What’s even more interesting was an article in last Sunday’s New York Times about Alan Moore. He’s extremely upset with the makes of the film, and wants nothing to do with it. According to the article, the film doesn’t resemble his work in the slightest.

I am starting to wonder about the Wachowskis, really I am.
Also, didn’t this movie take like four years to come out because it sucked so damn bad? Are we sure they’re even talking about the same war here?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/movies/12itzk.html?_r=1&oref;=slogin

Here’s the article.

Well, I guess Moore comparing one of his “documentaries” to a work of fiction is a step in the right direction at least.

I’ll probably end up seeing this movie, because I do like the special effects and all the stuff it seems to offer.  What I have loved in the commercials is getting the feeling that there would be plenty of liberals saying how they identify with the movie as being some anti-bush commentary.  And in the commercials you hear V saying “people shouldn’t fear their government, government should fear their people” which definitely sounds more like a view of libertarian conservatives.  The liberals hold the view when its a conservative in power and tack on “...unless we’re in charge” to that statement of view.

statement of V not statement of view

Well, I’ve been a fan of V for Vendetta for damn near 20 years.  I own the original printing of the miniseries and a copy of the TPB for reading.  Fact is, the original was set in a post WWIII England.  America, Europe, Africa… They had all been nuked off the map essentially.  Eventually a nuke hit Kindon too (In 1981 when Moore wrote the story, he was under the impression that a Nuclear Winter could be survived) and a fascist mob formed the new British government and started to purge the populace.  Mind you they were able to take power because after years in anarchy, the people wanted, needed something to cling to.  The government that was established was straight out of 1984.  V’s not an idealist in the series… Evey becomes the idealist, but V is on a mission of vengance (hence the vendetta).  His true motivation is to punish a government that tortured him.

I digress… I really want to see the movie, but there was a picture that I saw months ago that made me throw up in my mouth a little bit; in the end there is a mob scene, and in the film version (apparently) the mob all don Guy Fawkes masks in solidarity with V.  THIS MISSES THE ENTIRE POINT!!!!  The whole point of an anarchist movement is that each person find their own path, not to become sheeple once again (even if the new leader is the “good” guy!)!!  I’ll see it, but I can understand Moore’s aprehension just by examining that single still.

Sir Not Appearing In This Film

Hold on a second…

These are the same folks who applaud films where no one is shown as the real badguy? The same folks who deride movies with a clear good guy and bad guy as “morally simplistic” or “escapist” or some other gobblty-gook?

And if Alan Moore’s work was all retreaded, if the Mooreons flock to it, will we hear the same protestations of plot changes as we have with other movies [including the Dr. Suess staple, where these same critics rose a stink]? Of being told of the pitfalls and immorality of fooling with artistic intent?

Most likely, this is going to be another “Sum of All Fears” or “The Manchurian Candidate” Mooreonic Remix [where the Muslim terrorists and Chinese communists get changed to Neo-Nazis and corporations respectively] to feed the need for Mooreonish escapism--i.e. media-ting reality.

Can’t win at the ballot box, or even present your views rationally in casual conversation? No worries Mooreons! Just go and live vicariously through people on screen: whether a fat socialist weasle who edits everythign until he sounds witty and his opponents evil, or movies where pretty people (jus tliek you!) learn your views are right and that they work--even if you never see it that way I(n) R(eal) L(ife)!

I just can’t help but wonder: how often do the trolls that come to this site and implore us to “wake up” then turn around and watch these Mooreonic Movie Remixes or “documentaries that aren’t documentaries”?

I figured there might be a problem when the ads kept mentioning that the fictional government killed 100,000 people… ummm.. lancet tie in?

I’ve recently seen the film and would like to comment on it. My post might be slightly spoilerish so if you would like not to be spoiled, please skip this post until you have seen the movie.
*
*
*
WARNING
*
*
*
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
*
*
*
LAST CHANCE
*
*
*
Okay-
While I didn’t hate the movie, I walked out with a bad taste in my mouth, very much the same way I did when I saw “Elizabeth”. Both movies were well-acted but the distortions of realities were quite upsetting. Focussing on “V for Vendetta” now, the movie- if generally speaking of tyranny and totalitarianism- presented a rather frightening picture of people living in a dictatorship. But once it drifted to left-wing hot button topics (repression and oppression of homosexuals, the war in Iraq spilling into England, engineered viruses and the lies made to cover them up, anti-clericalism, a possible American civil war), it drifted into the absurd. Viewers must remember that Guy Fawkes wasn’t this random revolutionary but a hated Catholic scapegoat. It is also interesting to note how lives of Catholics in England were for the worst since Henry VIII and only got a little better in the nineteenth century, yet anti-Catholicism is one of the last acceptable prejudices. It’s something I felt while watching the movie. An interesting casting choice for John Hurt who played the doomed protagonist, Winston Smith, in the film adaption of Orwell’s “1984”, now distorted from a Stalinist warning to just some old baddies ruining things for everyone else.
Just some thoughts.

