Kath and I went to a wholly unadavertised 10 PM showing of “V for Vendetta” last night that we stumbled over looking for an early morning showing on Moviefone.com. Maybe 20 people there. Comments with some spoiler aspects follow:
The first question, naturally, is fealty to the book by David Lloyd (I understand Alan Moore also had something to do with it, but he had his name removed from the credits.) Well, it’s not “Sin City,” a film so obsessively faithful to the source material that it might have been directed by Adrian Monk. And it features the types of cinematic flourishes and additions that looks spiffy on film and make little sense from a literary point of view (how the hëll did he have the resources to manufacture and ship a couple thousand “V” masks to the citizenry?) And yes, aspects of the end have changed. Then again, one must consider that a Hollywood which had no trouble giving “The Scarlet Letter” a happy ending would have had no compunction in saying, “Is there any reason this can’t be set in a futuristic America and he wants to blow up the Capitol building instead of Parliament?” So on that basis, the story itself got off pretty lightly.
And while I’m thinking about it, while modern fans howl about decompressed storytelling, let’s keep in mind that Moore’s “1984 meets Phantom of the Opera” tale unfolded–how best to put it–in a fairly leisurely fashion. (As if “Watchmen” wasn’t about twice as long as it needed to be.) The 2 hour, 20 minute film version is powerful in its relatively brevity, and its script hits enough of Moore’s high points that one feels the moviemakers sufficiently “got it” that the movie evokes the feel and spirit of the original. The acting is uniformly top notch, although it does strike me a little odd that apparently they couldn’t find a single actress in Britain to play the lead and required Natalie Portman to put on a Brit accent (which, by the way, she more than capably does. This is easily the best performance I’ve seen her give.) And one cannot overlook the compelling performance by Hugo Weaving as “V,” not an easy feat in a non-moving mask (especially when one considers that, to make emotional moments work, Sam Raimi feels the need to divest Spider-Man of his mask at least once a reel.)
Overall, a well-made, comepelling film that should be experienced on the big screen. And particularly pertient to today’s environment where discussion of a government keeping its citizenry in line through fear has unmistakeable resonance.
However, I’m wondering if the film is going to get slammed because some will perceive it as glorifying, or at least justifying, terrorism. Will V, hiding away in his Shadow Gallery while planning his acts of destruction and murder, be liked to bin Laden entrenched in a bunker somewhere scheming to destroy hubs of industry? Will the producers of the film be accused of siding with terrorists and tacitly endorsing their activities? I’ll be interested to see.
PAD
• 
“The fact that it brings out such strong emotion is actually a win for a movie. That should be the goal of this type of film”.
In my case I’m angry because of how great the BOOK is, and how far short the film falls from that. Now, if you’re arguing that the film is important because it’s stirring up controversy…
Think about this-
There are people who will not watch this movie because of the somewhat specific topicality of the film. Let’s say there’s someone who won’t go see Brokeback because of the well-publicized gay content of the film.
That’s disgusting.
I don’t like movies that glorify homosexuality.
Not for me.
Now, this person might go see V for Vendetta. It’s supposed to be some sort of action movie, about a revolution or something. Got great reviews. And the Matrix was cool, so why not? Let us further suppose that this person might be swayed by the inherent poetry of Valerie’s story.
Gee, I never thought of it that way.
It must be kind of tough for those people.
Why shouldn’t they be able to vote?
The point is, controversy’s a double-edged sword. And before someone wants to point out how far-out my example is, I’d like to point out that I was a more-or-less homophobic young man, due to my upbringing, until at age 12 or 13 I saw the movie Philadelphia.
Oops. Replace “vote” with “get married” in the above post, please. I am tired and ask for slack.
I’ve said that several times.
So we’ve noticed.
The thing is, the rest of us don’t see it that way.
Iguy:Can I ask you a question? Would you have been happy with a story where the facist soceity came to be because Democrats ceded the country to terrorists and instead of rounding up war protestors, muslims and gays, they eliminated the gay aspect and made it Christians and right wing activists? Or would you consider that childish, stupid and silly?
If that was happening in the real world, I for one would not find it silly or stupid. Where your analogy breaks down is that what is happening with the Bush administration IS happening.
