V for Vendetta

americanCat

What do you guys think of the differences between the movie and the graphic novel? Do you think Alan Moore uses similar concepts in V as he does in Watchmen? I'm just looking for people's opinions.

AngryBadger

Haven't seen "V" yet, but after the debacle that was "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" I'm not sure I want to. Didn't Alan moore disavow any connection to both films? Which makes methink his input was minimal.

spooydermot

Didn't Alan moore disavow any connection to both films?

I think thats just standard operating procedure for Alan Moore at this stage.

I think the movie is definatly worth a look, it has to skim over some of the more in depth parts of the graphic novel, but I think the core story remains in tact.

For example there's a more convoluted way of killing the Chancellor in the graphic novel which gives us a greater insight into Creedy and the power struggles that are going on in the party

The graphic novel also gives us a better look at the society in which Evy lives.
The makers of the movie left in lots of little pointers for fans of the graphic novel, for example:

*in Protheros shower room (aparatment, whatever) he has the dolls on the shelf that V destroys in the original story

*Storm Saxon playing on the TV.

*Dascombe (the sound engineer for 'the voice of london') who is described as "sensitive" i.e. gay in the graphic novel is transferred to Stephen Frys character and given a larger role in the story. Stephen Fry was probably one of my favourite things about the movie.

Theres probably plenty more, but they don't spring to mind at the moment.

Truth be told I went into the cinema expecting to be disappointed, but I'm quite happy with the movie, its just a case of admitting that comics and file *are* actually different mediums and that a movie is seldom going to have the opportunity to delve into the mythos that the comic has created in the way that we would like.

Fysh

I thought the film was better than it could have been. Considering the complete botch-ups that were League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Constantine, at least the main players in the film were pretty much the same as they were in the comic.

It would be nigh-on impossible to adapt a comic as complex as V for Vendetta, partly because of how much happens in it and partly because of the sheer range of interweaving subplots. So the simplifications they made in the film worked quite well, for the most part.

There were, however, a few things that irritated me:

1) That stupid speech at the beginning where V uses lots of words starting with v. It just annoyed me; the only good part of it was Evy's response.
2) The over-use of bullet-time in the later fight scenes. OK, there's a reason given for it, but still, it felt a bit too much like the Wachowskis trying to remind everyone that this film was brought to you by the minds behind the Matrix Trilogy.
3) The way there's hardly any explanation of V's beliefs, aside from his anti-government views. It would have been nice to have him either address the fact that he is merely a conduit through which the people will regain the power to decide how they are ruled, or alternatively express what he believes the government should be doing rather than just attacking what the existing government does.
4) The unnecessary use of music on a couple of scenes to "increase the dramatic tension" (eg

when Finch asks the question "would you want to know if the government staged massive terrorist attacks to justify agenda cahnges?"

). For me at least they actually detracted from those scenes because I was too aware of them.

Nonetheless, it was a highly enjoyable film overall and better than I expected. I wouldn't mind watching it again, which is pretty much a first for alan moore comic adaptations I've seen...

BrenC

Fysh wrote:

1) That stupid speech at the beginning where V uses lots of words starting with v. It just annoyed me; the only good part of it was Evy's response.

I thought that was a wonderful example of aliteration

Fysh wrote:

1)
2) The over-use of bullet-time in the later fight scenes. OK, there's a reason given for it, but still, it felt a bit too much like the Wachowskis trying to remind everyone that this film was brought to you by the minds behind the Matrix Trilogy.

In all fairness, they only used it like once and it was at the end. A lot of films slow things down in special effects.

[/QUOTE]

I thought the film was great, I've read the novel which I also love but I thought that the differences were tolerable and mostly, very faithful to the novel.

nohshow

It's been a loooong while since I read the comic, but, by God, I recognised every scene. Not at all what I was expecting when I heard Mr Moore was less than enchanted. I wonder if he'd seen it first, or did he just see the gawdawful Wachowski/Kianu/Constantine/Hugo Weaving/Matrix connection and jump to (in my view) the wrong conclusions.

Plot specifics aside for the moment, especially around the end of the picture (was Parliament's fate a Moore device or a Wachowski device? I don't recall), I think they hit the nail fairly squarely in the head area. I loved the Moore dialogue (did someone perhaps miss the point about the alliteration speech? I thought it was perfect in every regard) and was completely impressed that no one tried to take liberties with the costume. And ENGLISH ACTORS IN SMALL ROLES! ACTUAL ENGLISHMEN PLAYING YER ACTUAL ENGLISHMEN! (and stephen rae). With Natalie Portman in a lead (which she carried off very well, I thought), I figured we'd get the usual American cock-er-ney van-dykery, but no, we get John Standing, Stephen Fry, Timmy (the voice) Piggott-Smith, Sinead Cussack, and many, many more in roles big and small.

