PDA

View Full Version : V for Vendetta



SkepticJ
2006-Mar-20, 01:26 AM
I saw this on Friday, I expected it to be good, at least ok. I was wrong though, it's GREAT! It is among the best movies I've ever seen. What other movies are in my best list? 2001: A Space Odyssey, Jurassic Park 1, Ghost in the Shell, Serenity, that kind of stuff. I expect V for Vendetta to at least get an Oscar nomination, if not win one. Go see this movie!

soylentgreen
2006-Mar-20, 04:05 AM
I saw this on Friday, I expected it to be good, at least ok. I was wrong though, it's GREAT! Go see this movie!

Hear, hear! I second that.

And if anyone cares to see what a raw nerve this film has touched, just check out the unbelievable rants floating around the net against this thing.

Anyone who's doubted just how disgustingly homophobic the people in our culture can be, are in for a truly rude awakening.

Tog
2006-Mar-20, 07:41 AM
Hear, hear! I second that.

And if anyone cares to see what a raw nerve this film has touched, just check out the unbelievable rants floating around the net against this thing.

Anyone who's doubted just how disgustingly homophobic the people in our culture can be, are in for a truly rude awakening.

I just got back from it and I would have to say that it was really good as well. As far as the homophobic aspect goes, I didn't see anything that was any worse than something from Will & Grace or maybe even Friends. Even the Simpsons, seem to have addressed the issue more directly. Some people just have to whine.

Not a lot of action, but a great movie.

mid
2006-Mar-20, 10:57 AM
And if anyone cares to see what a raw nerve this film has touched, just check out the unbelievable rants floating around the net against this thing.

Really? The only rants I've seen floating around the net are about one or more of the following:

1) The 'hero' blowing up a London Underground tube in an act of terror against his Government is in rather poor taste after the events of July 7th last year. But hey! It wasn't in New York, so who cares?

2) The whole thing dumbs down Alan Moore's comic to precisely the kind of annoying pop-psychology excuse for big explosions that we had to put up with in the last couple of Warshowski films and we thought we'd seen the back off after the reviews for Revolutions.

Have some particularly homophobic Americans taken offense at Stephen Fry, then? We haven't had a hint of that over here.

Gerrsun
2006-Mar-20, 03:21 PM
Go find a copy of the graphic novel, it is much better.

They did a few of the scenes just right though but others they missed the mark by a wide wide margin.

And I was most unhappy with the lack of V's monologue with Lady Justice.

Kahless
2006-Mar-20, 04:24 PM
I saw this on the weekend as well and like SkepticJ was expecting it to just be "ok", but it turned out to be really good.

As far as the graphic Novel being better than the movie, I'm sure that is true, but that's usually a given and does'nt mean the movie is not good.
I'm looking forward to reading it, hopefully it will have even more poetic dialogue like in the scene where V first meets Evee.

The movie also has some really great music in it.

eburacum45
2006-Mar-20, 04:31 PM
Alan Moore is an extraordinarily good writer.
But he is reported as not liking this particular interpretation of his work. Sometimes I think he expects too much of the cinematic medium.
Recently there have been plenty of films using comic book material to make quite good movies; but graphic novels are always going to be more evocative (in my opinion) because they make the reader work a little harder (and you can read them at your own pace).


I didn't like the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen very much, but that was a bit lightweight.
If Watchmen ever gets finished it had better be good, but we will have to see....

soylentgreen
2006-Mar-20, 04:40 PM
Really?
Have some particularly homophobic Americans taken offense at Stephen Fry, then? We haven't had a hint of that over here.

Stephen Fry is hardly mentioned...owing most likely to the fact that most americans don't even know him.(and if it wasn't for 'House', americans wouldn't know who the hell Hugh Laurie was either!) These people take V himself to be gay, or perish the thought, a transsexual. A rationale they link to alliterative speaking and knowing Shakespeare and Goethe, apparently. In alot of cases, they feel the film shows too much sympathy for the gay and lesbian victims.

Start with **deep breath** the IMDB forum for V...just be sure to keep an eye on your blood pressure...it's a madhouse. One get's the impression that the collapse of intelligent civilization can be glimpsed in five short minutes there.

On the journalistic front, there are quite a few "credible" critics who cannot get out of their own bigoted way to write an objective review.

I loved the film. If people didn't that's fine. It's a free country(see discussion in insane smoking thread in OT BABBLING). What I do take exception to is people whose prejudice is so overwhelming that it interferes with their job to be objective. It is clear, though, that quite a few on-line film critics are working backwards in that they are simply reviewing films as an outlet for their agenda. :rolleyes:

It's not as simple as "oh yeah, the conservative critics are the haters!" Homophobia seeps across all political, ideological and class boundaries.
When a film, whether its well-made or done terribly, can irritate enough to cause these folks to show their spots, it's done something very useful.