Honestly, you have every right not to like the movie, but you are getting seriously annoying with your shouting that everyone else must agree with you. Take pride in being the sole wise man in the room if you have to, but move on, please.
And I second what Craig says.
“Can I ask you a question? Would you have been happy with a story where the facist soceity came to be because Democrats ceded the country to terrorists and instead of rounding up war protestors, muslims and gays, they eliminated the gay aspect and made it Christians and right wing activists? Or would you consider that childish, stupid and silly?”
Actually I have seen and read stories with that concept and enjoyed them quite well when the stories internal logic holds up and I find the writing enjoyable. Kinda like V (the movie) did.
“…instead of rounding up war protestors, muslims and gays…”
The film showed protestors of any kind being rounded up. You’re seeing it as rounding up protestors of the war and linking that to “I hate Bush” propaganda. Unfair vote counting.
Muslims were rounded up in Moore’s work as well as the movie. Granted, they weren’t presented as prominently but just goes with that “recent events” updating that you hate.
I seem to remember gays being a major theme in Moore’s work as well. The entire section of Valerie’s story in the film was the one of the closest moments the film got to doing a direct translation of any of Moore’s writing. How has that been seen by reviewers? I’ve read several reviews that mention it as a pointless side plot about gay lovers that slowed the film down and was just included to slam Bush as anti-gay by the I Hate Bush crowd. No point in pointing out that that scene was written twenty plus years ago because those people are going to see what they want to see in the film. Much like you it seems.
Two of the three things you mention are featured just as much by Moore as in the movie. The Muslim issue isn’t really shoved down peoples throats as much as you seem to want to believe.
The film did allow people to connect the dots on other things though. I have a black coworker who got the idea that blacks were rounded up and gotten rid of for reasons other then being gay or Muslim. How? There were no blacks at all that he saw in the cast or in the crowd shots and he caught the inference in Storm Saxon being a popular show (shown on TV when V stormed the TV tower). He also has never read the book and I didn’t tell him much about it. I don’t think that I ever mentioned Storm Saxon (“That dumb ášš thing on TV” is what he called it before describing it to me).
He got it from just those two subtle hints. Maybe I should describe them as too subtle hints as you’ve railed that they weren’t there and that the film makers weren’t allowing audiences to connect all the dots on their own.
Only two references? Then the song “This Vicious Cabaret” didn’t make the cut?
Sad, really – I was kind of looking forward to seeing V perform it…
Those were the two he picked up on. I’m sure that if we all sat down and made a list we could fill this blog with all the subtle dots to connect that the film actually has in it.
Haven’t seen the movie as yet, but I did buy the trade paperback a few years ago. I remember liking it, overall, but it’s been long enough that I don’t recall all the details. Basically what stuck with me was Eevy wondering if V was her father; and the end, when Eevy welcomes What’shisname to her home.
I paged through it yesterday and this morning, and came across one small detail that would have annoyed me when I read it a few years back, and still annoys me today. The expression “All right” consists of _two_ words. It’s disappointing that Alan Moore could’ve made such an elementary mistake.
And if it turns out he’d had it right in the first place, and some editor had gone in and changed the phrase to the incorrect “alright”, I hope he gave said editor a piece of his mind.
Rick
“If that was happening in the real world, I for one would not find it silly or stupid. Where your analogy breaks down is that what is happening with the Bush administration IS happening.
Honestly, you have every right not to like the movie, but you are getting seriously annoying with your shouting that everyone else must agree with you. Take pride in being the sole wise man in the room if you have to, but move on, please.”
The Bush Administration is rounding up gays and people who have copies of the Koran? Or is that maybe a cartoonish distortion that can be better served with a more subtle metaphor…one that actually existed in the original work.
I find people denying the obvious to be just as annoying as you find me.
“I’ve said that several times.
So we’ve noticed.
The thing is, the rest of us don’t see it that way.”
The rest of you don’t see that I didn’t say anything about biological attacks. Because that, of course, is what that quote is referring to.
“Actually I have seen and read stories with that concept and enjoyed them quite well when the stories internal logic holds up and I find the writing enjoyable. Kinda like V (the movie) did.”
Would you like V or Animal Farm turned into that? That’s kind of the question I asked. Because I find it insulting that the Wachowski’s dumbed down a complex work in order to make a political statement that was ALREADY in the dámņ work but just not as obvious as they evidently wanted it.
