Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/Archive 1

message: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." What part of the book is it out of ?--Brown Shoes22 04:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  People should be afraid of their governments... oh no its the other way around! 

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

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

message: Unless it is taking place in Berlin, then it is not being filmed on location. The article says "filmed on location in Berlin"--- the film takes place in London, thus was not filmed on location. It should simply read "filmed in Berlin."
:"On location" doesn't necessarily mean that the location of filming is the same as the location being fictionally depicted.  Star Wars was filmed on location in Tunisia, but the location being depicted was Tatooine. "On location" is usually used in contrast with "in studio". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Berlin 

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

message: ...that some conservatives in America are afraid of this movie?—This unsigned comment was added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) 12:16, March 15, 2006 UTC.
: Conservatives should not be afraid of this film, this film should be afraid of conservatives. I can see a bandwagon of censor-happy folks ready to pound this sucker into the groundFinite 03:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever hear the expression "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" ? I've seem this film, it does *not* glorify terrosim, it's blatantly a cautionary tale of what could happen if we all take everything we hear at face value. Anybody with any sense should be able to spot that, it's like modern day animal farm almost without the horses and pigs. 81.108.0.100 20:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  should we mention... 

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

message: Anybody else think it sounds like Neeson's voice reading
Creedy's line, "Do you know why you're here, Evey Hammond?"
in the original trailer (from the official website,
July 2005)?  Any reason to believe he was ever involved in
this project?
:Yeah it does sound like him now that you mention it. But as far as I know he was never associated with the film. Cvene64 10:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liam Neeson? 

message: Having seen the film, I was blown away at the strongly thelemic storyline and symbolism. VVVVV being perhaps one of the more overt symbols? Anyone else?
:well, since they refer to Crowley in the original graphic novel, the reference to OTO seems appropritae. Lowmagnet 02:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thelema in the Film? 

message: I believe that the core of this article should be reorganized to better provide the information that people would typically find informative.
1) Create a true summary/synopsis:
Currently, there is no synopsis in this article.  The closest thing that exists is the section titled "Differences from graphic novel".  While an important, I don't believe it should serve as the main core of the article, as the majority of the people who would see the film would not have read the original comic by Alan Moore, and thus see less relevence in it.  A synopsis is typically the core of most major film articles.  This should be written, and then followed up by a section on the differences from the graphic novel.
2) Add a section on Symbolism/Refernces/Influences:
Near the end of the article, there should be a section specifically dedicated to the historical and modern day references in the film, since they are such an integral part of the film.  There should an emphasis in particular on the modern day references, since these won't overlap with the Vendata graphic novel article.  Some of these include mention of the: "Coalition of the Willing" (direct reference to Iraq War), the "black bags" and orange jumpsuits the prisoners in Larkhill are wearing (most likely a reference to Abu Ghraib), etc.
That's my 2 cents.
--P-Chan 19:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Changes to this Article

message: This may be a silly question, but I'm dying to know: who is the composer or what is the title of the piece "V" plays during the destruction of the courthouse and during the demolition of Parliament? --AWF
I would like to see what and by who the end title music is. It doesn't seem to be on the soundtrack album, and I can't manage to google it up, either. -- Björn Lindström 11:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen the same question posted in a few forums, if I can dig up the answer I will let you know. Cvene64 12:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just got back home after seeing this at the cinema tonight, I thought 'V' clearly stated what the music was??? maybe I imagined it... quercus robur 23:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Music

message: Below is a bunch of quotes from the movie that I think sum up what I think:
Sutler:"I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want everyone to remember *why* they need us! "
(Sept 11th happens)
V(changed): "Remember, remember, the 11th of September. 
V: "Fear became the ultimate tool of this government. "
Finch(changed): "If our own government was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people... would you really want to know?"
(People think, isntead of being slaves)
Tagline: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
And perhaps the best statement was, as highlited in BOLD:
"An uncompromising vision of the future from the creators of 'The Matrix' trilogy" key statement there in BOLD.
Think of what I posted what you will. Furthermore go to IMDB and see the comments to see what people "really" think about the movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/usercomments
Edit this post if you like, thats fine, I will not try and post this message again. While I think this has to do with the movie, since this is the movies point, other may not agree. But I shall not argue about it. BestBuyBeast666 22:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remember, remember, the eleventh of September. 

