Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/Archive 5

message: This Article needs a better criticism section, the current section needs expanding. It seems a tad bit biased. Zerath13
:No kidding. --Haizum 06:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism.....or lack there of.  

message: Isn't it kind of appropriate that V for vendetta is a FA on guy fawkes night? Richardkselby 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be done a lot - I know Night of the Living Dead was FA on Halloween this year. Applejuicefool 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uhh... yeah

message: I saw this website about a sequel. Is it true & should it be commented on this site?
www.darkhorizons.com/news06/060401b.php
: I doubt it. Moore doesn't want anything to do with this movie; he said so in an interview. This article quotes it. Besides, there was no sequel to the graphic novel, so they wouldn't have any source material.
Looks like an April's Fools Joke.
: I sure hope it's a joke. It would be stupid. All that would be left would be for Evey to make the final leap for England, to bring about true anarchy, or the "land of do as you please," as V so eloquently put it. There would be little more of interest, except to see Evey claim V's place, and maybe to see Dominic take Evey's place (assuming that Evey took up the mask and took in Dominic... I don't remember the end of the movie very well. Just the novel.). Ravenicus451 00:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel 

message: *It is also worthy of note that the references to the political leaders profiting from selling the treatment to the "pandemic" disease are allegorical. Donald Rumsfeld, the current Secretary of Defense of the United States, was Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences from 1997-2001, and he remains a member of the board today. This places him in a strategic position to profit from the Bush administration's decision to purchase $2 billion of Tamiflu, a treatment medicine for avian flu.
:Again, totally laughable attempt to connect irrational points to this film. The best comparison to the biological experiments in the film would be to the Nazis and the Soviets. Trying to connect Donald Rumsfeld is absurd. Jtpaladin 16:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the film attempts to glorify the Gunpowder Plot which was nothing but an attack on England sponsored by Catholic forces, primarily Spain, because England rejected Papal domination of its' country. Jtpaladin 16:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Alan Moore was wrong about the lack of ability to survive a limited nuclear war as he was in much of his bizarre political thought throughout the story. In the film, the comparison of the "Coalition of the Willing" and "Nazism" is just more laughable nonsense. Jtpaladin 16:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This really needs to get added back into the article, and the novelization article needs to be expanded (this blurb says more about the novelization than the article itself).  I haven't read it so I don't want to go editing it, and I'm not sure where in this article the novelization belongs.  I am adding it to the adaptations section of the main V for Vendetta article, however. Lord Bodak 13:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned points comments

message: Ok, we can def not end the article with this. I say we merge it into the differences section, just write at the end how there is one and briefly talk about V's escape from Larkhill etc. Its just random. We should merge it into diff.section - but not create a sub-heading, just merge. Thoughts? Cvene64 15:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the whole thing needs to be removed into the talkpage, until we can figure out what to do with it...  it's not going to grow much bigger than it is already.--P-Chan 17:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without the novelization, the article looks cleaner now.--P-Chan 00:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon pondering over this whole Novelization thing.... I think it may only end up being a wikilink somewhere, or a See Also.  It's a little hard to incorporate.--P-Chan 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: V for Vendetta was one of the first movies in a long time to peak my interest to actually see it in the theater, not once, but twice.  Shortly afterward, I reaquainted myself with the graphic novel.  For his sake, Alan Moore should be greatful anyone would be able to make sense of his works, let alone be so invoked to to put them on the big screen.  I deeply admire integrity, and Moore has that.  But he seems to lack a real understanding how you present an idea at the right time.  When the graphic novel was first published, it was relevent for the time, but as governments and societies change, the same theme will be lost upon people.  Asked many high school of college students who Margret Thatcher was, and you'll get, "Who?".  Thatcherism, as it is termed, has past.  But the story can still hold value if it is changed to fit modern times.  And the movie does just that, keeping with the basic ideas while adding elements that make it more plausible and interesting for the moderen masses.  In fact, contrary to Moore, the movie is far more realistic than the original story.  Moore views the movie villains as caricatures, but the opposite is true.  Moore uses very stereotypical images for the villains, such as a heavy set and pompus Prothero and 'un-named' Leader, business poster child Creedy, and burnt out and ragged Finch.  Various element of the books are caricatures, if not down right silly and unbelievable.  The movie fixes many of these problem, untilizing actual people instead of editorial cartoons.  The 'leader' has a name, Prothero is arogant, but realistic,...in general, the characters are more crisp in the movie.  V is is less of a mental patient and more of someone with a genuine vendetta, someone who is actually human.  The change of Evey from prostitute to working girl makes the relationship between she and V even more interesting, since the viewers will less likely see both of them as outcasts.  The movie Evey represents a far more logical personna to which the viewers can relate to the story, stepping into her shoes and really absorbing the experience.  The novel Evey is the more stereotypical tragedy girl and not too believable, at least not today.    The graphic novel strays a lot and can be hard to follow.  The subplot involving Almond seem trivial, even though Moore tries to justify it at the end.  Eliminating it from the movie allows the viewer to focus more on the prime theme of the movie, the politics...cont.
*It's very true that the graphic novel was a child of its time, and likewise the movie is a child of its own time. That way, it has an impact on the world around it, instead of reiterating old themes that are no longer current. There are no "right" or "wrong" interpretations of the story, and Moore is certainly entitled to his opinion. For me, the movie works better as a commentary of contemporary issues. --Agamemnon2 08:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie vs. Graphic Novel 