This is a big stretch for you guys ... Maybe you should spend your time analyzing real issues, like your own government’s problems.  And I think Moore is keeping a low profile because he is busy making a movie....

I agree with the philosophy of “if you don’t like it you don’t have to stay” when it comes to what the people that run this web site post here. It their web site after all, but sci-fi movies ????

Damn I can’t wait for Sicko....

P.S. “Night Watch Trilogy” is the shit !

Although it’s pretty obvious to everyone here, but since no one said it:

Moore links it to F9/11 cauz of the Nazi-ish gov. empowered by people’s fear of terrorism depicted in both stories.

So really it isn’t dishonest, at that point F9/11 was dishonest, but the comparison between the 2 movies isn’t.

P.S.

Let’s see if I can stir some shit :

The warantless wiretaping case is the poof that republicans would throw away their freedom for the promise of safety !

An interesting casting choice for John Hurt who played the doomed protagonist, Winston Smith, in the film adaption of Orwell’s “1984”,

Slightly OT, but has anyone else seen the film of ‘1984’? Now THAT’S a good film about a nightmare totalitarian state! Actually, IMHO, it’s one of the greatest British films ever made! It’s really faithful to the book, and the acting, the screenplay, the sets and the direction are all superb. John Hurt as Winston Smith and Richard Burton as O’Brien are both perfectly cast, and both give, IMHO, career-best performances. Only piece of advice I would give is, don’t watch it if you’re even feeling slightly down, it’s so relentlessly pessimistic you’ll be slitting your wrists by the end!

The warantless wiretaping case is the poof that republicans would throw away their freedom for the promise of safety !

Monitoring of phone calls originating from a foreign country does not require a warrant.  For other phone calls the NSA can already monitor all of them. But if what they hear isn’t going to be used in some criminal investigation, then they don’t need to obtain a warrant.  Don’t argue shit you’re absolutely clueless on and being spoonfed by the moonbats swissboy.

Wait a mintue they bastardize Fawkees’s image in V for Vanilla?
Fawkees wasn’t really a scapegoat, he was in the plot to destroy the parliament building.  Although some might think he was as fake as a fake moon landing or as fake as Anne Frank.

What Buzzion said.  And to be anal, there’s no wiretapping involved because there’s no wire and no tap.  The NSA picks up just about everything in the ether, so the issue is whether an actual human gets around to listening to it and, even more important, if someone actually uses it (as Buzzion noted).

Bank Vault wrote:

“...as fake as Anne Frank.”

Not touching that one.

“1984” IS a fantastic book and an alright movie but its true meaning has been bastardized just the same way the Bible and the Koran have been. Communism is bad, Jesus added, “go and sin no more”, and the Koran DOES allow one to beat his wife.
It’s all in the text, people.

I’ll see the movie because it looks like an interesting, entertaining bit of sci-fi escapism, just like the matrix was.
I will not assign any importance to it’s injected political innuendo.

I will simply ignore those parts as irrelevant due to the source, and enjoy the entertainment factor, as that is the reason Hollywood exists, and is the only thing at which they have any knowledge or aptitude.

Look… I see it this way;
Hollywood giving me it’s opinion on politics is akin to a 6 year old giving me his opinion on… well… politics.
You chuckle a bit, pat him on the head, and say “Isn’t that adorable?”
But how uninformed do you have to be yourself to put stock in either one?

I will simply ignore those parts as irrelevant due to the source, and enjoy the entertainment factor, as that is the reason Hollywood exists, and is the only thing at which they have any knowledge or aptitude.

The problems with that are 1) they sacrifice the entertainment factor for the sake of the politics, and 2) they’re so busy cramming the politics down your throat that it’s hard to see past it.
It’s kind of like trying to ignore a song you really hate on the radio. Some people can apparently just shut their ears off to that particular input of sound, but I have to change the dial.

Big problem - when you have the US, UK and Nazi flags sewn together with “coalition of the willing” spray-painted across it, as in this film, it is no longer Moore’s fever-brained vision of the UK under Thatcher (that was inane enough when it was written).  Instead, it becomes the uber-leftist Wachowski’s “vision” of the US under Bush.  As if fascism, OR Nazism, weren’t the actual factions of socialism that they were (as deftly explained by F. A. Hayek). 

Instead, this movie is an early-80’s anti-conservative/anti-religious comic book - oops, sorry, *graphic novel,* “updated” by the Wachowskis to be an anti-conservative/anit-religious/anti-Bush movie.

Even Moore, in the reprint, stated that he, at that time (years after the book first appeared) wouldn’t have written it the way he did.  He thought the politics were juvenile, in a sense.

Even Moore, in the reprint, stated that he, at that time (years after the book first appeared) wouldn’t have written it the way he did.  He thought the politics were juvenile, in a sense.

Yeah.  So instead of trying to rewrite V FOR VENDETTA (which, IMHO, is still a powerful & disturbing work despite its tinfoil-hat politics), he went and wrote WATCHMEN, in which he more or less asked the reader to interpret events according to their own ethics; there’s a lot of optimistic, nihilistic, morally strict and morally relativistic characters thrown together in that story - and as a result it holds together much better than V.

Posted by Swissboy on 03/19 at 07:07 AM (Link to this comment)

“The warantless wiretaping case is the poof that republicans would throw away their freedom for the promise of safety !”

Go to the forums.

Even Moore, in the reprint, stated that he, at that time (years after the book first appeared) wouldn’t have written it the way he did.  He thought the politics were juvenile, in a sense.

And they are juvenile, yes.
But, <shrug> it’s Hollywood. You expect them to be juvenile, at best.

The problems with that are 1) they sacrifice the entertainment factor for the sake of the politics, and 2) they’re so busy cramming the politics down your throat that it’s hard to see past it.

True, they do push it kind of hard. And sometimes it can be very distracting.
But maybe I’m rare in my ability to just roll my eyes at it and follow the rest of the story.

In any event, when the politics become so intrusive that the movie loses most, or all, of it’s entertainment value,
people will simply stop going to see these movies.
Since Hollywood is, first and foremost, in it for the $$$, I don’t think it will ever quite get to that point.
As incredibly stupid as they are, I don’t think they’re stupid enough to alienate 98% of their consumer base.

But you know what the most important thing to remember is?

...That we don’t want to make targets of ourselves for the talking heads.  The brain-washers and opinion-forcers in this country will be all to happy to use their usual methods, avoiding the reason and common sense of an argument in lieu of cheap shots and ridicule of those “right-wing, neo-con wackos” who are getting all worked up “over a movie”.

Let’s just not even give them the chance. Also, if you are really upset over the film’s message, for god’s sake, don’t give it more publicity by raising a stink.
In 6 months time, it will be off the new release shelf at your local video store, and be completely forgotten. Just let it die without arming our critics in the interim.

Yeah.  So instead of trying to rewrite V FOR VENDETTA (which, IMHO, is still a powerful & disturbing work despite its tinfoil-hat politics), he went and wrote WATCHMEN, in which he more or less asked the reader to interpret events according to their own ethics; there’s a lot of optimistic, nihilistic, morally strict and morally relativistic characters thrown together in that story - and as a result it holds together much better than V.

Excellent point. Watchmen is a far superior book. There’s a good reason that, in the comic world, when Moore does something new, they promote it as a work “from the creator of Watchmen” and not “from the creator of V: for Vendetta”.

Of course, sadly, that will now change due to the movie.

The warantless wiretaping case is the poof that republicans would throw away their freedom for the promise of safety !

What freedom are we throwing away, the freedom of privacy?  How are we throwing it away, by allowing foreign conversations to be tapped? I cant remeber the lsat time i called pakistan....

I havent seen this movie yet, but I am looking forward to it.  I applaud those on here who have said they will see it regardless of what others are telling them about the evil political revolution this movie is trying to create.  Its from the makers of The Matrix.  Its got Natalie Portman in it.  Those two reasons alone should be good enough to enjoy it!  Ignore the crap. 

Buzzion-

For other phone calls the NSA can already monitor all of them. But if what they hear isn’t going to be used in some criminal investigation, then they don’t need to obtain a warrant.

Im sure you would consider me a moonbat, so help me to understand this.  They can listen in on any phone call they wish at any time.  And afterwards, if they want to use what they learned from a certain phone call, they need a warrant to use the information?  Is that correct?  And that is cool with you?

Here’s the title on his website’s front page:

‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ Meets ‘The Matrix’;
“Go see this movie!”—Michael Moore

“Go see this movie!”—Michael Moore

and here is the actual article:

MichaelMoore.com
1. Latest News
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=6225
March 17th, 2006 12:04 am
V for Vendetta

Hey yngcelt,

I cant see the F9/11 reference in the title.  I cant find that page anymore anyway.  Was that just his text for the link (that used F911), or did he insert it into the actual article page?  I am just a little confused by that point.

I looked at the site today.  There is an article with a quote from one of the films producers where he mentions F911.  Thats gotta be enough to make it crazy left wing propoganda!!!  Ill have to go see what O’Reilly is saying about all of this.

And afterwards, if they want to use what they learned from a certain phone call, they need a warrant to use the information?

As americans, we all have the sense of individual privacy.  Like right now, I am at work typing this message with the feeling that It has to do with my privacy and others around me (save this forum) wont read it.  When i went to school, i felt that i had my privacy when i went to websites and played games.  I could do what ever i wanted in the privacy of my dorm room.  However, as long as i dont break the law, ihave the ability to do what ever i want with my privacy.  ANy event that creates a potention national security risk should not be protected by privacy.

They can listen in on any phone call they wish at any time.  And afterwards, if they want to use what they learned from a certain phone call, they need a warrant to use the information?  Is that correct?  And that is cool with you?

