is their problem.

I'm beginning to lose all interest in whether or not a filmmaker does right by comic , novel, or original film, it really doesn't ruin my love for the original incarnation, so why should I care?

I can't imagine Hawthorne rolling over in his grave w/ the Demi Moore lead version of "The Scarlet Letter", because no one really gave a shit anyway. I suppose a desire to see comics legitimized in the mainstream is what is behind a lot of the ire when it comes to adaptations, and i'd love to see that happen myself, but I'm certain that we all realize that Hollywood is not the bastion of artistic integrity, just the *sometime* host.

Hear, Hear!

I'm with you, Jknife. I got upset recently at New Line pulling the religious content of The Golden Compass, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it doesn't change the book. And if it gets people to read the book, and discover the thematic stuff New Line lopped off? So much the better.

Well this ain't good.

From Warren Eliis' mailing list: