Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/Archive 3

message: A part of me thinks we should move and elaborate on Alan Moore's criticisms of the film into the reception area, paired up with the political reaction.--P-Chan 07:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do.  This article is definetly in need of a fresh set of eyes, with fresh perspectives, who voices opinions and makes changes.--P-Chan 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alan Moore's comments 

message: There is almost no information on the V for Vendetta Novelization, thus it may be more appropriate to have that information as a See also.  (It doesn't add much to the article).  Any comments or other suggestions?  --P-Chan 07:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, is there anywhere we could just mention it, because the seperate article is just kind of pointless. Maybe in the differences section..I dont know...Cvene64 07:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like in the promotions section or just a wikilink somewhere? Example: "As part of a pre-release promotion of the film, a Novelization based on the screenplay was released by Steve Moore V for Vendetta (novelization)".  Like that?--P-Chan 07:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wait.  I think I see what you mean.  We can put it into the differences section... and say that "the loss of detail from the process of the story moving to film, is reintroduced through a novelization by Steve Moore"... or something like that.--P-Chan 07:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, hmm, Im actually not sure. Both sound right to me. Its just, as it is, its just a heading that doesnt need to be there. Do what you think is best. :)  Cvene64 08:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novelization 

message: List of Minor V Characters
Should one be allowed - SGCommand
:Sure.  I'd suggest a title like V for Vendetta (film) minor characters. Or if you're catering for the film and the comic, then drop the (film) part. --Oscarthecat 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe have a section within this article called V for Vendetta (Characters).  <Like in the Lion King article>.  It would be very short and just a few sentences for each character.  This would be great once we shorten the synopsis a bit.--P-Chan 18:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thinking about this a bit more, I think there should be a list within this page.  The characters in the novel and film are fairly different, as characters in the film have been amalgemated from multiple novel characters.  If we have a common one for both mediums, it could look cluttery.  If we do have one here, we could either breakup the "Starring, as" box, or we could start another category on this page.  What do you think?  --P-Chan 04:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the article as it stands is already 45kb (although the Synopsis section is due to shrink a lot, as it's a blow-by-blow account of the whole story). Adding main supporting characters would increase it in size by quite a bit.  How about a separate article detailing the minor characters, like was done with Calvin and Hobbes ? --Oscarthecat 06:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually 50kb now.  (You must have checked the article, in the brief window right after it was vandalized.)  Yeah, in regards to the size, that's a valid point.  --P-Chan 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should there be a character page that melds together the minor characters of Film and Novel?  Or should this be left seperate?  The two mediums are somewhat different.  Any opinions?--P-Chan 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is good practice that if a page gets too large, good content is not deleted but split off, Wikipedia is not paper.--Patrick 07:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Horray!  (Hmmm.... now the Differences from the Graphic Novel seems too long in comparison).--P-Chan 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure I agree.  As I understand it, such articles should have a synopsis but not a blow-by-blow walkthrough of the entire film. --Oscarthecat 15:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Cvene64, what do you mean by messy?  I encourage you to elaborate on some of your structural and design ideas.--P-Chan 07:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should be the scope and size of the article? 

message: V's motto is "vi veri veniversum vivus vici", but veniversum does not seems to be a latin word. at least it is not referenced in the most used latin dictionary here in italy. Is this word a neologism?
:You'd probably know more about that than me.  If it is a neologism, then it certainly is a popular one.  Upon putting "veniversum" into google, I get 49,900 hits.  --P-Chan 09:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  meaning of veniversum 