While I hate to go offtopic, up4debate. It’s NEVER been ok with me. Notice that NEVER though. The real issue is that it’s been going on for over 20 years. If you want to argue it’s unconstitutional, that’s fine, and I agree 100%. If you want to argue it’s bad, just because it’s Bush that’s in office right now, then it’s not fine. I have problems with people who are only for or against something, because of who is in office at the time. The nitwits trying to use this as an attack on Bush, who never said a peep, while basically the same situation was going on during Clintons 2 terms are those type of people.

As for the Movie, lol, it’s been over 6 years since I’ve actually been to a movie theatre. Hollywood and their foreign brethren haven’t been able to make a movie worth the price of admission in quite some time.

Hollywood and their foreign brethren haven’t been able to make a movie worth the price of admission in quite some time.

You obviously havent seen Donnie Darko :)

Posted by up4debate on 03/20 at 12:50 PM (Link to this comment)

“But if what they hear isn’t going to be used in some criminal investigation, then they don’t need to obtain a warrant. Im sure you would consider me a moonbat, so help me to understand this.  They can listen in on any phone call they wish at any time.  And afterwards, if they want to use what they learned from a certain phone call, they need a warrant to use the information?  Is that correct?”

No. You had it right in the first sentance.

“if what they hear isn’t going to be used in some criminal investigation, then they don’t need to obtain a warrant.”

Yes. The government has been incepting calls and listening for key words for over a decade (bomb and such)… it is not a Bush thing. A warrant is not required but it can NEVER be used in court.... you also, I imagine, could not use it to get a future warrant… They, legally, can jump you before you set off the bomb though… If you were not a US citizen you could probably be shipped to gitmo.

No. You had it right in the first sentance.

The first sentence you quoted wasnt mine, so I am still a little confused.  I guess the main question is this…

Can the govt listen to Joe Avg calling his wife everday before he leaves the office to come home? 

Should they be able to?

applaud those on here who have said they will see it regardless of what others are telling them about the evil political revolution this movie is trying to create.

I have yet to see someone say they’re not going to see it because it’s trying to cause an “evil political revolution”. Most of us have been saying we’re not going to see it because it’s a hack job, and politics aside, it’s a movie so bad that they couldn’t even release it for years. Guess they were waiting until approval ratings got bad enough that they figured they’d have an audience.
You really are a moonbat, up4debate. Maybe there was a time where you weren’t… maybe you even have lucid periods. But in the end, saying shit like that is what removes all doubt that you truly are a libtard.

I have yet to see someone say they’re not going to see it because it’s trying to cause an “evil political revolution”.

I was exagerrating to make a point, and wasnt talking about anyone on here.

Most of us have been saying we’re not going to see it because it’s a hack job, and politics aside, ...

Maybe a moonbat, or maybe just not literate in Aridorn-ese.  I havent seen you say either of those things.  I dont know why when I say I think its great that some people are looking forward to this movie, in spite of the reported politics of it (because they can ignore those things, and thats not why they are seeing the movie in the first place), that you take it personally, and turn my comment into something its not. 

So is your opinion simply that this is just a poorly made film?

From what I have read of it, yes, the story stumbles, it attempts to leave some things up to the viewer but instead just sort of waffles, and there’s the mere fact that they generally don’t let a movie shelf-sit unless they KNOW it’s bad, and the studios aren’t usually very good at judging that. Heck, they can’t even stick to their actual message… apparently, towards the end of the movie, a large crowd of people don Guy Fawkes masks in solidarity with V. ... Yeah, way to show you support an anarchist, guys, with a massive show of lacking individuality.
The politics are simply part of what contributes to it being a poor movie. Any movie that uses its story as an excuse to push a political agenda is sacrificing proper moviemaking for the sake of their “message”.
Hell, that’s one of the big reasons Michael Moore’s movies are such a target of derision here. He can’t just make the movies, his editorializing and pushing of his own views destroys his credibility as a filmmaker and drowns the story under his own desire to push his views.
In the end, if nothing else, it’s just a Matrix clone with a less likable hero and an attempt at making it “relevant”. Just because it’s made by the same guys doesn’t mean that the copy won’t be inferior to the original.

Saw it. Liked it. Great movie.

Oh, a few things…

First, Alan Moore is a HUGE liberal. One of the biggest you’ve ever seen. He’s also anti-war, anti-bigotry, and anti-anything-that-is-oppressive.

The other thing is, there are a couple of people who think that Moore took his name off of this picture and this picture alone. This is a falsity. Alan Moore hates every movie they make which is based off his work. I’ve tried to find out why by going to Wikipedia and read some interviews and it seems he just doesn’t want to have anything to do with Hollywood. I guess that’s admirable.

I think there is a slight misconception that he’s doing it because of politics. Having read the graphic novel and seeing the movie, the idea is generally the same and it ends just slightly differently. Won’t tell how, though. Don’t want to spoil it.