“The film showed protestors of any kind being rounded up. You’re seeing it as rounding up protestors of the war and linking that to “I hate Bush” propaganda. Unfair vote counting.”
Yeah because the footage of Evey’s parents getting taken did not occur right after footage of the Iraq War and protests. Do you have an explanation for the Curfew Alert: Yellow? Or is that another thing that is just a crazy coincidence?
“seem to remember gays being a major theme in Moore’s work as well. The entire section of Valerie’s story in the film was the one of the closest moments the film got to doing a direct translation of any of Moore’s writing. How has that been seen by reviewers? I’ve read several reviews that mention it as a pointless side plot about gay lovers that slowed the film down and was just included to slam Bush as anti-gay by the I Hate Bush crowd. No point in pointing out that that scene was written twenty plus years ago because those people are going to see what they want to see in the film. Much like you it seems.”
I don’t have a problem with the stuff written 20 years ago. I loved the Valerie scene. Best scene of the whole movie, probably because it was the only one not tainted by those two hacks. It made a point about gay prejudice in a time when gays were getting actively discriminated against in Britain. How did it do this? By weaving it into the storyline Moore had already created. He didn’t try to directly link it to Thatcher politics. He let the story of Valerie speak as a metaphor for what was happening to gays in his country. Don’t try to paint me as some conservative idiot that hates the novel. I love the dámņ novel. Which is why I hate that it was butchered into this monstrosity.
“Two of the three things you mention are featured just as much by Moore as in the movie. The Muslim issue isn’t really shoved down peoples throats as much as you seem to want to believe.”
Bull. The whole thing is a joke among my friends now. Where was Scott yesterday? Well, they were going to let him go, but when they found out he had a Koran they executed him. Please don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining.
“He got it from just those two subtle hints. Maybe I should describe them as too subtle hints as you’ve railed that they weren’t there and that the film makers weren’t allowing audiences to connect all the dots on their own.”
So I have a question? Why did they beat us over the head with the Muslim and gay stuff (via the Evey boss scene) when they let the other racist stuff go with a message so subtle it isn’t even in the film. (“I saw a black guy in the camp” is hardly evidence that they included it any more than the dolls on Prospero’s shelf indicate that they included that scene). Was it an accident? Did they feel the racial issues weren’t important? Or perhaps they distracted from the sledgehammer of obviousness that the Wachowski’s decided to wield?
I don’t think that Iguy is trying to force everyone to agree with him so much as trying to clarify his point that he felt that the movie ruined the story through simplification and dumbing down, a point which several posters seemed not to get the first couple times around.
I don’t want everyone to agree with me.
If you liked the movie with the political points, go ahead.
I thought it was cartoonish and silly and it ruined what could have been one of the greatest movies of all time had they kept to the story that Moore wrote.
“Only two references? Then the song “This Vicious Cabaret” didn’t make the cut?
Sad, really – I was kind of looking forward to seeing V perform it…”
Not unless its in the background somewhere. V doesn’t perform it anyway.
“Don’t try to paint me as some conservative idiot that hates the novel. I love the dámņ novel. Which is why I hate that it was butchered into this monstrosity.”
Never called you a conservative. Never said you hate the novel. You would really have had to read an entire novel between the lines to have gotten that.
All I said was that you seem to have seen what you wanted to see in a great deal of the movie in the same ways that several movie critics I’ve read have. You are, again, seeing what you want to see in something rather then what was actually there.
“He didn’t try to directly link it to Thatcher politics. He let the story of Valerie speak as a metaphor for what was happening to gays in his country.”
Strange….. Moore himself has pointed out in several interviews that the politics of Thatcher as well as the statements made by the more extreme wing of her party were exactly what he tied into his story to create his future England. Some of what you’ve read may come across as more subtle to you then it actually was because you didn’t live there during that time period. I have a friend who was born and raised on the Isle of Mann and read the portion of the story that first got published there when it got published. I’ve asked him about it since this debate started and he says that a lot of it wasn’t as subtle as you seem to believe it was.
That’s not a slam on you by any means. I’ve done the same before and will again I’m sure. It’s natural.