message: Whats everyones view on this? It doesnt have to be there, and righth now it is the poorest section of the article, its really just a trivial list. Cvene64 07:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree when you say it sticks out like a sore thumb.  It probably will be added eventually once we see all the special features and directors comments, but right now it certainly can be removed.  Your call.--P-Chan 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'm just worried that it is not really of the quality that the rest of the article is. Also, I just want to say that a DVD section is not by any means a necessary part of a film article. So yeah, I'm justs not too sure we should include just a date and special features. Also, we should consider how the article is going to deal with awards and nominations in the future. But yeah... Cvene64 08:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD section

message: 100px|left
V for Vendetta is a 2006 action-thriller film set in London in a not-too-distant future. The film follows V, a freedom fighter who uses terrorist tactics in pursuit of a personal vendetta and to force sociopolitical change in a dystopian Britain.  The film is an adaptation of the graphic novel V for Vendetta by Alan Moore and David Lloyd.  V for Vendetta was directed by James McTeigue and produced by Joel Silver and the Wachowski brothers, who also wrote the screenplay.  The film stars Natalie Portman as Evey Hammond, Hugo Weaving as V, and Stephen Rea as Inspector Finch.  The film's release was originally scheduled for November 5 2005 (Guy Fawkes Night), but was pushed back to March 17 2006. Due to the political content of the film, V for Vendetta has been the target of both criticism and praise. (More...)'''
I edited this on the requests page before I saw the discussion here. This version reworks two fo the sentences and removes a few of the details which belong in the into, but not on the main page necessary, in my opinion. It really shouldn't be much longer than this, if past TFA's are any indication. Comments? savidan(talk) (e@) 05:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shorter version

message: This was recently added:
Characters and events are changed, switched or omitted. In the film, Lewis Prothero was a radical television personality that dealt outpersonal opinion on a racist scale on television, inciting people to be wary of foreigners. In the graphic novel, however, Mr. Prothero, the Voice of Fate was unseen on television, leading the public to believe that his was the voice of the computer Fate.
Also in the graphic novel, Mr. Prothero was not killed in his home but was kidnapped by V and subjected to a reconstruction of Larkhill Detention facility and is driven mad by the destruction of his vast doll collection. In the film, no mention is made of his dolls, and he is killed in his home, however it is possible to see some of his dolls in the sequence in the shower.
Near the end of the film, Creedy kills Sutler and his men then fire on V. In the novel the omitted character Rose Almond, kills the Leader (who is named Adam Susan in the novel) as he steps out of a car to speak to the public and Eric Finch mortally wounds V in a showdown in the underground.''
I remember that a lot of this info was removed in the past, as the section got really massive. Someone may want to re-write/edit some of it. Cvene64 08:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes to differences