I think, also, that there is something else most of the Conservatives who are eye-rolling this movie should know. The main idea of the book and the movie deal with the fight for freedom away from oppression...however..."V" makes it known that people need to make their own decisions and fight back against people and their followers they deem as unfit to lead them.

“V” does not support a Democratic society, he supports a society that thinks for itself and does not need to be lead. Generally, he would like to see some sort of anarchistic society.

The government in the book and the movie happens to be lead by a more right-wing group. This is obviously Alan Moore’s choice. In that regard, you can accuse him of siding with liberals.

There was a user here that said that the movie’s end killed the meaning of Moore’s book. That’s not entirely true. The people storming the castle were following V’s advice. If you remember, most of the people removed their masks after the “fireworks”.

This would lead me to believe that they were ready to think for themselves.

I think that Moore’s graphic novels are great. I liked Watchmen, From Hell, AND V, mainly because they were all intelligent and complex.

I also find it just the least bit ironic that there are people poo-pooing this film when they haven’t seen it or they’re discouraging others not to see it because of its “message”. I would call these people and the people following those people “sheep” in the worst sense.

Just my two cents.

From what I have read of it, yes, the story stumbles, it attempts to leave some things up to the viewer but instead just sort of waffles,

In what instance does “the story stumble”? I’ve seen it and it’s a story well-told.

and there’s the mere fact that they generally don’t let a movie shelf-sit unless they KNOW it’s bad, and the studios aren’t usually very good at judging that.

That’s not true. I can name about ten movies that sat on the shelf or weren’t screened for critics.

Regarding “V” being shelved, it was shelved ONLY because Warner Brothers thought that Americans would be completely terrified after terrorists took out a London subway. Wait, what? That’s ok. I give them credit. After all, movie studios are smart enough to know we, as moviegoers, are unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It wasn’t shelved because the movie was deemed, “terrible”, Rann.

Heck, they can’t even stick to their actual message… apparently, towards the end of the movie, a large crowd of people don Guy Fawkes masks in solidarity with V. ... Yeah, way to show you support an anarchist, guys, with a massive show of lacking individuality.

I answered this a few minutes ago. But you need to see the rest of the movie. You also need to understand that people need to stand in solidarity to fight a common enemy BEFORE individuality is a resolution. In the book, Evey takes V’s identity after V is killed by Finch and she leads a mob of people to take out the current regime. That’s not really far from the source material.

The politics are simply part of what contributes to it being a poor movie.

That’s like saying Moore’s graphic novel was terrible, too. It also sounds like a terribly close-minded thing to say, considering you have yet to see the movie or read the book. The point of both the book and the movie is simply that, sometimes, one needs to stand up and fight for their freedom. That’s pretty patriotic. I do not, however, agree with the anarchistic views of V.

Any movie that uses its story as an excuse to push a political agenda is sacrificing proper moviemaking for the sake of their “message”.

So, generally, any movie that contains a “message” on EITHER side of the political spectrum is a bad movie? What are you saying here?

Hell, that’s one of the big reasons Michael Moore’s movies are such a target of derision here. He can’t just make the movies, his editorializing and pushing of his own views destroys his credibility as a filmmaker and drowns the story under his own desire to push his views.

Michael Moore has the right to make what he wants and say what he wants, just as any other filmmaker has the right to do so. Documentaries, by nature, are filmic editorials. It is debatable to say that Moore has lost some credibility...but you must not forget that there are a lot of people who see his movies. Most everybody I know liked “Fahrenheit 9/11”. The majority of critics hailed it. Only the most conservative people detested it. I liked the movie, which is surprising, considering I’m a registered Independent and I have a few questions about the pipeline we were supposed to build but otherwise, the facts seem to check out.

In the end, if nothing else, it’s just a Matrix clone with a less likable hero and an attempt at making it “relevant”. Just because it’s made by the same guys doesn’t mean that the copy won’t be inferior to the original.

It’s not a Matrix clone at all. That’s a complete generalization by you, somebody who has yet to see the movie. The movie is very different from The Matrix and has nothing to do with it with the exception of telling people to stand up on their own and fight the system. Alan Moore’s graphic novel had the idea before The Matrix, anyhow, so if you would like to say that somebody was plagarizing, you could make a case that the Wachowski’s plagarized Moore’s book to make their trilogy.

Of course, in that sense, one could say that The Matrix had a slightly liberal message, too…

Another thing: The Wachowski’s wrote the movie. James McTeigue directed the movie. The style of the film is very different from what is seen in The Matrix.

It’s pretty funny that there are those who are dismissing this movie as “terrible”. I could point out that it was Number 1 at the box office with $26.1 million dollars but, then again, Matthew McConnaughey’s new movie was number one last week and that was terrible. Numbers do nothing for most people.

You might want to consider that, on “Rotten Tomatoes”, a website that keeps track of nearly every major and almost-major critic in the U.S., has compiled their review of the movie. Out of 150 critics, 112 liked the movie. That’s a 75% rating. That’s pretty good. “Failure to Launch”, “The Shaggy Dog”, “She’s the Man”, and “The Hills Have Eyes” are the remaining four movies on the box office charts behind “V”. All four of those movies (those movies without an important “message") have gotten a 50% rating or BELOW. Of course, taking a look at how much generalizing and non-sensical remarks have been made about “V”, I suppose those four films would be considered “safe” and about this blog’s speed.