message: Who is V. What is his background
:There is some discussion on Talk:V for Vendetta. Mrtea (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: V and his background

message: Given that the 7 July bombings happened during the shooting of the film, can the fact that there is a bomb on the underground (subway) really be said to refer to them?  Surely it is more of a coincidental link than an actual reference. — Paul G 13:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pure coincidence. The original story has the bombs in them. So unless Alan Moore peered some 25 years in the future, it wasn't due to the bomb scare.--Toffile 17:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's what I thought.  So how many of the so-called references stated in the article were in the graphic novel (whether or not they are in the film itself) and do not refer to actual events (even if they could be seen as foreseeing them)? These should be removed from the article. — Paul G 10:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: there's alot of archive footage used at various times in the film - the fact they used that is coincidental, but they obviously chose it because it was bombings of london --Streaky 22:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference or coincidence? 

message: I don't think the taglines should just be thrown at the top of the article as they are—they are really out of place there, and disrupt the flow of the article. I personally think they should be removed entirely, as they're not important information (they're just marketing terms that don't add much to the background of the film), but if they must be retained, I think they should be placed in a section near the bottom—either their own section, or a trivia section, or something like that. I very much disagree with their seemingly random placement in the opening paragraph of the article. – Mipadi 16:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote a little about them into the marketing/release section, but I think that should be the end of it. Lets try and avoid a trivia section. I did not metnion the Only verdict is... as I don't know that was even a tagline? Anyway, they have been talked about/mereged into that section. Cvene64 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of taglines section 

message: In the final scene, Steven Fry takes off his mask, I thought he was dead... Any ideas? This film has more plot holes that a fish net, I can understand why the author hated it, though it was very entertaining.  -- Tompsci 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the "Errors" section.  The reappearence of dead individuals in the last scene has already been discussed. Fightindaman 00:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I went to edit my post and you had already replied. :P -- Tompsci 00:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm... 

message: Under casting there is a story about why Hugo was used instead of James.  However, in the James Purefoy article, there is a different story about why Hugo was used instead of James that seems to contridict the first story.
Who was the first choice for the V role?  James or Hugo?
I think we need to find some references on this.
--P-Chan 18:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard that version on James' page. I will also look for some sources, as we dont want to say he was replaced by Weaving or whatever, if its not true. Cvene64 12:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I can't find anything support the story on the James article either.  It sounds like James quit or was let go, and then Hugo took the role afterwards (which is what we have down).  So it should good.
Cheers!
--P-Chan 19:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two different "James Purefoy" stories

message: More anti-Bush, anti-American leftist political garbage? Sure, it was a novel, but one cannot dismiss the timing so convenient for the left. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.46.133.119 (talk • contribs) 22:13, March 19, 2006  (UTC)
:Or how about we reserve the debates over politics for other, more appropriate fora, and use this talk page to discuss the encyclopedia article about the film?  Just a wild thought. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the film does have a lot of political content and has caused discussion in the media, it's appropriate for us to discuss how that should be covered in the film's article.  I'm just worried that people will get distracted by arguing over the politics themselves, to the detriment of the article.  But I don't want to censor anybody, just encourage what I think is best for the encyclopedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I want to censor you all. No seriously though - what will come out of it will be fan fiction - there's clearly no direct reference to american polotics at all, except the genious bit of writing at the start, and that's hardly what you'd call noteworthy. Why does everything always have to be about americans? There's clearly important stuff in there - the banning of the quran, the split uk/us flag, whatever, but a discussion about how people with no intelligence got scared? come off it. 81.108.0.100 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:NOT - "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". 205.188.116.202 05:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How about we call this what it really is?