And yes mid, I'm afraid it does appear to be something from this side of the Atlantic primarily.

I did particularly enjoy Bill O'Reilly in the film, though. ;)

mid
2006-Mar-20, 04:57 PM
Thanks for the info. All things considered then, I'll think I'll just thank my lucky stars I'm in the UK.

I am surprised to hear that people are claiming that V is gay, however - one of the repeated criticisms I do hear in the UK is the inclusion of rather obvious hints at a romantic subplot between V and Evey that isn't in the comic (not unrelated to the fact that Evey has clearly been made a bit older at the same time).

Gillianren
2006-Mar-20, 07:46 PM
Haven't read the graphic novel; I'll get around to it.

I did see the movie Saturday (along with the same bunch w/whom I watched Serenity; none of them had read the graphic novel, either). I really liked it. I don't know about Oscar contender (for one thing, movies released this early in the year almost never get Oscar nominations), but I did think it was quite good.

Do remember, of course, that V is played by Hugo Weaving. While most people may know him from the Matrix or LOTR movies, in my head, he's still Mitzi the Magnificent from The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, and Americans (at least) have this horrible tendency to assume that people playing gay characters must therefore, logically(!), be gay. At least that's one possibility. Then again, I didn't realize it was Hugo Weaving until the credits, so what do I know?

And, yes, the only political tirades I've heard are re: terrorism. However, I did already go into this in my Rotten Tomatoes review: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as the 80s so clearly showed us!

Swift
2006-Mar-20, 08:48 PM
<snip>
And, yes, the only political tirades I've heard are re: terrorism. However, I did already go into this in my Rotten Tomatoes review: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as the 80s so clearly showed us!
Not to mention the 70s, as in the 1770s. ;)

soylentgreen
2006-Mar-20, 10:26 PM
Not to mention the 70s, as in the 1770s. ;)
Very true.

A book recommendation for all here. Check out "Those Damned Rebels" by Michael Pearson. Almost 30 years old by now and still invaluable, you'll see the American Revolution from the intriguing British perspective. Unless you are British, in which case you already knew we're damnable! ;)

ladyattis
2006-Mar-20, 11:20 PM
It was a good film, and you can't expect as much dialoge as found in Moore's work to be turned into a film without some cutting up of it at the editor floor. All in all, I was glad they keep the heart of Moore's message in the film, and had as much dialog as it did. Most films don't get as much to the core of an issue as this one did. All in all, V was presented more as a Randian Hero more than anything else, which gave me a smile on my face.

So instead of Who is John Galt, lets say Who is V? ^__^

-- Bridget

James_Digriz
2006-Mar-21, 01:02 AM
And if anyone cares to see what a raw nerve this film has touched, just check out the unbelievable rants floating around the net against this thing.

Anyone who's doubted just how disgustingly homophobic the people in our culture can be, are in for a truly rude awakening.

What are they saying? I have only heard about the terrorist stuff. If they are talking about violence and hate and whatnot then that is certainly homophobic behavior. But if it's more along the lines of not wanting to see Brokeback Mountian that certainly doesn't make one a homophobe.


And, yes, the only political tirades I've heard are re: terrorism. However, I did already go into this in my Rotten Tomatoes review: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as the 80s so clearly showed us!

I didn't read your review but I have heard that saying before and I do not agree with it. I can look past it in the movies but in the real world I do not believe in Multi-culturism. George Washington does not equal Osama Bin Laden. All wars to defend against oppression and genocide are not equivalent to terrorism.

James_Digriz
2006-Mar-21, 01:28 AM
Whoops. Substitute Cultural Relatavism for Multi-Culturism in the above post.

ladyattis
2006-Mar-21, 02:24 AM
Well, I am against multiculturalism, but I think the movie V for Vendetta and the comic were both trying to illustrate was that folks don't need to come from the same values to conclude that freedom is a good thing to have, especially if freedom allows good people to do good things. Tyranny never allows that.

-- Bridget

Gillianren
2006-Mar-21, 02:48 AM
I didn't read your review but I have heard that saying before and I do not agree with it. I can look past it in the movies but in the real world I do not believe in Multi-culturism. George Washington does not equal Osama Bin Laden. All wars to defend against oppression and genocide are not equivalent to terrorism.

Yes, but on the other side, they're called freedom fighters, you know.

Don't get me wrong; I think people can fight for freedom without inflicting harm on innocent civilians. But "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are labels primarily intended for propaganda. In my opinion, "terrorist" and "criminal" are interchangeable with equal frequency.