message: We can't have too many images for the plot? I just posted three new images. Please don't come down on me for this! They said that Lost wasn't good enough because there were no screenshots.- JustPhil 14:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Phil, I'm sorry, but I removed the three new images, only because they come under fair-use, and the image situation on here was quite controversial, and thus, just the one image was decided upon for the plot, and subsequently, the rest of the images were allocated throughout the article,which all have fair-use rationales. The current images (one in plot etc) was one of the passing conditions at the FAC. Cvene64 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC and images 

message: Isn't that more similar to The Wave than the 1984 slogans, as the article states? 
Strength through discipline, strength through community, strength through action!
Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith.
What do you think? Joffeloff 20:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Strength through blah blah' 

message: I agree (I have no idea if there was another discussion) that 2020 cannot be the time of the film. In the novelization, Finch states that "he has been a party member for 27 years". Unless, they have an altered timeline of the past before 2006, this means it is not 2020.- JustPhil 13:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We discussed this before and thought it was closer to 2040.  Unless we can verify 99%, we can't say the date.--P-Chan 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the Valerie Story on YouTube. She states that her first film was in 2015. Valerie and Ruth have a wonderful relation for three years. Then America's wars in the Middle East cause chaos in England. They unleash the bioweapon, hold the Reclamation for some time, and then there are, according to the novelization, 14 years of oppression. Yes, it is closer to or is 2040.- JustPhil 22:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with the 2040 timeline, but I'd also say that being DC Comics, it's probably set in an alternate universe and point out that it could thus be any given year, even in our time frame (i.e. it could be set in 2006) if it wasn't explicitly mentioned otherwise in the movie.. --Streaky 20:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of the film 

message: Also, the novelization pretty much describes the political scene in beautiful detail. America begins a bunch of wars in the Middle East and China, tries to develop bioweapons to the point that lead to England pulling out of NATO before the government launches its own bioweapon.- JustPhil 15:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: heh - BF2 (yeah, sorry, totally irrelevent) --Streaky 20:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political scene 

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

message: I haven't watched the movie, but one of the categories lists this film as having an LGBT theme to it. Can anyone explain what this is? Thank you. Artemisboy 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The state oppresses homosexuals, "Voice of Britain" mentions this close the the beginning of the film. We find out later that Stephen Fry's character is a closeted homosexual who fears for his life. We also hear Valerie's tale; she and her girlfriend are executed by the state for their homosexuality. V and Evie are both sympathetic to Valerie and Fry's character's plight as, it would seem, are many of the people who protest against the state. --Oldak Quill 04:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also read somewhere that the comic book was rejected, or downplayed, because comic-book publishers (DC?) were not interested in a gay terrorist. I think that this assertion can be found in the wikipedia comic book article.In other words there seems to have been a suggestion that V was gay in the original? He was definately hetro in the fim. Was Evey a terrorist in the original? In any event, being gay, or realising that one is gay and accepting it seems to be part of the freedom from bondage, dominance, idea of this film. It is not made entirely clear but when V tests Evey in his dungeon, it seems that she comes to realise that she is gay (a lesbian) too? Or not?--Timtak 01:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Theme? 

message: The article says that it happens roughly 20 years from now. That's quite vague, since there are enough facts in the movie to determine the exact year. The lesbian woman who wrote the autobiography (kill me, I can't remember her name) says she met her last partner in 2015. She goes to say they had a "wonderfull three years together" before being taken by the police. That puts her arrest at 2018. Now, we know that V was imprisoned at the same time as her in Larkhill, and near the end of the movie, he says he's been "waiting for this day for 20 years". 2018 + 20 = 2038 (not even counting the time V spent at Larkhill, although that was probably short). That's about 32 years in the future , well off the "roughly 20 years" mark. 
So if noone minds, I'm going to change the article accordingly. And it's not original research since it's in the movie. Anyone needing reference just needs to see it and pay close attention. xompanthy 01:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also plenty and plenty of dates in computer files.  just wait a week for the dvd and then get pausing!  Morwen - Talk 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some anon changed it back to the '20-ies. Why don't they ever read the talk pages, or the HTML comment for that matter? xompanthy 20:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Is it mentioned that the St. Mary's Virus is an allusion to something? I know we are not allowed to have "original research", but I think it is clear that the bioweapon is an allusion to the Reichstag fire. After the fire, Hitler blamed the Communists and assumed complete control of Germany. After the virus, Sutler blames Islamic extremists and assumes complete control of England.- JustPhil 14:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha not it isn't. The whole movie is anti-Bush; the virus is alluding to 9/11 conspiracy theories. And oh, what a rhetorical device it is! If this fictional government attacked its own people, the United States did too. I love how the author of the original series said this movie was a joke. Haizum 02:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not all anti-Bush. There are still allusions to the Nazis in there.- JustPhil 11:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the inception of this film predate 9/11 conspiracy theories?--Timtak 01:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: But the comic which the movie is based on was made well before President Bush. So if the Virus was an allusion it makes alot of sense to be with relation to Hitler Persept 06:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if its anti-bush, its a great movie! I love George W, and I love this movie. --66.218.11.146 08:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Mary's Virus 