“Don’t try to paint me as some conservative idiot that hates the novel. I love the dámņ novel. Which is why I hate that it was butchered into this monstrosity.”
No, it really wasn’t.
I think it wise to remember that novels are never “butchered into” anything. The novel is the novel, the movie is the movie. They are two separate works. Oftentimes, if they bear any resemblance, it’s an accident.
Keep in mind “V for Vendetta” is alive and well and available on bookshelves to anyone who wants to read it.
PAD
Sorry about taking the comments the wrong way. I’ve had people tell me I’m reacting to a book written 20 years ago before, and I think that’s silly because what I am arguing is the book 20 years ago is what should have been brought to the screen. If that’s not what you’re implying, my bad. I don’t mean to come across as more heated than I actually am.
“All I said was that you seem to have seen what you wanted to see in a great deal of the movie in the same ways that several movie critics I’ve read have. You are, again, seeing what you want to see in something rather then what was actually there.”
I think it is actually there. The Curfew Alert: Yellow was added as an obvious reference to the Terror Alerts. The Abu Gharib hoods did not exist anywhere in the comic, but they added them anyway. (I do give them some credit for not including a scene with a dog terrorizing a prisoner which I was absolutely sure was coming). The addition of the Muslim holy book as the main censored material. The addition of another gay character when Valerie said what was needed to be said in a much more powerful way. I would have preffered the story as originally presented. I would have gotten it. I think you would have to. And it would have made it seem less like a left-wing attack on the President, which really cheapens the work. Moore’s work is very concerned with civil liberties, very concerned with the plight of the homosexual, very concerned with prejudice. It tells those things in a beautiful as opposed to a contrived way. Much like Orwell. 1984 is very relevant today. Politicans have taken to using Double Speak all the time. I still would not like to see a 1984 movie where they talked about how it all started with the terms “death tax” and “Clean Air Initiative”. We get the picture without it. And if not, the work shouldn’t pander because that just makes it propaganda or a polemic.
“Strange….. Moore himself has pointed out in several interviews that the politics of Thatcher as well as the statements made by the more extreme wing of her party were exactly what he tied into his story to create his future England. Some of what you’ve read may come across as more subtle to you then it actually was because you didn’t live there during that time period. I have a friend who was born and raised on the Isle of Mann and read the portion of the story that first got published there when it got published. I’ve asked him about it since this debate started and he says that a lot of it wasn’t as subtle as you seem to believe it was.”
I disagree. The fascist part of the book was more directed at the National Front. I am with you as far as you say that Moore directed the book at the Thatcher government. But that doesn’t mean he hammered that point home by making the book directly about Thatcher. For example, the Valerie scene. That is talking about the treatment of gays in Thatcher’s conservative England. But he tells it within a story of a woman being persecuted in a fascist soceity, hëll bent on destroying anyone that does not cling to their ideal. He doesn’t come out and indict Thatcher. Instead, he tells the story about this persecuted woman in a soceity different from his own and in doing so, makes a statement on the treatment of gays.
As I said before, I would have no problem with the Wachowski’s talking about Bush on their director’s commentary, similar to how Moore talks about his work in the introduction and various interviews. What I disapprove of is them changing the story in order to make their points. Thatcher’s England was a time marred in Christian overtones, conservative politics, problems for the poor, and Nationalism in a time of crisis. Telling the story as it exists would have been relevant enough, just as telling a story about McCarthyism is relevant now. There’s no need to update it..at least not in the hammy way they did it.
The Bush Administration is rounding up gays and people who have copies of the Koran?
Well, for the bit about gays, apparently you need to reread the introduction from Moore again.
For the Koran, I think if you actually take a look at what’s going on with Muslims in Europe today (Denmark, the rioting in France in particular), most would notice it for what it is: social commentary on things that also happen to exist outside the US.
The problem I really have with your arguments is that you seem to assume that the world revolves around the US, and thus this movie must be as well.
I hardly think that’s the case, and there are plenty of examples to back that up (such as the ones I gave above).
The Curfew Alert: Yellow was added as an obvious reference to the Terror Alerts. The Abu Gharib hoods did not exist anywhere in the comic, but they added them anyway.
Again, merely taking what is being done now and including it in an update of the story isn’t necessarily commentary on any particular thing (for you, that would be a supposed fascination with the Bush Administration on the part of the Wachowski bros).
