Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/Archive 6

message: I fee this article exaggerates the differences between the film and novel versions of V. V still kills plenty of people in the film. I don't recall anyone getting in his way and not being killed.
His statement "Violence can be used for good" implies he has no regrets about the people he's killed. Evey refers to him as a monster.
The mention of him making Evey breakfast makes no sense at all, in the comic he read's her a bed time story!
In both cases V as a character seems to be a brilliant, and charming, man yet also a ruthless and vengeful killer.
I don't feel the differences are even worth mentioning
Pat1717 01:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes, V 

message: I don't see how this falls into the LGBT catagory. Perhaps in that norsefire thought this impure similar to Nazi leadership in Germany.. but still, I don't think it should be in the catagory. Neverender 899 21:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT Article? 

message: When he is breaking Lilliman's arm what does V say? --72.16.114.224 06:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm looking for some lines from this film 

message: Rather coincidental time to put it as featured article huh? wink wink.....
SpookyPig 00:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's so unlike Raul to put this for FAOTD of today. --Prittglue 00:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. Who actually thinks Wikipedia lacks a leftist agenda? Haizum 02:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I think he means is that Raul has avoided matching articles to the most topical day about it (e.g. Lost (TV series) was a featured article on the day before the 3rd Season premiere), so this even surprised me. Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 04:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have avoied it so - and only insofar as - the featured article would not clash with "In The News" or "Selected Anniversaries". That was not very well likely in this case, which is why I granted the request. Raul654 08:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's all a huge conspiracy to turn the world into communist homosexuals. 67.185.76.131 02:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay!  I'll have friends now!74.129.17.185 06:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it was definitely a good choice. Quite fitting. Remember, remember, the 5th of november? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that my friend! ↔ ANAS - Talk 16:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what I mean -- at least you all admit it. See you in hell anime libs. Haizum 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you instigating? The date was chosen because it is featured prominently in the movie. No bias, just a fitting way to "feature" a featured article in a way its fans will understand. Gdo01 04:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haizum is just afraid he'll turn gay because this movie and them damn lib'rals is on the main page. 67.185.76.131 04:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your implication is that 'turning gay' is a bad thing -- how intolerant. Haizum 06:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...not to mention the southern inflection you are using as a stereotype. Haizum 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I'm implicating that conservatives seem to think you can "turn gay" and seem to be deathly afraid of it. Oh well, back to the article. 67.185.76.131 07:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Morons infect every facet of society. Haizum 08:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Timing! 

message: Does anyone think of the US army upon hearing "freedom fighter"?  I know that is not what it means, but people do become brainwashed by tv.  Are we becoming propagandistic...  Can we say, perhaps, a rebel? Brusegadi 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Freedom fighter" is usually the positive term for a militant.  When one supports a militant(for example, the heroes of the American Revolution), they are called "freedom fighters."  When one disagrees with the militant, they are called a terrorist. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fire fighters fight fire, crime fighters fight crime -- what do freedom fighters fight? Haizum 03:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats to all involved for the Featured Article status. It was a fitting way to acknowledge Nov. 5, eh? --Christofurio 03:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freedom Fighter

message: The section "Themes" seems to have been vandalized, in its place being "I am the coolest". Should the page be locked?
 
201.43.6.118 03:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just click reload. It has been fixed. We really need a notice or something that announces that clicking reload will usually get rid of any vandalism being seen from a previous revision. Gdo01 03:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I don't really know much about how the stuff works or saves. I don't edit often. Thanks for the fix.
201.43.6.118 04:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandelism 

message: Who is seen at the end? There's the little girl, Evey's 'rents, Valerie, the gay couple, Stephen Fry's character, the male gay couple and Sara, but who else? I think I saw Dominic and Dascombe, but I can't be sure. Therequiembellishere 04:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's Dominic, the old guy from the bar, the glasses girl (in spirit), the girl's parents, the middle-class boy, Valerie and Ruth (in spirit), and Gordon (in spirit). Where do you think you saw Dascombe and adult Sara? Also, there are black people in the ending, but I thought that they killed all the black people (according to the novelization).- JustPhil 23:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who was killed by this regime appears "in spirit". So yes, black people do appear, specically the gay guy that was beaten in Valerie's flashback. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.255.91.32 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember. I'll rewatch it, but I do belive DAscombe was there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Therequiembellishere (talk • contribs) 21:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ending