SkepticJ
2006-Mar-21, 04:33 AM
I didn't read your review but I have heard that saying before and I do not agree with it. I can look past it in the movies but in the real world I do not believe in Multi-culturism. George Washington does not equal Osama Bin Laden. All wars to defend against oppression and genocide are not equivalent to terrorism.

What about the Boston Tea Party? If that happened today, why, it'd be called terrorism. At least vandilism.

James_Digriz
2006-Mar-21, 04:48 AM
What about the Boston Tea Party? Were not people killed in that? If that happened today, why, it'd be called terrorism.

Of course, but like Gill said that's just propoganda. Do you believe it was a terroist act? I don't. Terroism is using terror as a weapon by targeting civilians or convincing children and teenagers to become suicide bombers. Resistence movements like the American Revolutionaries target enemy combatants and thier infrastructure. This is not terroism but war, and there are rules in war. It's an important distinction.

James_Digriz
2006-Mar-21, 05:23 AM
I guess we need two deffinitions for the word these days. I would label the people who burn down ski lodges Enviromental Terrorists. But certainly not the same word as the 9-11 terrorists. So your right, by one deffintion, the Boston Tea party revolutionaries were terrorists.

SkepticJ
2006-Mar-21, 05:25 AM
Of course, but like Gill said that's just propoganda. Do you believe it was a terroist act? I don't. Terroism is using terror as a weapon by targeting civilians or convincing children and teenagers to become suicide bombers. Resistence movements like the American Revolutionaries target enemy combatants and their infrastructure. This is not terroism but war, and there are rules in war. It's an important distinction.

So, would you call V a terrorist or a British Revolutionary?

mid
2006-Mar-21, 08:54 AM
You know, thinking about it again last night, I realised that the twin complaints are just amusing.

Some Americans are upset that the film's hero is (they perceive) gay. Meanwhile, some Brits are upset that the film's hero is (by the invention of the Evey romance) straight.

Aaah, the cultural divide. Don't you just love it?

Tog
2006-Mar-21, 10:19 AM
So, would you call V a terrorist or a British Revolutionary?

I would actually say neither. I'm only going by the movie, but everythig he did, he did for revenge. His targets were all political, but that's becasue that's where they appened to be working when his plan came to be. I would say he was actually an Anti-hero, along the lines of nearly any Chales Bronson character, but with better diction. A terrorist would not have named the date and place of his attack, at least not with enough warning for those not involved to be well clear of it.

He was a revolutionary in the way he tried to rally the people to rise up, but again, if averyone involved with his origin had moved on to become real estate agents, I doubt he would have attacked the targets he did.

He was a man driven to revenge who used the revolution to justify it. Actually, I see a lot of similarities to Bravehart in that respect.

My other forum home is a game called City of Heroes which is based on comic book heroes and villains There are a LOT of rabid comics eeks in there. I'm looking forward to seeing how the two boards differ in the opinions of the movie.:)

Doodler
2006-Mar-21, 01:06 PM
1) The 'hero' blowing up a London Underground tube in an act of terror against his Government is in rather poor taste after the events of July 7th last year. But hey! It wasn't in New York, so who cares?

Sometimes I wish people would get the heck over themselves. I'm still a bit fried that Spiderman was editted to remove the twin towers to avoid upsetting New Yorkers.

And these are supposedly the toughest Americans? My heart weeps...

Gerrsun
2006-Mar-21, 05:00 PM
Sometimes I wish people would get the heck over themselves. I'm still a bit fried that Spiderman was editted to remove the twin towers to avoid upsetting New Yorkers.

And these are supposedly the toughest Americans? My heart weeps...


Well, don't confuse Hollywood cultural relativism with the feelings of most folks. I doubt many New Yorkers cared one way or the other. It was those vocal few they were trying to keep from trashing the film I suspect and cause the movie to lose money, which IS the bottom line motivator in Hollywood.

Imagine me, a good ole Southern boy defending New Yorkers. :P

Gerrsun
2006-Mar-21, 05:08 PM
But what if I'm a fighting for the freedom to oppress others? Am I still considered a freedom fighter?

In V's case, do his ends justify his means?

soylentgreen
2006-Mar-21, 05:43 PM
But what if I'm a fighting for the freedom to oppress others? Am I still considered a freedom fighter?


see: America, Confederate States of (1861-1865)

Gerrsun
2006-Mar-21, 06:04 PM
see: America, Confederate States of (1861-1865)

Your point?

Ara Pacis
2006-Mar-21, 07:46 PM
I liked the movie and hadn't read the comic book. But I'm concerned this forum isn't the best place for this discussion, otherwise I'd go into it more.