message: Just finished reading the V for Vendetta original graphic novel and have made a few observations:
#WOW.  That's good stuff.
#V is more insane (in a good way) in the comic than he is in the movie. The movie moves towards humanizing V (he is romantic, watches movies, cooks), whereas the comic portrays V as bizarre and something other than mere human (schizophrenic symptoms at the detention center, his reaction to getting shot, Shadow Gallery's orientation).
#Evey's transformation is far more extreme in the comic.  In the comic, she turns from a little girl to a mature and imposing character by the comic's end.  This is contrary to the film, when Evey is shown to be pretty tough and mature to begin with (she maces a police officer).
#Sutler/Suan is portrayed very differently. In the film he is a totatlitarian cliche, whereas in the comic he is sort of a victim.  (He still has a peripheral role though).
#V for Vendetta is not a futurist film, and this should be removed from the description of the film.  Blade Runner and Minority Report are futuristic, this film is not.  This film is simply set in the future.  (I think the novel is slightly more futurist than the film is.)
#Another difference is that the fascist elements are more overt and there are almost no religious elements in the regime in the comic.
#The comic is many years long, whereas the film is just a year in length.
#Much of the story revolves around the Party, and we get to see how human and fragile Norsefire is. Creedy, Mrs Heyer, Conrad, etc are stuck in the power game and seem to be more motivated by power than by ideology.  (Sutler, and Creedy are clearly portrayed in the film as not nice people).  Thus, you can actually see V as more of an antagonist.  
#Also, placing the story in a Post-Apocolyptic world puts a totally different spin on things.  If the government falls, many lives could be lost.  So there is a very real trade-off between freedom and "the trains running on time".  You don't get that feeling in the film.  Once the government is gone, it's not the end of the world, they could just get a new one.
I think that the Diferences section should be rewritten to incorporate the themes and feel of the story, and not details in the plot.  Details are minor and typically people don't care about the scenes as much as the meaning.  (And Savidan is right, when he says the format is confusing.)--P-Chan 01:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on the Graphic Novel

message: The section Differences between the film and graphic novel makes the claim The name change from "Susan" to "Sutler" is apparently a mix of the names "Susan" and "Hitler." without any reference or footnote.  I would like to remove this sentence until a footnote is provided as this is not necessarily true.  Any comments? WikiFew 21:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right there does need to be a reference there.  It was from the Berlin Film Festival press conference for V for Vendetta, when John Hurt was asked by a critic what his inspiration for the character was.  I believe John replyed... well it certainly was no accident that my character's name sounds like Hilter.  (Or something to that extent).  I'll be sure to put a reference up. --P-Chan 21:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Sutler in "Differences between the film and graphic novel" 

message: I split the reception bit into two seperate section:  Reception (containing box office and critical) & Political reaction.  This is why:  very few articles have a seperate section for critical and box office.  I looked at the articles you mentioned that did (Warkowski and Silver) and could only find Kiss Kiss Bang Bang with the two sections seperate.  All the other ones I looked at had merged sections.  Also, the Feature articles and Good Articles all have merged sections as well.  Take a look at the wikifilm project:
----------
Reception
Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count). Websites such as Rotten Tomatoes ([4]) and Metacritic ([5]) collect professional film reviews and calculate a numerical score from them for each film. In the case of what the general public thought of the film, tend towards the expression "money talks" and provide a summary of the film's commercial success, consulting sites such as Box Office Mojo ([6]) and Box Office Guru ([7]).
---------
I doesn't mention anything about seperate sections and in fact, seems to catagorize them together.  I think Box office is most important for then a film first comes out, but 1 year from now, it isn't that relevent whether VFV was 2nd or 3rd in the UK.  (Also, the two sections are fairly small anyways and can still be cut down).  The formula for the reception section should be reviews by major critics, Rotten tomatoes/Metacritic and then box office $ (which are the most honest gauge of public acceptance).  IMDB info should be toned down as well.
The reason I split the political part apart was because it contains comments from people who don't normally make reviews and are more in the business of providing political commentary.  Anarchists, Lewis Rockwell, Frontpagemag, these guys should be seperate because they are in a seperate realm.  (I would not expect Lewis Rockwell to comment on Kiss Kiss Bang Bang the same way as they would V for Vendetta.)
I hope this explains everything.  I'm doing this based on the best expert info I can find on Wiki.
--P-Chan 22:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you missed a block of text that was imputed in response to this issue.  I moved it above your last statement so you can read it more clearly.  No other Silver/Wachowski film article contains a seperate critical review/box office numbers (aside from Kiss Kiss bang bang).  Neither do any of the Good Articles or Feature Articles (please read my comments above).  Is your reasoning for the seperatation simply that a lot of people are interested in this info?  If that's the case, well then can't they simply follow it when it is in a paragraph twice the size?  Keep in mind that we are not promoting the film, we're trying to create a quality wikipedia article that adheres to standards set by the community.  Unfortunetly, I do not see the reasoning behind splitting those sections.--P-Chan 02:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've remerged the sections.  I really don't understand why the box office numbers are so important, but if you really want to promote the numbers, then one way to solve this is simply to place the box office numbers on top, as a line just before the reception.  Like this: 
Current Box Office Numbers: V for Vendetta has thus far grossed (USD)  $66,037,682  in the United States and $37,100,000 elsewhere, for a worldwide gross of  $103,137,682. 
Is this a workable compromise?
--P-Chan 02:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. I did not see what you posted before. Its fine. Don't worry about placing anything at the top. Merge is the way to go :) Cvene64 06:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good.  :) --P-Chan 04:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception sections 