message: This page has been vandalized, and not even cleverly.  However, I cannot find where the vandal made his edits.  How do you revert pages?
:See WP:REVERT. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The article only calls V a freedom fighter, but in the film, even he though he does make England freer, he is given a more complex treatment than simply that of a freedom fighter.  In this film the government refers to V as a terrorist, and in the Graphic Novel he is considered a terrorist.  I know that this is a very politicized subject, and even if it is not appropriate to label him a terrorist there should be some mention of this on the site.
:In the "making of.." extra on the DVD, Stephen Fry remarks "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". They are very interchangeable, but still a bit POV terms. Seeing as V is portrayed as somewhat of an antihero, I guess referring to him as either a freedom fighter or a terrorist is more or less justified - Jack (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist or Freedom Fighter? 

message: Nice article, and great timing with being on the main page. Having just read this from the start, never having looked at the article before but having seen the film, I easily get as far as the "Differences between the film and graphic novel", but then the article degenerated into a series of bullet points, which put me off the remainder of the article (I'll probably read it later today). Can I suggest that this section is split off from this page, so that it doesn't interrupt the prose and can be read by those with a specific interest in cross-comparison of the film and graphic novel? Alternatively, I think that it should be moved further down the page. Mike Peel 08:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. I suppose other solutions are available, perhaps someone can write a more concise and compromise paragraph with major differences and explanations and refer to a separate article for the detailed information. ↔ ANAS - Talk 16:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll reinsert the original "Differences" section, which was present in the original FA Version.  Tell me what you think.--P-Chan 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split off "Differences between the film and graphic novel"? 

message: ... or Natalie Portman's head quite prolific? -- Chris 19:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it just me... 

message: I notice that much discussion of the imagery/symbolism in the film has been removed. Visual symbols are highly important in V for Vendetta.
In particular, I note that this paragraph was excised, which mentions two visual puns -
"* The memorial to the St. Mary's disaster shows children dancing in a circle. This is reminiscent of a famous memorial showing dancing girls in Stalingrad, which was one of the few structures left standing after the Nazi attack on the city  It is likely also a representation of children playing "Ring Around the Rosy", a game which, according to popular belief, involves a rhyme derived from the symptoms and effects of the black death, although this has been proven to not be the true source of the rhyme."
This part, at least has been retained: 'The "black bags" worn by the prisoners in Larkhill are likely a reference to the black bags worn by prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.'
This also has been removed:
:"Early on in the film, public loud-speakers announce that London is under a yellow-coded curfew alert. This is similar to the US Government's color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System."
"Coalition of the Willing, To Power!" has also been retained, and a reference to Nietzsche has been inserted, which seems realistic, but should also be seen in light of the famous film Triumph of the Will, which is as likely. ("Triumph of the Will" is probably distorted Nietzsche, as a lot of Nazism claimed to be)
:"In the graphic novel, the Chancellor is named Adam Susan, whereas in the movie he is called Adam Sutler, which is a combination of the names "Susan" and "Hitler"."
It is an oversimplification to claim that Sutler is a mere portmanteau. I am going to add something about the actual meaning of "Sutler", which is defined as "An army camp follower who peddled provisions to the soldiers." (see here)
--MacRusgail 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of imagery 

message: While numerous comparisons between Norsefire and the British National Party have been made, surely the origin is the National Front, who not only have the initials "NF" like Norsefire, but have a flame, i.e. "fire" as their logo. They were big in the seventies and eighties, when the book was written. --MacRusgail 16:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norsefire = NF = National Front 

message: Someone asked me why V for Vendetta is a anti-modernist film, since I put that term as a category. Here is my opinion.
I believe that even though the plot of this movie is set in a futuristic society, its argument is a clear protest on how society is developing. It is not only just a warning; it is also a critique on the ways things are being conducted in the present time. I mean, it is clear the connections concerning America and its suppose propaganda machine. Even if you don't accept that connection as clear, you have to understand, as it is part of the own plot, that there is a reference to the media as being use to fool people.
Please discuss.Maziotis 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More po-mo than anti-mo, with their frequent cultural backreferences, and "deconstruction". --MacRusgail 15:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: V for Vendetta as an anti-modernist film 