Gillianren
2006-Mar-21, 07:50 PM
Of course, but like Gill said that's just propoganda. Do you believe it was a terroist act? I don't. Terroism is using terror as a weapon by targeting civilians or convincing children and teenagers to become suicide bombers. Resistence movements like the American Revolutionaries target enemy combatants and thier infrastructure. This is not terroism but war, and there are rules in war. It's an important distinction.

Gillian, please, not Gill.

I, personally, believe it's a sliding scale, and where the scale slides does largely depend on who's measuring. It's a matter of historical record that not all American revolutionaries attacked solely military targets. Command did, true, but a lot of individual people attacked anyone they so much as thought was opposed to them. Are they terrorists? We hope that history will give us perspective on such matters, but it doesn't, necessarily, given how many people today ignore that the right in "states' rights" was at the time well-understood to mean "the right to keep slaves." (Also well-documented in period documents, but will anyone listen to me?)

soylentgreen
2006-Mar-21, 08:14 PM
But what if I'm a fighting for the freedom to oppress others? Am I still considered a freedom fighter?


see: America, Confederate States of (1861-1865)

Your point?

In the context of your top question...do you consider them freedom fighters?

Dave Mitsky
2006-Mar-21, 09:59 PM
Of course, but like Gill said that's just propoganda. Do you believe it was a terroist act? I don't. Terroism is using terror as a weapon by targeting civilians or convincing children and teenagers to become suicide bombers.

I just want to point out that by that logic the Allied mass bombing and fire-bombing of German and Japanese cities, and, in particular, the use of the atomic bomb, was essentially terrorism.

Dave Mitsky

Melusine
2006-Mar-21, 10:45 PM
Originally Posted by SkepticJ
What about the Boston Tea Party? Were not people killed in that? If that happened today, why, it'd be called terrorism.

Of course, but like Gill said that's just propoganda. Do you believe it was a terroist act? I don't. Terroism is using terror as a weapon by targeting civilians or convincing children and teenagers to become suicide bombers. Resistence movements like the American Revolutionaries target enemy combatants and thier infrastructure. This is not terroism but war, and there are rules in war. It's an important distinction.
Sort of OT, but the State Department's definition of terrorism is that which is used to coerce a government, or governing body of some sort, usually by violent means in order to produce a desired effect or impact on such governing body. (that's a paraphrase).

The burning of SUV's by "eco-terrorists" qualifies as domestic terrorism under the new Patriot Act. Their cause = environmental concerns with the aim of change.

SkepticJ is corrrect, the Boston Tea Party would qualify as domestic terrorism today. Their cause= taxation; desire for sovereignty. That was not part of a declared war. It was one of the rumblings leading to war.

The kids burning the churches recently- vandalism. They were just idiots with no cause nor were they attempting to coerce anybody.

*Curious about this movie now. Hmm.

Duane
2006-Mar-22, 12:08 AM
I want to remind everyone that politics is a no-go subject on this board,m and this topic is beginning to slide into them. Please keep it to the light side :)

captain swoop
2006-Mar-22, 02:04 PM
Alan Moore had his name taken off the film credits.

He hated 'League' as well.

BBC2 'Culture Show' a couple of weeks ago did an extended profile and interview with hhim.

soylentgreen
2006-Mar-22, 04:09 PM
Alan Moore had his name taken off the film credits.

He hated 'League' as well.

The original works of "League" and "V" are a bibliophile's dream come true; rewarding on many, many levels. And therein lies the rub.

Alan Moore is the very definition of a cranky genius. He gave up on any film translations of his work some time ago. It's makes sense in his case where 1) his work is usually very complex and involves alot of frankly unfilmable elements and 2) his work usually has a large and clearly established appreciation. His sensitivity to his work being "interpreted" is completely understandable.

On the issue of V, V FOR VENDETTA is quite different from the original novel.* Some of that was due to making it work in any reasonable movie-going timeframe. Some due to the filmmakers injecting elements from the current social landscape. I personally didn't think anything they added is in danger of becoming dated; they appeared to be issues that are unfortunately constants in our society. Naturally, as some plot elements get jettisoned, and characters can merge(hmm?) when adapting across mediums, the ultimate question will always have to be 'was it faithful to the core point of the original?' For this film, it seems from the polarization of audiences, that it will not be easy to answer that(Alan Moore's opinion notwihstanding).

Think about THE FIRM(remember when John Grisham was 'all that'?). For the film they changed the whole ending, claiming the need to introduce a twist even for people who had read the book. That's a big departure. Yet, as clearly as I can recall, Grisham made no public gripe.