IMDB (The Internet Movie Database) has compiled their user-ratings. It seems that the overall rating is an 8.2 and is currently on IMDB’s “Top #250” list at #237.

Make of this what you will…

You might want to consider that, on “Rotten Tomatoes”, a website that keeps track of nearly every major and almost-major critic in the U.S., has compiled their review of the movie. Out of 150 critics, 112 liked the movie. That’s a 75% rating. That’s pretty good.

Because critics like a movie, that means it’s good. Titanic ... cough cough.

Documentaries, by nature, are filmic editorials.

Uh no. Documentaries are by definition documentaries, while editorials are by definition editorials. Two different animals.

Regarding “V” being shelved, it was shelved ONLY because Warner Brothers thought that Americans would be completely terrified after terrorists took out a London subway.

Huh, they shelved the movie because Americans might get scared, because of something that happened in the UK. Huh? That doesn’t even make sense.

The government in the book and the movie happens to be lead by a more right-wing group. This is obviously Alan Moore’s choice. In that regard, you can accuse him of siding with liberals.

What is it with you people and equating “right-wing” and “fascist”?  Tell you what, why don’t we ask Alan Moore what his take on the movie was instead of making the talking points for him, eh?

“Those words, “fascism” and “anarchy,” occur nowhere in the film. It’s been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you’ve got a sinister group of right-wing figures — not fascists, but you know that they’re bad guys — and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It’s a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what “V for Vendetta” was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn’t it have been more direct to do what I’d done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?

Alan Moore MTV interview

Because critics like a movie, that means it’s good. Titanic ... cough cough.

Quite the straw-man you have there. I have not said that everything Rotten Tomatoes votes as “fresh” is, indeed, a good movie...but the majority of time, the movies they deem as “fresh” are very good.

Uh no. Documentaries are by definition documentaries, while editorials are by definition editorials. Two different animals.

What you say makes no sense. A documentary, by definition is a visual medium, usually applied to film or television, which presents an objective point of view, having to do with political, social, or historical subjects. The viewpoints presented by the documentary are shown in a factual manner and may or may not persuade the viewer towards a certain conclusion. Editorials are, by definition, mediums presented in print or on television (and, sometimes, film) which attempt to persuade a person towards a point-of-view.

The two share very similar definitions. Whether you like it or not, documentaries often tend to editorialize when “facts” are taken out of context and are reported as untrue.

Huh, they shelved the movie because Americans might get scared, because of something that happened in the UK. Huh? That doesn’t even make sense.

That’s how The New Yorker reported it. They report that the London bombings would have hit too close to home. I, myself, don’t believe this anymore than I believe that guns, Marilyn Manson, or The Matrix were at fault for the Columbine incident.

You’re absolutely right, though. It does NOT make sense, which is why I made the statement that Hollywood studios treat us like children.

What is it with you people and equating “right-wing” and “fascist”?

Well, quite simply, I don’t...you put words in my mouth.

But when there are people being tortured and held without being charged and Americans could be having their lines tapped, I would say that one could possibly ASSUME those two things (a small sample, really) could be called, “facist”. These things are happening right now with a right-wing government in power.

Secondly, the government in the book owns the media and watches their citizens who, while unhappy, are afraid to challenge their government.

Third, while there is no mention of the word, “fascist” or “fascism” in the book, it is quite OBVIOUS that the government in the film is just that. One would have to be a complete idiot not to notice.

Also, it’s quite apparent that “V” is an anarchistic terrorist. Stephen Rea even says in the movie, “He wants to create chaos”. Wiping out all forms of authority would cause a pretty chaotic, anarchistic mess, would it not? In short, the movie may not boldly state these things, but it’s very apparent.

Alan Moore said:

“It’s been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country.”

Well, wait a minute, now...Moore created this “political satire” in the first place. Why would the makers of the movie, who plainly wanted to make a film that is about 70% faithful to the book, want to set a movie in a place other than the original setting? That would defeat the purpose of “V”, who is posing as an infamous British legend.
Moore said:

Now, in the film, you’ve got a sinister group of right-wing figures — not fascists, but you know that they’re bad guys…

Everything they do in the movie wreaks of fascism. Alan Moore is just trying to be careful not to link fascism to right-wing government because he doesn’t want to be associated with the vision of the movie.
Moore said:

It’s a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what “V for Vendetta” was about.

No, he’s right. The book was about an anarchist who was standing up against a government he opposed so that he could create anarchy. As “V” would say, “the idea remains the same”. In the movie, what did the people think would happen once the government was gone? Moore is naive if he thinks that Anarchy wasn’t represented in the movie.

Because critics like a movie, that means it’s good. Titanic ... cough cough.