message: Due to the inaction regarding the original research within the "Letter V and #5" section, I have listed this article at featured article review.  Link at the top. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OR issues now resolved. -- UKPhoenix79 07:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't have a shot to get over there and say thanks for dealing with most of the issues.  I'm much more at ease with it now than I was when this was main-paged. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article at Featured Article Review 

message: I do believe this line "Moreover, one of the most negative reviews came from Michael Medved, who called the film "V for vile, vicious, vacuous, venal, verminous and vomitaceous." Medved also said that the audience will lose interest about halfway through the film and that it has a confusing ending." should be moved from "Critical reaction and box office" to "Comments from political sources"... one only needs to read the source with it to see that what he said is very, very politically based. - Jarn 06:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Medved is a fat moron with a molestor mustache. The only reason he is in film is to try to "warn" people of free thinking. Why should we give a shit what he thinks? Delete him from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.255.91.32 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ridiculous. You want to delete a critic from the article because he criticizes a movie you like? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.55.43.234 (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Medved 

message: I reintroduced the reference to Evey being forced into prostitution as one difference between the film and the graphic novel.  This was edited out previously, but it seems a crucial difference.  No need to editorialize why, but if people don't want that reference I'd be interested in hearing why. SlipperyN 01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  It's an important difference between how the two Eveys are portrayed.  Good call.--P-Chan 03:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic Novel: Evey Prostitute Reference 

message: The sentence
"In the original story, Fate was a Big-Brother-like computer which served as Norsefire's eyes and ears and also helped explain how V could see and hear the things he did."
appears to be copied from http://www.philipcoppens.com/vforvendetta.html
84.245.182.214 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nooooo way man.  I was the one who wrote that exact line.  I noticed that as well.  I'm absolutely certain he copied it from the Wikipedia site.  Absolutely.--P-Chan 03:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problems 

message: I just noticed that someone really went out of their way to remove any reference to an article written by Justin Raimondo.  This is an important reference, as it was used several times in the article.
"Go See V for Vendetta. Antiwar.com. Retrieved on 8 April 2006"
I'm not exactly sure why these references was removed and I will reinsert them.--P-Chan 19:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone removed some key references from the article

message: There seems to be a lot of spoilers popping up in the cast section.  (In particular, check Valerie and Sutler's entries.)  What's everyone's opinion on this?  Should they be removed, should they stay, should they be modified to be less spoilerish?--P-Chan 19:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on the Cast Section

message: I think we should include the long alteration used in the film i think the longest in recent record.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  It has already been added to the article.  (See the themes section).--P-Chan 08:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aliteration

message: The racial thing is mentioned - but surely, more importantly, it is shown - there are no non-caucasian characters to be see.  
As to anarchy - will "Anarchy in the UK" do ? -- Beardo 07:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a black gay man at one point, isn't there? ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moore's comments 

message: In the movie, Dr. Delia Surridge said that in her journal. Does that mean V is blind?--Mato Rei 14:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not with eyes. There were no eyes.

message: Has anyone ever thought about V being a very burned (thus deep voice) Valerie? It all seems to fit. Was this ever publicly discussed somewhere? Maybe it is worth mentioning. --84.178.86.98 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  V = Valerie? 

message: Shouldn't the following:
"war in Iraq and other parts of the Middle-East with strong political tensions ("Iraq, Kurdistan, Syria: before and after, Sudan")"
Read as the following:
"war in Iraq and other parts of the Middle-East AND AFRICA with strong political tensions ("Iraq, Kurdistan, Syria: before and after, Sudan")"
As the Sudan is, of course, in Africa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.120.154.218 (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  error? 

message: I'm a casual observor of this article and read it a couple of times (I've never worked on it). I recently noticed the change someone made to the "The letter V and the number 5" section added a listy numeric breakdown of the V speech. I think this looks unencyclopedic and is generally a bad idea. It should be reverted as soon as possible in my opinion. Quadzilla99 10:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent change to "The letter V and the number 5" section

message: When the imitation Vs are taking off their masks at the end, several shots of the faces of different members of the crowd are shown. There are people who have definitely died, like Valerie and her girlfriend (both arrested, presumably long dead), Deitrich (executed), and the little girl in pink with thick glasses (who was shot).
Don't know if this is important, but I didn't find any mention of it in the article. It's probably symbolic of how V is everyone, and how ideas don't die, etc.
-Vowels —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.4.204 (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intentional break in continuity 