For example, what if we found out that the British soldiers in Iraq were the first to use those black hoods? Would that change your view of them at all?
Still haven’t seen it, trying to find the time this week. The movie did well at the box office and unless Larry the Cable Guy has a bigger following than I hope, it should still be number 1 or 2 next week.
I don’t remember the novel’s bad guys being overtly Christian; I remember them as more like the Nazis, where the government itself is the religion. But I may have forgotten key scenes, it’s been a while (If it’s been years since I found the time to read a classic like V why do I even bother keeping copies of SHOGUN WARRIORS?).
I’m pretty sure I’ll like the movie a lot more than Iguy but he makes some good points. The emphasis on the poor treatment of Muslims kind of amuses me; I don’t doubt that we may well see theocracies arise in Europe in our lifetimes but let’s just say that I don’t expect those theocracies to be at all upset with someone having a Koran.
“We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will forgive him,”
A judge in Afghanistan who is considering the death penalty for a man whose crime is converting to Christianity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4823874.stm
I saw the movie, and was very affected by it. The message was simple enough, moving enough, and presented with enough WOW factor that it will live on in the same place Princess Bride lives on.
The discussion afterwards with my friends, and some of the chatter here, make me realize why geeks so rarely turn into activists – we get so lost in the trappings of the interpretation and the catalog if missing scenes that we forget to consider the message of the movie.
The Abu Gharib hoods: Black hoods over heads are a Hollywood fave. They’ve been throwing them over heads on TV and in movies for years now. Again, something I’ve seen in Hollywood fiction and in real word fact for years before Abu Gharib, Iraq or even 9/11. I don’t think of Abu Gharib or Bush when I see black hoods over heads. You do. Ok.
The Curfew Alert: Yellow: I’ll give you that one. But it still comes off to me as taking something from today and throwing it into the mix in a slightly different form to give the film a feel of familiarity.
The addition of the Muslim holy book as the main censored material: ??????????????????????????? The film pointed out several songs by name, books, authors, films and even a few ideas that were censored and that could get you killed for owning.
I would have preffered the story as originally presented: Yeah, most of us would have. I would have loved quite a few book to screens to have been more faithful to the source material then they were. Hollywood often doesn’t work that way. Knowing that going in and knowing that I can still enjoy the source material whenever I care to walk to the living room bookshelf means I tend to look at the movie for what it is rather then solely what the source material was.
The addition of another gay character: I said above that that was a bit of an overdo. I also said, and still stand by, the changes to the charecter work very well for the film and it’s needs. I liked the new Gordon quite a bit. My wife liked him more then the books. You hated him. To each his own.
You and I are going to continue to disagree on the Thatcher and politics then/Bush and politics now debate. I see them using recent events and politics for the film V the same way Moore used the then recent events in his V in the early 80s. It didn’t screw it up for me. It did for you. I find that I like both versions equally well for their different styles and approaches on the subjects.
Bush does take a few lumps in the film. No question about it. I just don’t see as much of the hammer over the head aspect as you. You may well see those things that way because of your life experiences. My life experiences allow me to see other things in those items and subjects rather then seeing Bush and only Bush first and foremost in every reference point and bit of symbolism in the film.
Hey, you and I are not going to see eye to eye on this and I think it’s just fine that we can agree to disagree. I like the film and you don’t. I’m quite happy to just part this debate and topic with you as respectful opposition. That way we can save our energy for later to gang up on someone else when we agree with each other and they are foolish enough to disagree with us.
;p
“If it’s been years since I found the time to read a classic like V why do I even bother keeping copies of SHOGUN WARRIORS”
Because it is just the kind of thing that all of the truly great and towering intellects of our time who are also possessed of massively, unquestionably great taste do. And they are kept right next to (Marvel’s) Micronaughts and Rom the Spaceknight on the area of easiest access on the bookshelf.
Keep in mind “V for Vendetta” is alive and well and available on bookshelves to anyone who wants to read it.
Which was the only good thing I saw coming out of what Verhofen did to Starship Troopers – he got several people to read the novel who might not have originally.