Authors like James Patterson, Scott Turow and the like can only gain by having their books turned into films, as their stuff is less complex and usually doesn't involve a large special effects budget. Forgetting, of course, that they're usually pretty run-of-the-mill to begin with. Even Stephen King, who I was a tremendous fan of years ago, seems like he's spent most of the last 15 years writing screen treatments instead of novels; two hours worth of plot with hundreds of pages of extraneous filler that when removed for the inevitable movie version, won't be missed at all.

On the other hand, what about(and criminy, I really hate to even mention this junk!)HARRY POTTER? One of the bigger complaints one could hear when the films started churning out of the grinder, was that they were too close to the original work!

For an interesting contrast to the oft-heard "They've raped my work" mantra from some authors, check out what David Brin has said about what was done to his work in THE POSTMAN. Also interesting is Harry Harrison's take on what happened to his "Make Room, Make Room" when it became :o SOYLENT GREEN.

Granted, these two books where drastically altered on their way to the screen, but as the authors mention, change does not always have to mean something bad.



*The setting was obviously constructed during a different time...if I hear one more person point out that it was a reaction to Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher and not Shrub, I'm going to scream! Yes, but as with some of the best sci-fi (dystopias more pointedly), satire, metaphor and parable are the key to 'getting the point.' In 1984, Big Brother was 'supposed to be' Stalin, right? Yes...and, more importantly, no! That's the beauty of it. Sure, he wrote it in and around 1948 and could not have imagined just how the cold war would evolve, nor picture Reagan's hawkish first term...but do you think for one moment, that the people protesting outside the airbases in England in the 80s didn't see themselves as living in Airstrip One?

Gillianren
2006-Mar-22, 07:59 PM
On the other hand, what about(and criminy, I really hate to even mention this junk!)HARRY POTTER? One of the bigger complaints one could hear when the films started churning out of the grinder, was that they were too close to the original work!

No one I know has ever complained about that; all the complaints of which I know are the other way 'round.

Frankly, much as I enjoyed the movie, Alan Moore had a right to complain about League. Has anyone but me done the math to work out how old Tom Sawyer would've been at that point?

Ara Pacis
2006-Mar-22, 08:13 PM
If Alan more is such a genius then why didn't he adapt the story for the big screen himself?

Gillianren
2006-Mar-22, 08:47 PM
If Alan more is such a genius then why didn't he adapt the story for the big screen himself?

Because of several possibilities--for one, maybe they didn't ask him to. If the rights were purchased, the person purchasing the rights gets to decide who's going to adapt the thing.

Maybe he's no good at writing adaptations for the screen, as, Gods love 'im, Stephen King is not. There's all sorts of different kinds of writing talent, and perhaps Alan Moore knows he can't write screenplays worth owl poop. (Note: I'm not saying he can't, as I don't know. But if he can't, maybe he knows it and elects not to.)

Maybe he doesn't want 'em adapted in the first place, particularly, and chooses to distance himself from the start. (And, yes, there are lots of reasons that something could be adapted for a movie even when the original artist doesn't particularly want it to be.)

Roy Batty
2006-Mar-22, 08:54 PM
If Alan more is such a genius then why didn't he adapt the story for the big screen himself?

[pedant]Alan Moore[/pendant]:) He just wasn't interested. He got the initial, one off adaptation rights off DC etc for his works, but, as has already been mentioned, a lot of his graphic novels arn't that adaptable without losing a lot of the invisaged content. I havn't seen 'V' yet, but will very soon since I reckon from what i've seen/read/heard so far, on balance, it probably is the best adaptation of his stories yet (that's not saying much I know:)), anyway I'll be trying to see it as a separate entity anyway.. ala Blade Runner:D

England prevails;)

soylentgreen
2006-Mar-23, 01:13 AM
No one I know has ever complained about that; all the complaints of which I know are the other way 'round.

Frankly, much as I enjoyed the movie, Alan Moore had a right to complain about League. Has anyone but me done the math to work out how old Tom Sawyer would've been at that point?

I seem to remember a number of critics pointing it out. It may not have been many, but even the rare instance of such an observation is...well, rare!


I **looks around surreptitiously** also liked LEAGUE, particularly the 'world falling into chaos' opening and Quatermain meeting the other members.
As for Tom Sawyer :rolleyes:, they apparently just had to throw an American on the team, and worse it had to be someone every dullard would recognize. If they were going to tamper, Id've preferred they just go use Edgar Allan Poe's William Legrand, he could be the team's cryptographer. Or better yet, Teddy Roosevelt, not the real man mind you, but the version of himself he created in his writing. Nothing says turn of the century America better than ol' T.R. himself. And he was a real "character" in is his own book!

Roy Batty
2006-Mar-23, 01:16 AM
Why not just throw in Mark Twain himself, worked in STtNG :D

James_Digriz
2006-Mar-23, 02:03 AM
So, would you call V a terrorist or a British Revolutionary?