This was a good movie by any standards (with apropriate acronymic abbreviations to save space and point out that I'm only expressing my own humble opinion - like you probably thought I was speaking for a nation or something).

Movie trickery is movie trickery. As long as an effect is still effective, it'll get used. As long as it has a meaning in the context, we shouldn't moan about it, I think. I recall when Butch Cassidy came out with its slo-mo stuff, people compared it with the Wild Bunch and that was it. Nothing else connected the two films. Now, I can watch either one without trying to compare it with the other just because each director chose a similar technique to explore a similar emotional state (I'll look them up and drop their names in later to make me look smart). I was going to say more but even *I* got bored.

See V. It's not a suggestion, it's an instruction.

Fysh

(I'd swear I wrote a reply to this thread a few days ago, but anyway...)

The alliteration speech seems to have caused a fair few arguments on various fora. For me, it felt forced - the sort of thing that made V come off like he was trying to look clever, rather than just letting his intelligence naturally show through in his actions and words. This is probably because it's not that often that you'd use such a wide range of words starting with V in your average conversation.

Compare this with, for example, the original comic's use of words starting with V as the chapter headers. Because it's not all at once, it doesn't feel so forced and therefore doesn't disrupt from the story being told.

I guess it's a personal thing. But it irked me.

nohshow

Am I completely misremembering? I thought the speech came from the comic. It was the first moment in the film where I thought "What's Moore on about?"

Jack B. Badd

Not to ask a stupid "do you think I'd like this" question but I really enjoyed the film and I'm wondering if its worth my while getting my hands on the novel (never heard of V before the film). How true to it is the film?

cotwold

americanCat wrote:

What do you guys think of the differences between the movie and the graphic novel? Do you think Alan Moore uses similar concepts in V as he does in Watchmen? I'm just looking for people's opinions.

Ive seen V for vendetta in the cinema twice now. I dont usualy go to the same film twice but i just had to when it came to V. Yes its a different V to who we see in the graphic novel, yes hes hes alot less criptic as he is in the comic and i agree they have watered the overall Anarchist sentiment behind the original V.... But i welcome the changes, i found they adressed issues that are alot more relevent to our generation (growing Islam-phobia and homophobia as apposed to racial and anti-semetic sentiments from the original). Having said that i cant say that my liking for the g.n. has lessened in any way. I find they are now two different things and i appriciate them equaly.

MorningStar

I lkied the film but it isn't the book. Evy is too strong at the start, I would have expected her to be a lot more pathetic and fearful. Some major story changes but overall it catches the main story. A lot more watered down and I'd like to think there is an extended version that shows more. They cleverly mixed in current fears which in years to come will be commented on. It's like some 60s/70sfilms you see now you don't get the full context.
After watching the film I did think the story of the Watchmen was very similar but never really noticed reading the books. One simple idea that you can't hide the truth.
On the other side it is V's birthday to day or at least the actor who played him

nohshow

I have no problem with an author exploring similar themes in his works. Look at it this way: V originally appeared in Warrior in 1982-ish. It was black and white, like the majority of Britcoms of the day. Mr Moore had probably as much expectation of it reaching a wider audience as I have of ever being asked for my autograph. He tried to get DC interested. They weren't. The already had a comic called V (the alien one, remember?). So, he gets a bit of work, he works out a few ideas and then he's handed the Charlton range of characters, that DC has just acquired, to play with. He writes this story where they all get killed off and DC says, "Hey, Al. We need some of dose guys for later. Want to do something about that?" So he changes the names to protect the innocent. By now, he still has little hope (or probably even desire) to push V to the front, so naturally he's recycled some of the themes and Watchmen comes out in 1986.

Big surprise! Big success! Got anything else we can use?

The run of the alien V comic has ended and rather than work on something new (he's already busy at DC writing Swamp Thing and gawd knows what else), he finishes the plot for V (which never reached its conclusion before Warrior folded) and next thing we know, it's 1988 and David Lloyd's drawings have been coloured in by some kid with a crayon.

So, am I surprised there are thematic nexi for Watchmen and V? No. Am I bothered? No. Alan Moore's writing is just that good. Read both and enjoy.

MorningStar

nohshow wrote:

it's 1988 and David Lloyd's drawings have been coloured in by some kid with a crayon.

Speaking of colouring

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6619422355

I don't know much about the orignial publishinng but I thought only extra chapters were printed in Warrier?

The stories are good and stand on their own and have similar themes I don't think anybody is that bothered. How they are told is just as important IMHO.

nohshow

The whole story started in Warrior but remained incomplete when the magazine ended its run. V only got finished when DC picked up the option many years later, so I suppose we should be grateful.

It struck me at the time that the story seemed designed for Black and White, shades of grey need not apply, so why didn't they leave it like that?

Abby D Cody

I loved the movie till I read the book. Wow!