One hopes the V For Vendetta movie will do the same thing for the TPB…
Because it is just the kind of thing that all of the truly great and towering intellects of our time who are also possessed of massively, unquestionably great taste do. And they are kept right next to (Marvel’s) Micronaughts and Rom the Spaceknight on the area of easiest access on the bookshelf.
I cannot argue with such an insightful commentary.
(And for the record, I LOVED both Micronots and Rom, Spacenight. What’s not to love? I only wish I knew where my old Micronot toys were.)
IGuy, while I agree with your feelings, I think some of your specific beefs are a little far out.
Complaining about yellow alerts? I think that was a pretty subtle reference to something modern.
I admit that I thought the appearance of the Koran was way overkill. Also I thought it weird and unnecessary that Gordon have a “secret stash” of goodies when V already has that.
Abu Gharib hoods? Dude, it’s a black hood. Whipping a black hood off a prisoner has a much better impact than a blindfold. The Iraq War didn’t copyright black hoods. Remember when Tom Cruise had one in Mission Impossible? Or the Black September group? Haven’t black hoods been worn for thousands of years, since the invention of cloth?
Don’t get me wrong, I think you make interesting points. But my beef with the movie is that I didn’t think it was very good. It screamed “Novice Director” to me. The acting was okay, but I would have gotten a professional mime to play V and had him voiced by McGoohan. Natalie Portman didn’t really do to much for me. She wasn’t bad, but I didn’t think she was terrific, and her Jewish origin clashes with the blonde Evey of the book (a product of an ethnically “clean” society).
I have other beefs, like, Why did Evey have a job? To me, her desperation, so simply established by her introduction (and the beginning of the story), sets her up as a sort of blank slate of naivety. A lump of clay that V can mold to suit his needs. Also I didn’t dig on the fact that they had a much more romantic relationship than in the book, where I thought they had a much more father/daughter relationship.
And that’s my thoughts for today.
I don’t think they are really that far out.
I agree that if they were present only by themselves, I probably would have barely noticed. The fact they were present with all of the other stuff is the problem for me. It became less “Enjoy the movie” and more “Look at all the ways we can make this about the present day”.
The hoods were done in the style of the Abu Gharib prison and were on the prisoners in the detention center. I really doubt they were included on accident, particularly when they weren’t anywhere in the book and really don’t add a whole lot except the visual punch of them being related to the Abu Gharib scandal.
Taken on it’s own, probably not that big of a deal and I might not have even noticed. Mixed in with all of the other stuff and I was just out of the story. At the part at the end when we are supposed to feel sorrow and emotion, I felt nothing. The whole experience was ruined.
And I’ll agree with what you said as well.
Huh.
See, I thought you were talking about Evey’s torture. I didn’t even notice the hoods in the detention center. So there you go.
If it’s been years since I found the time to read a classic like V why do I even bother keeping copies of SHOGUN WARRIORS
Because it is just the kind of thing that all of the truly great and towering intellects of our time who are also possessed of massively, unquestionably great taste do. And they are kept right next to (Marvel’s) Micronaughts and Rom the Spaceknight on the area of easiest access on the bookshelf.
As a truly great and towering intellect of our time, I concur.
I do think the book is much better than the movie, the movie was more evil fascists vs the great leftist.
And while thats fine…
Moore was a little more ambigous on what the good guys & bad guys were. The fascist cops had families and wives. The “good guy” V was a murderer, a torturer, and a terrorist. The villains weren’t cartoons they were people.
So while a good movie it wasn’t better than the graphic novel.
I think the film makes the message that sometimes terrorism is justified to maintain your rights as a human being.
It doesn’t glorify terrorism, but entertains the idea of it being necessary. If governments are fair and decent, they should have nothing to fear.
SAM-EL
Majorly disagree on the pacing thing… hëll, they were initially six-eight page chapters. In the first one, he blows up Parliament.
The pace changes throughout the book, especially the middle where Evey rejects V’s life and tries to find a different one. Which then picks up when things go wrong.
The big change in the movie for me is the one I’ve always banged on about since I saw the script. It’s not about Fascism Vs Anarchy anymore, both posited as the only possibly alternatives, certainly in V’s mind. It was that kind of political philosophy executed so precisely that puts it well above Watchmen for me. Hëll, V works as a interesting trilogy with From Hëll and A Small Killing.