I don't know. I havn't seen the movie.

Ara Pacis
2006-Mar-23, 05:39 AM
Maybe he's no good at writing adaptations for the screen, as, Gods love 'im, Stephen King is not. There's all sorts of different kinds of writing talent, and perhaps Alan Moore knows he can't write screenplays worth owl poop. (Note: I'm not saying he can't, as I don't know. But if he can't, maybe he knows it and elects not to.)

Bingo! That's my point. If he can't do it then why complain about how someone else does it.

mid
2006-Mar-23, 09:25 AM
Partly because Alan knows what he was doing with the comic, and that's why he did it in the medium he chose. It's a running trope through interviews with him that he's a complete obsessive when it comes to attention to the detail of every single frame and all the tiny little nuances of plot and reference. Film screenwriters just don't get anything even close to that level of control, and so he doesn't want to get involved in that world.

Gillian - you may not have read (or remember reading) anyone making that criticism about Potter, but I'm fairly sure I've done so on this forum myself. The first two films were produced and directed by that complete hack Chris Columbus, and one of the major reasons I don't think they work nearly as well as films as the latter two (directed by actual directors with talent and flair) is that they plod through event after event from the books, desperately trying to avoid offending any fans by leaving their favorite little detail out.

Both Azkahban and Goblet are good films in their own right, with a film's sense of pace and nuance, but they achieve that precisely by knowing what needs to change from the books.

Gillianren
2006-Mar-23, 08:03 PM
See, everyone I know has a favorite bit that got left out. Actually, my biggest complaint is that there's too much flying car in Chamber of Secrets; if they'd taken out five minutes of flying car, they could've put quite a lot of plot back in.

Ara Pacis, I don't think you get it. Just because you may know you don't have the gift to do something yourself doesn't mean you don't know when it's done badly. Besides, the single biggest complaint of adaptations is how the source material gets mutilated. It isn't just Alan Moore. It actually doesn't, in my opinion, take as much talent to adapt something well as to create something very, very good on your own. After all, you've already got the story and probably large amounts of the dialogue laid out for you. When they change the story, it detracts from the movie simply because it invites unfavorable comparison. A few of my favorite movies, admittedly, are very, very bad adaptations of whatever-work, but they're so badly adapted as to pretty much share nothing but a title and probably character names. It's the almost-but-not-quite adaptations that tend to be worse.

soylentgreen
2006-Mar-23, 08:36 PM
A few of my favorite movies, admittedly, are very, very bad adaptations of whatever-work, but they're so badly adapted as to pretty much share nothing but a title and probably character names. It's the almost-but-not-quite adaptations that tend to be worse.

Gillian, I'm curious as to what some of those movies are.

I find myself often taking the role of the apologist(and I hate it!), when it comes to fessing up to a film I like that happens to have a strong stigma attached to it. THE POSTMAN springs to mind. The Australian version of ON THE BEACH. Oh yeah, OMEGA MAN(hello, way off from the original book!). LIFEFORCE is another one.

Jim
2006-Mar-23, 10:11 PM
So, would you call V a terrorist or a British Revolutionary?

I am reminded of an old Jack Benny show, where he had a British comedian as a guest. The guest mentioned that he was descended from a notable personage from American history... Benedict Arnold.

"Oh, " said Benny, "Benedict Arnold, the American traitor."

"No, " replied the guest, "Benedict Arnold, the British patriot."

Gillianren
2006-Mar-24, 12:50 AM
Gillian, I'm curious as to what some of those movies are.

The most notable is The Moon-Spinners, starring Haley Mills. I have the book. At some point, I'll break down and buy the movie. However, aside from both being set on Crete, both involving a girl named Nikki, her cousin (aunt, as I recall, in the movie) Frances, and a boy named Mark, there's practically no similarity at all. There's some smuggling in both, and some romance, but I could go on longer than you'd listen about the differences.

Ara Pacis
2006-Mar-24, 03:34 AM
Ara Pacis, I don't think you get it. Just because you may know you don't have the gift to do something yourself doesn't mean you don't know when it's done badly. Besides, the single biggest complaint of adaptations is how the source material gets mutilated. It isn't just Alan Moore. It actually doesn't, in my opinion, take as much talent to adapt something well as to create something very, very good on your own. After all, you've already got the story and probably large amounts of the dialogue laid out for you. When they change the story, it detracts from the movie simply because it invites unfavorable comparison. A few of my favorite movies, admittedly, are very, very bad adaptations of whatever-work, but they're so badly adapted as to pretty much share nothing but a title and probably character names. It's the almost-but-not-quite adaptations that tend to be worse.