message: P-Chan, I don't mean to keep changing it, but they have got to remain seperate. There was a lot of buzz and speculation as to how V would perform at the box office, and consiering it involves names such as Silver/Wachowskis, a lot of people have been following it. (It has been in the top 5 most viewed on bxofficemojo.com sinced its releaase). It really must remain as it own subheading, its far too important to be merged. Cheers Cvene64 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you missed a block of text that was imputed in response to this issue.  I moved it above your last statement so you can read it more clearly.  No other Silver/Wachowski film article contains a seperate critical review/box office numbers (aside from Kiss Kiss bang bang).  Neither do any of the Good Articles or Feature Articles (please read my comments above).  Is your reasoning for the seperatation simply that a lot of people are interested in this info?  If that's the case, well then can't they simply follow it when it is in a paragraph twice the size?  Keep in mind that we are not promoting the film, we're trying to create a quality wikipedia article that adheres to standards set by the community.  Unfortunetly, I do not see the reasoning behind splitting those sections.--P-Chan 02:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've remerged the sections.  I really don't understand why the box office numbers are so important, but if you really want to promote the numbers, then one way to solve this is simply to place the box office numbers on top, as a line just before the reception.  Like this: 
Current Box Office Numbers: V for Vendetta has thus far grossed (USD)  $66,037,682  in the United States and $37,100,000 elsewhere, for a worldwide gross of  $103,137,682. 
Is this a workable compromise?
--P-Chan 02:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. I did not see what you posted before. Its fine. Don't worry about placing anything at the top. Merge is the way to go :) Cvene64 06:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good.  :) --P-Chan 04:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Box Office having its own heading

message: Can I enquire why the text I added on 6 April regarding the critical drubbing the film received from major UK broadsheet newspapers was excised? I appreciate that it may have been a bit unwieldy and 'repetitive' but if it's worth mentioning that "Despite the film taking place in Great Britain, the film did not reach number one at their box office on the opening weekend" the negative reaction might be considered a significant factor. PChen did ask afterwards why it might have been that the reaction was so negative in the UK compared to the rest of the world, and I was unable to come up with any response. A lot of the professional film critics seem to have gone along with Scott Foundas' remark about the film simply being shoddy, but that wasn't my impression of the film I saw. In fact, I found it difficult to reconcile their reviews with my own experience. A possible explanation could be that the destruction of major London landmarks, the 'context' of the 7 July tube bombings, etc. might have prejudiced the reviews, but I'm not sure I buy that explanation. I think the simple fact is that the critics just didn't like the movie - which just goes to show (again) that critics aren't always in tune with general public. (If this isn't the place for such an explanation, then forget about it.) Demos99 11:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point.  Yeah we were talking about this a lot earlier.  I'll put the comments in question here, so we can think of a solution.  I took it out earlier, and the reason for that was because I think this could be considered original research.  I agree with what you're saying though, they do seem more negative.  Strangely enough, I think we're some of the first people to actually point this out.  I asked the people at Wikifimproject if there was anything like a Metacritic/RottenTomatoes that specifically targets the UK.  Didn't get a response.  Here's a question, who is the biggest film reviewer in the UK, in terms of influence?  (In America it's Ebert of course).  --P-Chan 16:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out once because I thought it was POV. It can be reworded, with maybe one or two examples, certainly not that many though.Cvene64 01:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The UK reviews