I kind of hope that V will be compared to Bin Laden. They are both terrorists after all. As much as the Contras, the IRA and what we know as Al Qaida.
Now start bringing the Boston Tea Party into this any we’re all set.
All this talk of Shogun Warriors etc. reminded me of something I saw at the comic shop last Thursday, among the new releases: Marvel’s released an “Essential Godzilla” collection!
It looked as though it contained all 24 issues of the 1977-79 series (in black and white, granted). (I didn’t buy it – yet? – as I already have original copies, in some cases multiples, of every issue.) Now, it’s not exactly like the movies, to be sure; and it could be that I look at it a little more fondly because it was one of the very first comics I collected – before I even knew where to find the issue numbers on the cover… But it’s got some very interesting work from Doug Moench and Herb Trimpe – who created a pretty cool design for the big G; lots of face time for SHIELD agents Dum Dum Dugan, Gabe Jones, and Jimmy Woo, along with many other Marvel guest appearances and the first appearances of such recurring Marvel characters as Dr. Demonicus and Red Ronin; and I still feel that, with a combination of excellent script and art, Godzilla #6 is among the best comics I’ve read. Just sayin’ ….
Peter David: No, “V”‘s face is never seen. The closest we come is, as per the original book, a heavily shadowed view of his severely burned body as he emerges from the fire.
Luigi Novi: And when during the flashbacks of Dr. Surridge remembering her treatment of V, or “the man in Room Five”. We see his head from behind, with the front of it in shadow, but we see enough of the back of it to see that he’s Caucasian.
Marc Simm: Since were discussing the film & comic could I ask those of you from outsie the UK something I’ve wondered about. Is the Guy Fawkes story and the 5th November something that has any meaning to you guys?
Luigi Novi: Aside from Dumbeldore’s pet Phoenix, I never heard of him before reading an article about the movie in particular and thematically similar movies in general in a recent issue of The Village Voice. Then I Wikipedia-ed it, and was fascinated by what I read.
Peter David: No, it really wasn’t. I think it wise to remember that novels are never “butchered into” anything. The novel is the novel, the movie is the movie. They are two separate works.
Luigi Novi: And if the material is devalued in the process, and for reasons that were not necessary to the adaptation process, then opining that it was butchered is perfectly valid.
And yeah, IGuy, I thought the references to our current administration, like killing Gordon because he had a Koran in his home, were a bit forced. I also thought calling John Hurt the “High Chancellor” instead of simply “The Leader” was too much a lead-pipe-over-my-head reference to Hitler. Leaving as it was in the film would’ve gotten the message across to all but the most obtuse. I also though the use of religion in the Chancellor’s speech was a bit too much too, even though the “Purity through Faith” posters were in the book.
I also noticed a black among the rebels at the end when they took off their Fawkes masks, even though I thought blacks were among the groups imprisoned in the camps in the book.
Luke, right with ya, pal. GODZILLA was sooooo underrated. Trimpe’s art, while making Big G look more dinosaurian than the “real” thing, was still pretty cool. If Toho hadn’t refused to let them use the other monsters in the pantheon it would’ve run forever. Forever, I say!
“I also noticed a black among the rebels at the end when they took off their Fawkes masks, even though I thought blacks were among the groups imprisoned in the camps in the book.”
I’m not sure that counts. There were a lot of dead people in that crowd.
There were a lot of dead people in that crowd.
Based on Luigi’s post in the other thread about V For Vendetta, I think Luigi failed to notice the symbolism at the time. 🙂
Apparently. I seem to often miss things or not know what’s going on sometimes. I hate it when people take advantage of this. Like for example, I have this really sneaking suspicion that I’m being billed for a lot of unnecessary stuff by my gynecologist….
🙂
Since were discussing the film & comic could I ask those of you from outsie the UK something I’ve wondered about. Is the Guy Fawkes story and the 5th November something that has any meaning to you guys?
The reviewer at the Dallas Morning News said the lead wore a mask of some historical figure people wouldn’t recognize (he said “people,” not “Americans”) who certainly wasn’t as famous as the producers of the Matrix.
I remember a comic strip of years gone by:
MARLON: So who’s this Guy Fawkes bloke then?
WELLINGTON: He tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament.
MARLON: Fancy that. I never even knnew they were inflatable.