They should make another V-For Vendetta Movie...

The resolution stands that "they" should make another "V for Vendetta" film. I shall argue from the con position, saying that "they" should not make another "V for Vendetta" film. By "they", I am assuming my opponent refers to the community of filmmakers and studios who are capable of producing a big-budget film and marketing it to a large audience. Moreover, by producing "another" sort of these films, I am assuming my opponent refers to the plot, characters, themes, and settings of the "V for Vendetta" film released in 2005, such that a second film of this kind might be aptly named "V for Vendetta 2". I shall look at my opponent's contentions and then offer my own line of reasoning against the resolution. From what I can tell, my opponent offers the following contentions to support his position: (1) the "V for Vendetta" film was good; (2) the story left its audience hanging at the end; and (3) the film, and a possible sequel, have political relevance to current events. For contention (1), the notion that the original film was aesthetically pleasing has little bearing on whether a sequel should be produced. There is absolutely no guarantee that sequels can even come close to matching the quality of their predecessors, looking at a contemporary history of filmmaking in Hollywood. In fact, history shows that great single-film franchises often set too high of expectations for their sequels to match, and the sequels suffer from this. Each film is to be looked critically upon by itself and not by its place in a sequence of films. That being said, just because "V for Vendetta" was good does not mean a sequel that answers your questions will either (a) answer your questions in a satisfactory way, or (b) be entertaining or as insightful as its predecessor. For contention (2), if the story left its audience with some questions, that is perhaps because the writers (the Wachowski brothers, who of course know how to write great films) left it to the audience to think about. Every great piece of literature or film leaves its audience to question or imagine what takes place after the events portrayed. This is a key element to making people remember the film long after they have seen it. If these questions were answered either at the end of the film or in a subsequent film, people will forget the project or see it as irrelevant to current events. In fact, a major goal of the Wachowski brothers in screenwriting the project was to make it more relevant to a 2006 audience, removing elements of anarchism from the script(1). If we see the post-V for Vendetta world, we cannot apply the things we learned from the V for Vendetta world to our own, and the film looses relevance, which leads into my next point. For contention (3), the principles above still apply. If a sequel is produced, we lose the impact that V for Vendetta had on a popular audience. Instead of comparing Chancellor Sutler with George W. Bush, we instead see Chancellor Sutler as an unreal character. "V for Vendetta" made for such a great story because it drove two things together: an activist working for sociopolitical change, and an activist working for a personal vendetta. The ending of the film resolves both conflicts. A sequel, then, would be nothing more than a deus ex machina for the first film, which many sequels fall victim to. The conflict of a second film, with all of the conflicts from the first resolved, would likely be arbitrary and irrelevant to the first. Sequels should only be produced for films that leave plot conflicts open. "V for Vendetta" was not constructed like "The Matrix", where conflicts still required resolution. And just a side note, I find it interesting that "V for Vendetta" "basically represents everything that [you] agree with and stand for", when you identify yourself as an Obama Democrat, an administration that promises to increase the size of government and its influence in the American economy by printing and pumping paper. I would recommend checking your premises. Now, I shall move to some of my arguments against producing a "V for Vendetta" sequel. My primary argument is that "V for Vendetta" was based very strictly on a very successful and very intelligent comic series that I personally enjoyed much more than the film. The film actually covered all 10 parts of the comic series, and while leaving very important parts of the story out, completes the saga of V before its finish. A sequel would be yet another betrayal of the comic series. My second quip with a sequel to the film is that the sequel would most likely be a direct-to-DVD title, with probably none of the original cast and crew involved. This means a very low-quality, low-budget film that no one will enjoy in the slightest. It will be purely a moneymaking endeavor for the studio, and not for unimaginative fans that want answers to seemingly provocative questions. If I could, I would recommend reading the book. Unfortunately, the comic book franchise does not have more than one story. It is a single graphic novel, adapted by the brilliant Wachowski brothers, to screen. To create a sequel, the studio would hire some hack screenwriter to concoct some god-awful story that no one cares about. In closing, my argument boils down to this: a "V for Vendetta" sequel would neither be a quality addition to a decent film nor satisfying to its audience. It would butcher the comic series even more, and ultimately leave a black mark on the first film. If the film did not quite answer all of your questions, I suggest you read the graphic novel for more insight into the plot and characters that the film represented one-dimensionally. By the way, in 2006 there was indication that Warner Brothers might attempt a second film(2). --------- (1) = http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) = http://www.darkhorizons.com...