message: In V for Vendetta, V owns a mirror containing a quote from the play Faust which is the Opera that is being continuosly performed at the Opera House that the Phantom haunts in the Phantom of the Opera...should this be added? The Culprit 19:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phantom of the Opera theme section 

message: Not all anarchist response has been negative to the movie: I think a bit more of the back-and-forth from the community could be included. I myself am an anarchist and loved it. 209.77.79.7 04:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response from anarchists 

message: How the hell did that line make it into a featured article? Or what alphabet are we actually talking about here? --- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, but I removed that sentence. --Pentasyllabic 18:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'V' is the twenty-fifth letter of the English alphabet 

message: This might seem petty but isn't this incorrect?
"the then-current George W. Bush administration in America"
I do believe our president is currently George W. Bush. I'd rather not edit the page since i'm not up on all the how too's and whatnot so i'm going to leave it up to you to take a look and fix it.Kaiser13 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's correct in this context - he was the current president then. It's a chronologically independent way of stating that GWB's presidency influence the movie's development. MattLohkamp 14:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Time/Administration reference

message: Most of the V references mentioned in the V section are valid, but isn't, "November (the only month with a V in its name)" pushing it just a bit too far? Guy Fawkes was not obsessed with the number 5, or the letter V. Also, the article rambles a bit when adding up the number of letter "V"s in V's speech.
gazok (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: V references stretching it a bit?

message: It appears citations number 32, 36 and 59 have dissapeared. Alientraveller 12:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken cites 

message: I'm removing this template from all its articles:
Which, I agree, is fairly provocative. However, I don't see how "V for Vendetta" deserves this on its own, or what useful information it provides. Surely the links in the articles are sufficient? If people want to revert my changes, that's fine by me. But please reply to this post so we can get a discussion started. At the moment I see no reason why the template should exist. Maccy69 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted my previous edit and requested a template deletion instead, see below. Maccy69 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  V for Vendetta Template 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Maccy69 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:V for Vendetta}}]] 

message: Lots of junk has been added since last November 5th, and we will need a cleansing fire to clear it out :) Judgesurreal777 21:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyediting sorely needed

message: I'm wondering if it's worth adding the Myspaces for V or Chancellor Sutler to the External Links, or possibly to the Publicity section.  They don't really have anything important to add to the article, but it would be a fun item to include regardless.  Thoughts? Kyu! (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Myspaces?

message: Just after V is shown beginning his return to Evey and the train near the end of the movie, the scene shifts briefly to Big Ben showing five minutes to midnight (in the shape of a V, nonetheless), a possible reference to the Doomsday Clock.  Worthy of mention?  Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Get a third party source on it, and sure, it could get a mention. --Cast (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another "V" reference?

message: I am sorry, but it simply is NOT TRUE. The clock shows 11:04. It is ridiculous, because even IMDB makes an untrue reference to 11:05. Here is a screenshot proving my point. Please remove the reference! Salkinium (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the reference due to the lack of counter arguments. Salkinium (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The 11:05 reference

message: The US version is different to the uk version.  In the UK, they don't have the bit about Guy Fawkes, presubly cos everyone knows it already, whereas in hte US, no would have heard of him.  In the UK it starts with a montage of violence and chaos around the world and pulls out from a tv report declaring 'Only Britain Stands'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.201.145 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  us uk opening 

message: The comic is set in the nineties but all i know is that the film is set sometime after 2015.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco13 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What year is it set in?