message: Has the movie been banned or edited in Germany because of the swastika in the "Coalition of the Willing" flag?- JustPhil 14:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Der Untergang and Aimee und Jaguar both contain swastikas, but are popular (critical) German films, which have been shown on terrestial TV. --MacRusgail 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banned? 

message: A recent edit 
 removed the Trivia section, believing it to be unsuitable for a featured article.  Personally, I think there's some interesting stuff in there.  Is there a guideline in WP:MOS where it specifically states that Trivia sections are not encouraged? --Oscarthecat 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I replaced the Trivia section and i cleaned it up a little. It should be fine now. dposse 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really isn't fine.  See Wikipedia:What is a featured article? for the standards that these articles are held to.  If there is non-trivial material that can be properly referenced, work it into the prose, but don't just dump bulleted-list fragments of random facts back into the article.  Jkelly 21:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jkelly, see Debbie Downer. --Haizum 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jkelly, that's bullsh*t. Trivia adds to the article, it doesn't take anything away. Please discuss it before removing it again. dposse 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't bring yourself to type a word without asterisking out a vowel, it probably doesn't belong on a Wikipedia talk page.  Regardless, did you read Wikipedia:What is a featured article?  This article was vetted as part of the FA process, and there is no consensus that a completely unreferenced bullet list of trivia is an improvement.  Please take more care in updating featured articles.  Jkelly 22:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This article was promoted as a FA w/o a trivia section. Debbie Downer isn't a FA. I say either merge it into other parts of the article, or get rid of it. - Mailer Diablo 22:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Trivia sections are perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia articles, and anyone who's edited Wikipedia for more than twenty minutes should be aware of the precedent for it.  wikipediatrix 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is precedent for "See also" sections that contain every link already in the article, external link farms, barely comprehensible prose, one sentence WP:LEADs and all sorts of other things.  Precedent doesn't equal our "best work".  That said, if there is general agreement that people don't want this article to be governed by those requirements, we can bring it to WP:FAR.  Jkelly 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So there isn't a specific guideline saying a Trivia section is not encouraged.  Also, I'm heartened to see that today's featured article Illmatic contains a Trivia section! --Oscarthecat 03:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I see no need to escalate matters over something Trivial (pun not intended), I've boldly merged the material into other associated articles and removed the duplicates (mentioned at other parts of the article). - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it looks like someone we know is wrong. Haizum 14:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The information in the triva sections may be encyclepedic, part presenting it in such as fashion is not FA worthy, this has been agreed on numerous times. If its valuable, write about, do not compromise the quality of this article with silly trivia sections. Soapyrules 10:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Trivia section 

message: are blank. What's up with that? savidan(talk) (e@) 04:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  refs 23 and 26 

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

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

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

message: While V is characterized as a romantic freedom fighter in the film, he is portrayed as an anarchist with questionable tendencies in the graphic novel. He neither cooks breakfast for Evey, nor is he concerned about the loss of innocent life and is instead portrayed as something bizarre.
i saw the movie last night and i distinctly remember evey being made breakfast by V, she even mentions it at the gay-tv show guy's house when he makes her the same thing.Qrc2006 02:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  breakfast 

message: It was foolish of me to ask which part of the overture plays when the Old Bailey explodes. You can't play the crescendo without fireworks or blowing something up (usually). However, the soundtrack music at the opening credits (during the logo part) and part of V's TV speech appears to be the very beginning of the overture.- JustPhil 11:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1812 Overture

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