Quite the straw-man you have there. I have not said that everything Rotten Tomatoes votes as “fresh” is, indeed, a good movie...but the majority of time, the movies they deem as “fresh” are very good.

No not a straw man. It’s an example of a movie that had rave reviews by critics, yet should have been left on the cutting room floor.

Uh no. Documentaries are by definition documentaries, while editorials are by definition editorials. Two different animals.

What you say makes no sense. A documentary, by definition is a visual medium, usually applied to film or television, which presents an objective point of view, having to do with political, social, or historical subjects. The viewpoints presented by the documentary are shown in a factual manner and may or may not persuade the viewer towards a certain conclusion. Editorials are, by definition, mediums presented in print or on television (and, sometimes, film) which attempt to persuade a person towards a point-of-view.

The two share very similar definitions. Whether you like it or not, documentaries often tend to editorialize when “facts” are taken out of context and are reported as untrue.

Wow that’s quite some equivocating. When a documentary becomes an editorial as Moore’s works of fiction do, they stop being a documentary. It’s really that simple.

It was a good interview, though, Epoch.

Interestingly enough, you left out the first and last paragraphs surrounding that byte of information.

It says that Moore wrote the book while there was a march towards a right-wing government, that Thatcher was in power and the people violently protested her unpopular rule. Huh.

The tidbit I liked was this one:

George Clooney’s being attacked for making ["Good Night, and Good Luck"], but he still had the nerve to make it. Presumably it’s not illegal — not yet anyway — to express dissenting opinions in the land of free? So perhaps it would have been better for everybody if the Wachowski brothers had done something set in America, and instead of a hero who dresses up as Guy Fawkes, they could have had him dressed as Paul Revere. It could have worked.

I guess Paul Revere could have worked...but it wouldn’t have been “V”. The reason for “V” is that there is a lot of hidden symbolism of the number “5”...but that’s another debate.

I liked what was said about Clooney making “Good Night and Good Luck” while being told he shouldn’t. I like any filmmaker who will go out on a limb to express their viewpoints.

It is the right of others, of course, to disagree with a person’s political viewpoint but I have never seen so much hostility directed towards filmmakers lately. Interesting…

No not a straw man. [Titanic] is an example of a movie that had rave reviews by critics, yet should have been left on the cutting room floor.

And it has nothing to do with “V for Vendetta”...of course, it is your opinion that Titanic was a terrible movie. I’m not going to argue that point with you. To do so would prove to be a fruitless venture. Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB are not wrong a majority of the time. I liked Titanic in the sense that it was epic and ambitious. Do I think it’s a great movie? Not by any means...but the majority of critics liked it as did the majority of the country. Majority rules, as they say.

Wow that’s quite some equivocating. When a documentary becomes an editorial as Moore’s works of fiction do, they stop being a documentary. It’s really that simple.

That is simply not true, sir.

The job of a documentary is to present a viewpoint based on fact. Michael Moore’s movies, by that definition, are documentaries. He presents his viewpoint based on what he presumes to be facts.

You can, of course, accuse him of lying in his movies, as the right-wing tends to do and there are those who would defend him and his viewpoints to their last breath using “facts”, as the left-wing tends to do.

Weighing both sides of the evidence and having listened to everything be shouted in my face, I have to say that I am tired of hearing about Michael Moore being a liar and Michael Moore being a saint. I really could care less.

I would not, however, dismiss his work as “fiction”. To do so would be terribly irresponsible.

In any case, if you think that Michael Moore’s movies are not documentaries, you might want to look at the movies that ARE called documentaries, such as the movies that put him down or other political docs like Errol Morris’s much more superb, “Fog of War”.

And it has nothing to do with “V for Vendetta”...of course, it is your opinion that Titanic was a terrible movie. I’m not going to argue that point with you. To do so would prove to be a fruitless venture. Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB are not wrong a majority of the time. I liked Titanic in the sense that it was epic and ambitious. Do I think it’s a great movie? Not by any means...but the majority of critics liked it as did the majority of the country. Majority rules, as they say.

Perhaps you should pay attention to the comments of people you are arguing with. You stated how great the movie was do to the raving of x number of critics. My comment was only pointing out that what critics think has nothing to do with how good a movie is. I am certainly not going to go waste time and money on some movie because of what a bunch of critics; who I usually disagree with on whether a movie is any good or not; recommend it. As to whether this movie is any good, I guess I’ll find out when it hit’s cable, which from all indications will be a matter of weeks.

Moores works are works of fiction period. It has been demonstrated here over and over. You may call it satire or whatever equivocation is the word of the day for moore-ons. It doesn’t change the fact that he routinely lies, distorts, and takes out of context his “points” and “facts”.

Well, quite simply, I don’t...you put words in my mouth.

But when there are people being tortured and held without being charged and Americans could be having their lines tapped, I would say that one could possibly ASSUME those two things (a small sample, really) could be called, “facist”. These things are happening right now with a right-wing government in power.

Secondly, the government in the book owns the media and watches their citizens who, while unhappy, are afraid to challenge their government.

Third, while there is no mention of the word, “fascist” or “fascism” in the book, it is quite OBVIOUS that the government in the film is just that.  One would have to be a complete idiot not to notice.

Did I put words in your mouth?  Moore said that the government in his book was fascist, you said it was right-wing.  Perhaps it was poor wording on your part, but you did make the parallel, nonetheless.  As for your claims about fascism in America:  [Inigo Montoya]You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya] It’s quite obvious you haven’t the slightest clue what fascism is if you think those qualities are inicative of it.  You’ll note that the exact same qualities exist in Communist states.  And if you learned anything in high school government, you’ll recall that Communism is the antithesis of Fascism.  I’m going to leave it at this since it discredits all of your arguments about fascism in America and in the story.

In the movie, what did the people think would happen once the government was gone? Moore is naive if he thinks that Anarchy wasn’t represented in the movie.

There you go again, assuming you know more about Moore than Moore, himself.  Quite pompous of you, really.  Let’s see here… get rid of the government, what could possibly take its place… Hmm… that’s a tough one, but I’m tempted to say, “ANOTHER GOVERNMENT.” You only have to look at history to know this.  Revolution after revolution, one government falls, another rises to take its place.

Interestingly enough, you left out the first and last paragraphs surrounding that byte of information.

It says that Moore wrote the book while there was a march towards a right-wing government, that Thatcher was in power and the people violently protested her unpopular rule. Huh.

Actually, it isn’t interesting at all.  The part I quoted was the important tidbit to counter your earlier assertions that the film was what Moore envisioned in his original work, and the parts I left out were irrelevant to the discussion.  For the benefit of those who don’t feel like reading the interview, here’s the part you’re referring to:

I’ve read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they’re doing with it, and I’m not going to be going to see it. When I wrote “V,” politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We’d had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we’d had anti-Thatcher riots, we’d got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. “V for Vendetta” was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.

[...]

George Clooney’s being attacked for making ["Good Night, and Good Luck"], but he still had the nerve to make it. Presumably it’s not illegal — not yet anyway — to express dissenting opinions in the land of free? So perhaps it would have been better for everybody if the Wachowski brothers had done something set in America, and instead of a hero who dresses up as Guy Fawkes, they could have had him dressed as Paul Revere. It could have worked.

If you’ll stop making rash judgments and actually pay attention you’ll understand what Moore’s talking about.  You’ll want to keep in mind Moore’s note about the “anti-Thatcher riots.” The UK’s Conservative Party dominated the UK for most of the 1800’s and 1900’s, but many felt that the Conservative Party under Margaret Thatcher was the incarnation of evil.  Moore was not writing against “right-wing governments,” but Thatcher’s government, which was viewed by many as being overtly authoritarian.  Alan Moore is not naive, and knows significantly more about the politics of the UK than you.

I guess Paul Revere could have worked...but it wouldn’t have been “V”. The reason for “V” is that there is a lot of hidden symbolism of the number “5”...but that’s another debate.

But that’s the point of this discussion.  According to the creator of “V,” this isn’t “V.” Whose opinion holds more weight:  yours, or the guy who created the character and story to begin with?

It is the right of others, of course, to disagree with a person’s political viewpoint but I have never seen so much hostility directed towards filmmakers lately. Interesting…

Again, it’s not interesting.  What you see as “hostility directed toward filmmakers” is, in this case, a fanboy debate.  Similar debates popped up everywhere when the “Lord of the Rings” films came out.  This isn’t about the Wachowski brothers’ politics, it’s about the film’s straying from the original story (which happens to have political themes).  They could have made their own film called “Bushy McChimpler Conquers Oompa Loompa Land” and we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now.

The film is surely and abomination to the origional graphic novel. I just read the graphic novel...well, yesterday, and what I heard on the radio and read here shows that it was changed to suit a modern agenda.

No wonder Alan Moore want’s nothing to do with it.

Well, The Other Guy is busy rambling about both his fanboyishness and his moonbat politics, so I’ll just answer one part of his griping:

That’s like saying Moore’s graphic novel was terrible, too.

Your point being?

Wow that’s quite some equivocating. When a documentary becomes an editorial as Moore’s works of fiction do, they stop being a documentary. It’s really that simple.

Not to get OT, but as an aside (because this one always confuses me)....

An editorial is a work of fiction?  March of the Penquins, documentary, or fiction?

The job of a documentary is to present a viewpoint based on fact. Michael Moore’s movies, by that definition, are documentaries.

No, the job of documentaries is essentially “presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter”.  Of course this is the ideal and some skewed editing or editorializing is usually unavoidable, but there should at least be an attempt to present the material in an evenhanded manner that stands up to criticism. 

Through his selective editing, deliberately misleading presentation of facts, and outright fabrications, Moore is neither objective or trying to avoiding editorializing, so his work is better described as propaganda than documentary.