message: :49 V's version
:Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.
:55 V's version
:Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.
----
The Exact differences between the two versions are
*The addition of this highlighted sentence:
**...vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous...
*And the differences between:
**...vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor...
**...vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor...
----
I agree with Fightingdaman in that there are most likely 49 V's in the V speech.  I don't know where the 55-version came from originally, but it doesn't seem to match the film. --P-Chan 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that this is the correct one but from what I remember of the speech it had "vis-à-vis" in it. The 49 v's listed on the article doesn't have this word while the 55 v's does. I might be seeing this movie again over the weekend and I will look out for this word. I hope that others out there could enlighten us on there experiences with this monologue -- UKPhoenix79 07:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there not a script available online. Bootleg copies of the film? savidan(talk) (e@) 15:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scripts probably not, but bookleg copies I'm sure there are.  I saw from a movie clips site, V's speech and the 49 version is definetly correct.  --P-Chan 00:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it looks like I was mistaken... it is ashame since those extra V words seam like they could have been added in very easily... I was surprised that he didn't say "vis-à-vis" during his speach since I thought he did... Oh well. I wonder where the 55 V's version came from? -- UKPhoenix79 11:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The V speech 

message: I made several refrences to the concern of America in V for Vendetta but its been removed. I demand to know who removed it and why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.167.26.214 (talk • contribs) 23:43, April 23, 2006  (UTC)
:If you click on the "history" tab at the top of the article page, you'll see a full record of every edit, along with edit summaries.  In this particular case, this edit shows that User:P-Chan removed your most recent addition, with the edit summary, "Too much original research, speculation and off-topic material (If you need to reply please use talkpage)."  I've got to say that I agree with P-chan; the "Shattered Union" link is pretty tenuous, and although the filmmakers may well have wanted to suggest the "War on Terror" in their references to "America's War", it's not an explicit reference, and unless we can find a reliable source making that connection it's original research to draw it here.
:I'd also like to draw your attention to a few Wikipedia policies and customs:
:#Wikipedia:Civility.  If content you've added is removed, it's not very polite to demand who removed it.  If you have a question, just ask.  See also Wikipedia:Etiquette.
:#Wikipedia:Assume good faith.  When people do things that annoy you, it doesn't help to get upset.  We're all on the same side here!
:#Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages.  If you type four tildes, like so: ~~~~, it'll produce an automatic stamp with your IP (or username, if you choose to register) and the time of your post.  This is very helpful for following conversations.
:All that said, I hope you continue to contribute to this article and to others — consider this a friendly suggestion and a helping hand.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello 203.167.26.214. Yes, I was the user who removed the points earlier.  As to the reason why... I think Josiah summed it up pretty effectively and I don't think I can add much else.  (Thanks Josiah, much appreciated).  It would be considered original research to make that statement earlier.  Also, the Shattered Union reference adds little and will generally draw people off track.  Did this address your concerns?  If not, feel totally free to explain it in your own words. (I've included the comments below)  Cheers.--P-Chan 06:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who altered my Edits 

message: Is there a workable idea here that can be refined and added to the Political comments section?  (I found and removed it from the article from an unsigned user)  In it's current form it's not useable, because of its current size and word economy.--P-Chan 07:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Nation

message: *I made the mistake earlier of thinking that part of the reason that Moore left was due to the content of the script.  Upon reviewing the interviews again, I found out that this was not the case.  While he did bash the themes and plot, why he left was totally tied to the poor treatment the man has generally received from the industry.  (The man seems to have a lot of integrity).
*Michael Moore doesn't really say anything about the film, and just links an article (written by someone else) to his website.  I'm considering removing his name.
*I rewrote the differences Graphic Novel section to get away from details and towards the more substantive differences between the two verions... like the themes, intent, etc. (How V received his powers, and what job Gordon has... I feel are more descriptive than substantive). I think this might also be a good place to talk more about Moore's comments.
*The part concerning the reception needs to change focus.  The reviews of the film were pretty good overall.  If Rotten Tomatoes says the ratio of good and bad reviews is 3:1, then there should be 3 good reviews and 1 bad one.  Also, I think the IMDB stuff is a little fluffy and should be trimmed down significantly.
*I think most conservative Christians don't like this film at all.  And if there is one generalization I think we can safely make that generalization.
*The Anarchists comments all come from the same New York group.
The purpose of all of these recent changes of course, is to prepare this article for another most stringent peer review or maybe a GA.
--P-Chan 04:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc Notes