No I get it, I just disagree. I write scripts too. Each medium has it's own limitations. Some people can write in one but not others, but some people can write well in several media. Alan Moore should know this. And I disagree that writing new is harder. Adapting presents a whole other layer of problems on top of the usual difficulty of formulating a story. An analogy would be construction, where it is often easier and cheaper to build a new structure than to remodel an existing structure.

James_Digriz
2006-Mar-24, 03:48 AM
The first two films were produced and directed by that complete hack Chris Columbus, and one of the major reasons I don't think they work nearly as well as films as the latter two (directed by actual directors with talent and flair) is that they plod through event after event from the books, desperately trying to avoid offending any fans by leaving their favorite little detail out.

That may be true but it's certainly a statement to how good the first 4 Harry Potter books are that plodding through event after event from the books didn't hurt the movies all that much. I have read them all and seen all the moives and I throughly enjoyed the first two movies.

Tog
2006-Mar-24, 10:31 AM
The most notable is The Moon-Spinners, starring Haley Mills. I have the book. At some point, I'll break down and buy the movie. However, aside from both being set on Crete, both involving a girl named Nikki, her cousin (aunt, as I recall, in the movie) Frances, and a boy named Mark, there's practically no similarity at all. There's some smuggling in both, and some romance, but I could go on longer than you'd listen about the differences.

The Micheal Chicton book The Lost World would be another. It was the psedo sequel to Jurassic Park. I say pseudo, because he seems to have forgotten that a main character in the second book didn't survive the first one.:doh:

The book and movie both started on an island, and both had dinosaurs. In the book there was no bad Godzilla scenes in the mainland of the US. There were a number of other differences as well. In fact, many scenes from the second and even third move came from the first book.

As for the Harry Potter books and films, the third an fourth have taken one of the subplots completely out of the movies, which makes me wonder how they will deal with it in the 5th moovie, since it plaed a pretty big part in the 5th book. I'm refering to Ron's older brother Percy.

There was also the more indepth subplot of the missing people in the 4th book and the role of the the female house elf in the story, that were all but absent in the movie. Some of the cuts they made were good, but those two made a lot of what is to come more confusing.

Fr. Wayne
2006-Mar-24, 12:13 PM
found an audacious confusion of ideas in "V for Vendetta" and enjoyed their manic disorganization. To attempt a parable about terrorism and totalitarianism that would be relevant and readable might be impossible, could be dangerous and would probably not be box office
from:http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/REVIEWS/60308005/1001

I have to agree with Roger E. For once.

SeanF
2006-Mar-24, 04:25 PM
The Micheal Chicton book The Lost World would be another. It was the psedo sequel to Jurassic Park. I say pseudo, because he seems to have forgotten that a main character in the second book didn't survive the first one.:doh:
I'm guessing he wrote The Lost World as a sequel to the movie Jurassic Park (in which the character in question did survive).

Arthur C. Clarke did the same thing, writing 2010 as a sequel to the movie 2001 (monolith at Jupiter) rather than the book 2001 (monolith at Saturn).

:)

mid
2006-Mar-24, 04:49 PM
In the book there was no bad Godzilla scenes in the mainland of the US.

To give David Koepp his dues, neither did the screenplay. That whole ending (and what an almost film-ruining ending it is) was hacked together at the last minute after Spielberg saw what Emmerich and Devlin were up to with their simply hideous Godzilla adaptation, and wanted some of that action.

Damburger
2006-Mar-25, 08:25 PM
I saw it at the cinema thursday night. Its a decent movie, although it could do with a little more setting up at the beginning, to actually get you to care about the society in question.

Oh, and Portmans English accent is horrible. I like most of her work, but in this film she seems to have trouble deciding which part of England she comes from.

soylentgreen
2006-Mar-25, 08:40 PM
Oh, and Portmans English accent is horrible. I like most of her work, but in this film she seems to have trouble deciding which part of England she comes from.

The filmmakers were obviously gambling on everyone outside of England not noticing the wandering accent.

I can look past bad accents in films easily, but I appreciated that, over the course of the film, she did seem to accomplish the neat trick of imitating each character from ARE YOU BEING SERVED. ;)

Fr. Wayne
2006-Mar-25, 08:43 PM
Oh, and Portmans English accent is horrible. I like most of her work, but in this film she seems to have trouble deciding which part of England she comes from.

She'd make a wonderful "My Fair Lady." Now if only Sean Connery could learn English he'd make the perfect Dr. Dolittle. Roger Moore?

mike alexander
2006-Mar-26, 02:10 AM
I doubt an American audience would catch the nuances of regional British accents any more than a British audience would catch the subtle differences in any of a dozen American accents. I surely didn't.