message: Errors
* Throughout the movie, a girl with large glasses is shown. When V delivers masks to everybody, she is shown running down a street with it on and getting shot in the back by a Fingerman. She falls over, presumably dead. However, later when Parliament blows she is shown with her family, perfectly okay.
-- This is listed as an error, but I did not perceive it to be such upon seeing the film: a few characters said or thought to have been dead show their faces at the final climax, and it seemed to me that their supposed "deaths" were misdirections. In the case of the girl with big glasses, her being shot was during a rumination of Det. Finch, and the montage ended with him stating that he did not know what was going to happen, that it was just a "feeling".
Thoughts?
207.145.216.38 21:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you don't see that person's face in the actual film — the image on the article page is probably from the actual shooting rather than from the film proper (that is, in the film the image was cropped so you couldn't see the face of the person doing the shaving).  Perhaps we should have a note about that in the image caption, though? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should do that or change it to something else.  If it's not a movie pic, then I personally don't think it should really be in the synopsis.--P-Chan 06:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think V was the only one imprisoning Evey, or at least the imprisonment didn't actually happen. It's definitely not V who kidnaps (after she climbs out her boss's window) initially. -- Rmrfstar 02:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And where do you get this from?  Both the movie and the comic are pretty unambigious about the fact that V was the one doing it.  There's not really any suggestion that he liberates her from a real jail only to put her in another one. Fightindaman 07:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look like it is V who kidnaps her outside Gordon's house, if you look carefully the eyes seen in the black balaclava are surrounded by red burnt skin like V's hands as seen earlier in the film. --Achmelvic 12:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors? 

message: This section seems to be growing and growing without too much structure.  (Also, there is quite a bit of material in that section that just doesn't belong).  In it's current state, it's rather cumbersome.  I think we may need to divide it up into a few sections just to make it more readable.  
Just as an example, these sections could be... character changes, background, setting, world, other changes, etc.  Anything that would allow a reader to skim through the materials and pick-out the relevent points.
That's my 2 cents. --P-Chan 21:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. I had a lot of it working at one point but people would add things in between and around and eventually it stopped really making any sense, just a lot of random lines often not related to one another. Sarge Baldy 08:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any ideas as to how to revive it?--P-Chan 05:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Differences from graphic novel" section seems too cumbersome 

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

message: A closeup of Old Bailey before it is destroyed shows the phrase "DEFEND THE CHILDREN OF THE POOR & PVNISH(with the 'V') THE WRONGDOER". At first I thought that the 'v' was just a reference for the character, spelling it that way instead of the usual 'punish', but in the photos of Old Bailey I have seen it does seem to be v. I am having trouble getting info on this. Can I get some clarification?
Also there is a device that Finch uses in the movie, when talking about the government using the virus on it's own people, that kind of looks like a cell phone projecting a red light. I am assuming that it blocks anyone trying to listen in, but I don't remember it being explained in the movie. Jynx980 08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From U, "U was originally a positional variant of the letter V, as I was of J, used only in lower-case writing and only medially, and representing both the vowels now written with U and the consonants now written with V. The use of the two forms to distinguish the consonants and vowels which they now represent was not standardised until modern times." Fightindaman 14:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pvnish The Wrongdoer 

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

message: Just noticed that the statement that Alan Moore doesn't like the screenplay is mentioned 4 times in the article.  That's a little much, especially considering it's not that relevent.  Just a observation...
--P-Chan 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: In the plot section it claims that Evey is actually imprisoned by V the whole time - I'm assuming that the cop who nabbed her was supposed to be V in disguise - and yet the photo next to the section clearly shows someone who is not V shaving her head. So is this accurate? I know the graphic novel says it was V the whole time, but the film seems a bit different, as if she was imprisoned by the police for awhile and then somehow V got her out or whatever. Confusing stuff. V4Victory 16:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a while, but if my memory serves me right, there were two (possibly three) "characters" interacting with Evey that whole time: the interrogator and the person with an american accent.  When I saw the film a second time, I absolutely sure that it was V the whole time in different disguises.  It fits in with what he did to Finch, his love of theater, etc.  (I have not read the novel, but I'm presuming that it wasn't obvious that it was V's place, until the scene ended.  And if that's the case, the film matched that.)
Now with the picture.. that's a publicity photo and arguably shouldn't be used here because it didn't really happen in the film (that there was a guy's face).  Just looking at it logically, Natalie had her head shaved for real there (one take), so it would make more sense to have a professional barber, than Hugo Weaving do the scene. --P-Chan 17:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I uploaded a new one. Hope thats okay by all. Cvene64 00:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This new one is better as it looks genuinely terrifying, whereas the other one just looked like she was unhappy.--P-Chan 02:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's relevant that Alan Moore vehemently rejects the film, but even more relevant are his reasons why, which aren't touched on so well at present. Sarge Baldy 02:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundencies