Missy Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Wow! This came out of nowhere. The Wachowski Brothers and Joel Silver (all of Matrix fame) have adapted Alan Moore's V for Vendetta, which will be directed by James McTeigue and star Natalie Portman. Expect it November 05, 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted May 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2005 James Purefoy, who was to play the masked V, has left the film and has been replaced by Hugo Weaving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted May 9, 2005 Report Share Posted May 9, 2005 Sounds very nice, shall look out for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted May 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 Portman shaved her head for this role! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted June 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 New poster: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Edge Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 New poster: I see they finally changed the 'V' logo. The first one was awful. I also see on their 'news' page, they make a big deal of Guy Fawkes being Hanged, and go on about recreating it in detail - neglecting to mention the fact that he was drawn and quartered. I'm not optimistic about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted June 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 Me neither. I mean the Wachowski Brothers had the chance to sit down with David Lloyd, and all they reportedly asked him was, "How tall is V's hat?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris R Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 That's a cool poster. I really like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted July 24, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2005 The trailer is now online at the official site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRetreater Posted July 24, 2005 Report Share Posted July 24, 2005 I'm looking forward to this like I looked forward to constantine. which means i'm not. But i'll go see it anyway. which is more than I can say about Elektra and Catwoman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted July 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Producers of Natalie Portman's forthcoming film V For Vendetta have refused to edit out scenes of bombings on the London Underground train network, despite the recent terrorist attacks in the British capital. Fifty-five people were killed and over 700 injured when a double-decker bus and three trains were blown apart by suicide bombers on July 7. Last week, one person was injured during four failed terror attacks on different underground railway lines and a bus in east London. In V For Vendetta, a futuristic London is the target of a terrorist attacks and sees the tube lines destroyed by bombings. Executive producer Joel Silver says, "It's a great time for this movie. It's a controversial film and it's a controversial time. It's going to make people think." Fellow producer David Lloyd adds, "In terms of what happened in London it's important to try and understand what leads people to terrorism. There should be lots of movies made about terrorists." Director James McTiegue explains, "Terrorism is one of those themes that never really goes away." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Marv Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 While I agree that the film shouldn't have been edited because of it, I don't agree with some of the comments from the producers and director. Just because it's controversial doesn't make it a good time to come out, though I guess that does mean a lot of free publicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Edge Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 While I agree that the film shouldn't have been edited because of it, I don't agree with some of the comments from the producers and director. Just because it's controversial doesn't make it a good time to come out, though I guess that does mean a lot of free publicity. Actually, they're right. If you've read the book (which I don't think you have), you'd read a different meaning into what's being said. Without reading the book, you'd take a different meaning. What the meaning ISN'T, is 'this will make the film more controversial, and thus make more people want to go and see it, and thus make more money'. It's more along the lines of 'This is a hugely cotroversial film, regardless of when it comes out, but it is one with a message, and with morals, and with the ability to make people think. The themes that the films encompass are the same themes that we are seeing across the world right now, which is a very good thing for the movie. It's more relevant.' Or at least, that's how I read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Marv Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 Oh... I shall seek out the book then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted August 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 It's been pushed back to March 17, 2006 "to accomodate the post-production schedule." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRetreater Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 man, i never get what I want on time anymore. doesn't really bother me too much though. I feel that it will do better w/ that release than the original date though it is kinda a shame about missing the "history egg" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drqshadow Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 BUMP with my initial reaction upon seeing the film. Sorry to cut and paste from the Oratory, but I don't think I could type it all up again. ---===SPOILERS===--- I went and saw it last night. There were parts that I absolutely adored, and others that I really didn't care for. I LOVED most of the middle of the film, which was pretty much lifted word for word from the book (they left the classic "I killed you ten minutes ago, while you were asleep" line in, which sent shivers down my spine) and I thought the Evey torture scenes / ensuing reveal were outstanding. The aftermath of the torture could've been even more potent if they hadn't cut the whole Stockholm syndrome thing Evey went trough with V in the book. In the first chapters, she didn't know if she loved him like a brother, a lover or a father, but she certainly adored him and it made the moment when she realized he was responsible for her months of torture even more heartbreaking. The government is cast in a much more sympathetic light in the film, too, which I'm not entirely sure I like or dislike. On one hand, it hurts the overall message that you shouldn't trust everything you're told, but on the other... well, this looks a LOT like civilization today. I don't think most people will make the connection that this stuff is supposedly happening in the here and now, but it did make for interesting food for thought anyway. It just makes the idea of a successful revolution a little tougher to swallow... if things aren't really that awful, why would you support a movement to overthrow the government? In that same vein, rather than eliminating every single minority after the war, as they did in the book, they only persecute homosexuals in the film and life for the casual civilians really doesn't seem all that bad. They're repressed, but they don't seem especially upset about it. In the book, things are absolutely abysmal for the common man. Everything is rationed unfairly, people are scared to go out of their homes for the most part, and everyone is downtrodden and utterly defeated. Evey herself doesn't grow in the same way she did in the book, where she basically came into the picture at rock bottom (she wasn't leaving the house at the beginning to meet a coworker for a date, she was leaving to sell herself on the streets for the very first time, since her government-mandated day job wasn't making her enough to pay the bills) and had a lot more motivation to grow to violently hate the establishment as she does by the end of the story. I noticed they cut out basically every other female character, even Mrs. Almond, who basically plays the role of the population of England, suffering, suffering, suffering and finally snapping and lashing out, and winds up having a HUGE role at the end of the book. It's sounding like I hated this movie, which I really didn't, but it was a little frustrating to see them get it so close and then miss by just a little bit. The action scene at the end, where V absorbs six clips of ammo and still manages to take out an entire assault team, pretty much summed it up for me. In the book he was felled by a single bullet, and that meant so much more. The film version made for a much cooler, dramatic visual, but the book version applied more to real life. Anyone could've been under the mask of V in the book, where in the film he was supernatural. And WTF was with every single person in London donning a mask and cowl at the end? Way, way too much.. Still, worth a look if you don't mind long monologues and thinking about more than just what's being shown on the screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightAngle04 Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 I'm actually pretty excited since DRQ mentioned the "I killed you ten minutes ago" line is in it. DRQ, have they kept V's origin the same? Or have they tweaked it a little? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drqshadow Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 DRQ, have they kept V's origin the same? Or have they tweaked it a little? It's basically the same. They didn't go as deep into it as they did in the book, naturally... didn't mention his skills with gardening or his strange requests that led to his concocting napalm in his cel, but the major parts are still there. They reveal that he is (was?) a white man, though, which didn't please me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Marv Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 They reveal that he is (was?) a white man, though, which didn't please me. He's white (or looks it, I guess he could be Arab or Asian) in the graphic novel as well. Page 81 in my copy. Plus, the doctor's journal tends to single out races other than white in her other reports on individuals, but doesn't for V. It does however seem unlikely that he would have been in the camp without something being "different" about him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Edge Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Saw it today. Loved it. Should be a column done about it by the end of play tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drubot Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Saw it last night. Awesome movie, but i notice that alan moore's name wasn't shown in the credits. Now time to read the graphic novel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Marv Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Saw it last night. Awesome movie, but i notice that alan moore's name wasn't shown in the credits. Now time to read the graphic novel. Alan Moore washes his hands of movie projects based on his work as soon as he sells the rights. I thought it was because he saw a screening and hated it, but it turns out that he doesn't watch them at all, and it's just a general request that his name be left out. I don't even think he'd have been happy with a Sin City style job done on V for Vendetta, as in a recent interview he said that his works were meant to be irreproducable as cinema. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted March 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Saw it today. Loved it. Should be a column done about it by the end of play tomorrow. Chris' column can be read here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.