Damburger
2006-Mar-26, 03:58 AM
I doubt an American audience would catch the nuances of regional British accents any more than a British audience would catch the subtle differences in any of a dozen American accents. I surely didn't.

Yeah, but its not like they couldn't afford a better accent coach. Did anybody have a problem with Helena Bonham Carters accent in Fight Club?

Anyway, back on the subject, Stephen Fry is one of the best things about the film. He basically plays himself (as he is a gay TV comedian) and for British viewers at least theres a disturbing realism to him being dragged off by the secret police.

soylentgreen
2006-Mar-26, 05:57 AM
Stephen Fry is one of the best things about the film. He basically plays himself (as he is a gay TV comedian) and for British viewers at least theres a disturbing realism to him being dragged off by the secret police.

I notice people, Americans mostly, being suprised to learn of his playing Oscar Wilde(a stunning performance, IMHO!).

I imagine that played no small part in his being cast as Dietrich in V.

I've been singing his praises for years and I'm very happy to see his fairly decent exposure in this film. I don't think very many people actually saw GOSFORD PARK

On a creepy note, as far as the disturbing realism to him being dragged off by the secret police...I can't recall if Franz Six or Schellenberg was the person in charge, either from a Gestapo department, the SS or the SD, but a list was put together in the event of the invasion of England of who the Nazis would simply go out and help vanish into the night and fog. I remember H.G. Wells, Virginia Woolf and Freud(who the Nazis didn't know had already carked) being high on the list. Gordon Dietrich, or Oscar Wilde...or Stephen Fry for that matter would probably have been on someone's list.

captain swoop
2006-Mar-27, 11:36 AM
He has a good Panel Game show called Q.I. which is just a platform for him to be clever and witty. it's rather good and rude!


And of course he was 'Melchett' in Blackadder 2, the Duke of Wllington in 3 and General Melchett in Blackadder 3.

mid
2006-Mar-27, 12:16 PM
This is where I don't derail the entire thread with Mechett quotes, isn't it?

Gillianren
2006-Mar-28, 08:46 PM
I've been singing his praises for years and I'm very happy to see his fairly decent exposure in this film. I don't think very many people actually saw GOSFORD PARK

I did! Man, that movie was funny!

enginelessjohn
2006-Mar-29, 09:42 AM
This is where I don't derail the entire thread with Mechett quotes, isn't it?

Oh go on....

harlequin
2006-Apr-01, 06:11 AM
I am reminded of an old Jack Benny show, where he had a British comedian as a guest. The guest mentioned that he was descended from a notable personage from American history... Benedict Arnold.

"Oh, " said Benny, "Benedict Arnold, the American traitor."

"No, " replied the guest, "Benedict Arnold, the British patriot."


Actually I would not call Arnold a British patriot either. By all rights he was a traitor to both: first to the British and second to the Americans. And his defection to the British side had nothing to due with patriotism: unless pleasing one's spouse,avoiding corruption charges, and whining that Congress made a necessary alliance with a country whose forces he once last a battle counts as patriotism.

folkhemmet
2006-Apr-01, 11:51 AM
Natalie Portman is sexy. It was a good film. It is prophetic in the sense that as the 21ist century progresses we are likely to see increasing levels of socioeconomic upheaval and repression as those in positions of power try to hold onto an unsustainable system of greed for as long as they can.

soylentgreen
2006-Apr-01, 05:32 PM
Actually I would not call Arnold a British patriot either...his defection to the British side had nothing to due with patriotism...
I agree. His story is taught very poorly here in the states. Unfortunately, I don't think that the Aidan Quinn film helped very much either.


unless pleasing one's spouse,avoiding corruption charges, and whining that Congress made a necessary alliance with a country whose forces he once last a battle counts as patriotism.

Peggy Shippen, ugh! I've been saying it for years...behind every stupid move a man makes is a woman! ;)
"Out damn spot!"

loglo
2006-Apr-01, 07:51 PM
But what if I'm a fighting for the freedom to oppress others? Am I still considered a freedom fighter?



No, because fighting for freedom means fighting for EVERYONES freedom!

harlequin
2006-Apr-02, 04:44 PM
No, because fighting for freedom means fighting for EVERYONES freedom!

Except for those who really don't count anyways.

Gillianren
2006-Apr-02, 08:40 PM
Peggy Shippen, ugh! I've been saying it for years...behind every stupid move a man makes is a woman! ;)
"Out damn spot!"

Yes, but every stupid move a woman makes is for a man, too.

soylentgreen
2006-Apr-03, 12:14 AM
Yes, but every stupid move a woman makes is for a man, too.

True. My wife did marry me! ;)