message: However, the attack had actually been engineered by Norsefire as a plot to gain power. The virus - along with its cure - had been engineered through human experimentation on "social deviants" and political dissidents at Larkhill detention centre. Among them was the man who would become V. Although all the other test subjects died from the experiments, he gained heightened mental and physical abilities at the cost of significant physical and mental disfigurement. These abilities enabled V to destroy the centre and escape, vowing to take revenge on Norsefire's regime.
I'm not sure that the first sentence is actually true.  The idea that that Norsefire were behind the attacks comes from William Rockwood. When Finch asks him if he has proof, he replies 'Why do you think I'm still alive?'.  However, Finch subsequently discovers that Rookwood has been dead for twenty years and that the man he met was V in disguise who was just telling him what he wanted to hear in order to manipulate Finch into surveilling Creedy, so that V could then make Creedy paranoid and thus manipulate him into killing Sutler.
The proof is never forthcoming and I think this is left deliberately ambiguous.  It reminds me very much of the conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks of September 11th 2001 (and may be a direct allusion) which range from 'the government were behind it all', to 'They Let it Happen', to the government just making political capital from the attacks.  All these interpretations can be placed on the events surrounding the St Marys virus in my view.
Unless I missed something I think the paragraph should be rewritten to say that the viewer is led to believe Norsefire engineered the attack but subsequently an ambiguity is introduced.
MarrsAttax (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: In the scene after everyone gets their masks, the store Robber makes a cry for anarchy.
At one point Creedy makes a point of questioning Fitch's ethnic heritage, asking if he was Irish.
So technically both issues were included in the movie, although I agree that both could have been expanded on in more depth.
:The "cry for anarchy" made is a reference to "Anarchy in the U.K.", a song by 70s punk-rock band, The Sex Pistols. There song is about chaos and violencenot the anarchism Moore is referring to. The brief mention of prejudice against the Irish is a nod to ethnic bigotry, but the movie does excise any reference to racial purity and the elimination of unwanted races. Thus, both of Moore's points stand. If you have any notable third party sources that challenge Moore, we can use those. --Cast (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, nobody in the film decried Muslims and Americans as inferior at all. 69.105.111.111 (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moore's Criticism about the movie's lack of mentioning anarchy and racial purity 

message: Can there be a spoiler alert added to the PLOT section. Knotslanding (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the "spoiler alert" tags were depreciated from Wikipedia on the basis that, as an encyclopedia, spoilers are implicitly part of the information presented. There are no "spoiler free" zones on an encyclopedia, because information should not be withheld. Readers just shouldn't read the article if they don't want spoilers. --Cast (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Users should expect to see spoilers if they read a Plot summary and it is good to have a complete summary but those of us who don't want spoil it for readers who haven't seen the film yet we can be be more careful and tactful about how and when the spoiler details are included. In general it should be possible to you might do - if trigger happy editors don't get in your way - to carefully modify the Plot section so that it is laid out in chronological order so that readers can read part of the Plot summary without giving away the ending until the end of the plot summary.  You can probably also remove some of the redundant plot details from elsewhere in the article so readers can get background information without having too much given away. Some editors may fight you on this so unfortunately you may need to be a bit sneaky about this kind of cleanup but a lot of it can be included as copyediting and cleanup of poorly written sections. Good luck. -- Horkana (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler 

message: In the final scene, in which every one is taking their masks off in front of Parliament, Stephen Fry is amongst those. Could this not disprove the presumption that he was executed after Creedy's men black-bagged him? Sam 1124Talk to me! 09:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is done for many characters that died throughout the film, including Evey's parents, the little girl with the glasses, and Valerie and Ruth. My belief is that this was done to show that, while they may no longer be alive, the ideas they stood for are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.111.130 (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Fry (Deitrich) in the final scene 

message: the date of filming and release is incorrect i am changing it back from 2006 to 2005.86.168.10.71 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: error with dates

message: The term "black bag" referring to either the bags instruments were used in, or placed over target's heads, predates the film, Abu Ghraib, and the comic itself. By decades. Don't see why it has to be treated especially in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.184.42 (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Black bag" jobs. 

message: As I understand it, the loosely affiliated online group Anonymous has adopted V's Guy Fawkes mask for their purposes...should we include that info in the article? I know a lot of their memes fall by the wayside, but they have been using it awhile, especially in their anti-scientology campaigns. 70.176.224.140 (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense to make that backreference in the article for Anonymous but I don't think it makes sense to include it here. -- Horkana (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Group Anonymous 

message: By my count of the monologue provided, there are only 53 V's.  This is using a browser feature to highlight all instances of the letter so none can be missed in counting.  Also, that's 53 instances of the letter, not 53 separate words beginning with the letter as the article suggests, of which there are only 49.  I have seen references to this 55 elsewhere, and wonder if it actually comes from taking something else into consideration.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.151.12 (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is so that the original theatre version had this speech of 55 words beginning with V:
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 it 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 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 vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honour to meet you and you may call me V.
But then when the DVD came out, it had a new voice-over with only 49 words beginning with V:
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 is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V. 84.250.128.82 (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a comparison section in the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only 53 V's in the monologue