Slashdot Mirror
V For Vendetta Delayed until March 2006
datemenatalie writes "According to Sci Fi Wire, V for Vendetta, originally slated to open on Nov. 4, has been pushed back to next March. The film stars Natalie Portman and was written by Matrix creators Andy and Larry Wachowski. This delay comes as quite a blow not only to expectant fans, but also to the marketing campaign of the film, as the clever tagline tie-in 'Remember, remember the 5th of November' is decidedly weaker when you attempt to rhyme it with March 17th."
The spokesperson, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, denied that the delay had anything to do with the movie's subject matter or the current political climate.
I'm not buying it that a movie about terrorism in London just happens to get delayed at this time.
-Colin
Although - If they are doing this to maintain the integrity of the film, so as to not remove any of those scenes - more power to them.
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
It's somehow hard to imagine that this will be a faithful version of a story in which the protagonist is essentially a terrorist.
I would have said the same thing about Sin City two years ago, and I would have been dead wrong.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Look at how V for Vendetta is set out. Look at the chapter styling, the poetry, etc. How do you translate those elements to film without losing 90 percent of your audience?
The answer is you can't do it, so you don't even try to do it, and, consequently, much of the depth of the story is lost. V for Vendetta is perhaps the least superficial comic that you could ever hope to come across, yet film is perhaps our most superficial medium. It is inevitable that much of what makes V for Vendetta such an outstanding piece of work will be lost in translation.
I'd even go as far as to suggest that certain parts of the story that involve action rather than worlds will be diluted to suit modern sensibilities. Hollywood's primary audience is and always will be US filmgoers, and it's hard to imagine that some aspects of the story (I won't elaborate further, as I wouldn't want to spoil anything for someone who hasn't read it yet) wouldn't be watered down or eliminated totally to fall more in-line with what is and isn't taboo in a society that still hasn't gotten over a 1 second flash of one of Janet Jackson's nipples more than 18 months ago.
Suffice to say that, somewhere along the line, Alan Moore's beautiful nightmare will be so heavily diluted and edited that it will lose much of its raw power.
Where you see a potential Sin City, I see a potential (and probable) Judge Dredd: ie, a Hollywood mockery of the original source material.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I like plots that make sense, dialogue that actually sounds like people talk...
You know, I'm actually quit fond of dialogue that is not at all how people talk - as long ass it's good dialogue. Try watching, say, a film by David Mamet (random example that comes to mind, I'm not endorsing him as the pinnacle of good dialogue). In a lot of his films the things people say are not what a person would ever actually say, but rather the things you wish you'd said 2 days later when you've had tome to think about it. The dialogue isn't realistic, but it is often extrenely sharp and snappy. Heck, try watching a film like Closer (featuring Natalie Portman no less) that's been adapted from a play: people do not talk like that in real life, but damn there's some good sharp dialogue in there.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I re-watched Dark City the other day and I realized that the plot and style of Dark City is a *lot* like The Matrix... only about 10 times better in every way.
If you enjoyed the Matrix, you owe it to yourself to go see Dark City as soon as you can. It's from the director of The Crow.
Comment of the year
Graphic novel? That would be, like, a comic, right?
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
...I don't think that a holiday that is not celebrated in the United States (IE Guy Fawkes Day) is going to make any difference as far as the majority of V For Vendetta's potential take. What I think might be going on with this film, however, is Warner Bros. losing their collective nerve over a movie that has as its hero a person whose actions can be interpreted as being "terrorist."
The only time Guy Fawkes Day has figured in a work of art aimed at an American audience is in the "Depth Takes A Holiday" episode of the MTV animated series "Daria." Guy Fawkes Day is portrayed as a surly British punk rocker who looks like Sid Vicious and sings like Johnny Rotten. Since British obscenities barely register in American English, he gets to swear like a British sailor. Of course, when the show aired on English MTV it had to be edited something fierce. Note to the Brits: you didn't miss much. One of the least enjoyable "Daria" episodes, one of the two from the series that almost sent it hurling over the shark tank. Almost doesn't count, though.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
From TFA: "V for Vendetta ... is set in an alternate universe in which the United Kingdom has a fascistic government"
In this universe Tony Blair has banned protesting within 1000m of the Houses of Parliament, he is trying to introduce trials without jury for many crimes, he now strongly influences what the BBC broadcasts, he is trying to ban criticism of any religion and he is forcing a mandatory ID card scheme on the public and that isn't a facist government??!?
Alan Moore has nothing to do with the V for Vendetta movie (his choice)
Which, lets face it, is perfectly understandable after the horrible horrible jobs done on his previous works of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell.
I think he's pretty much given up on Hollywood now.
If you liked Dark City, you might like Metropolis, where many of those ideas came from. A review.
It will probably still be available on P2P networks by November 5th ;)
Hollywood's primary audience is and always will be US filmgoers,
This is quickly changing. In fact, a good number of films are being designed for moderate American box office success with an aim to get in the black overseas. Put any Tom Cruise film in this category; he's a huge international star, eclipsing his fame domestically. Films like Collateral and American Samurai are examples of how the industry is acknowledging the sheer mass of the international market and catering accordingly.
That said, I agree with you. For the most part, comic book adaptations suffer greatly because the things that make great graphic novels often translate poorly onscreen. It's two critical things, I think: pacing and imagination. Hollywood doesn't want to lose its core audience. They'd rather seem a little behind the curve than ahead of it; this affirms the supposed intelligence of the audience, so dumbing down is a must as far as they're concerned. The second is imagination: film robs the viewer of the opportunity to imagine the unfolding of events, or for a different take on the turn of events. Unless someone totally nails it (Robert Rodriguez nailed Sin City visually) it becomes something people are dissatisfied with.
The problem is that you have smart people bringing smart projects to executives who understand how to sell dumb movies. Nine times out of ten, those executives have final cut, and are beholden to big-money investors who expect significant returns.
un burrito me trampeó.
Ugh. Terrible example. Closer was a horrifyingly pretentious play inexpertly turned into an even worse movie. The dialogue was painfully stilted, the characters totally unsympathetic, and the interactions were frequently completely nonsensical.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
A character might pause for a second or two on screen before committing an act yet that pause can easily be strung out for pages and pages by even a half-decent author who can use it to describe everything from the character's immediate state of body and mind to his motivations, hopes, dreams and aspirations
Of course, you're assuming that an actor cannot convey a huge range of emotion in a brief pause, and that directors never use lingering shots, pans, etc. And that vocal inflection, facial expression, etc do not convey huge subtleties.
Hell, forget film: take V for Vendetta and write it as a novel without graphic art. It's a different experience, and it's not necessarily a less superficial one no matter how many words you use to describe the visuals, or how many deep emotional asides you insert.
And, of course, you can flip back a page or two in a book and re-read it, but you can't do that with a movie being played to a packed theatre. Whereas an author can be excused losing his readers from time to time (because they can go back a few lines and find their way again) a movie director cannot (whatever message needs to be conveyed has to be conveyed in a clear, unambiguous fashion)
Of course, timing is a key advantage of film (or live storytelling) over the written word. A pregnant pause or machine-gun monologue can mean a lot. Suspense can be built more easily, or pacing can be tied to emotion.
Take a complex scene from any movie and try to express it in words. Now add ton and expand on that written description. With the written word, that's easily done, right?
Sure. And it will _still_ lack much of the subtle artistry of the original. I mean, yes, obviously, the written word is going to be better at expressing something in words. That's pure tautology, though--words miss meaning. Often. Have you never seen a well-staged play after reading the script? Performances matter. Sets matter. Visuals matter. And they don't merely matter for flashy MTV quick-edit visual reasons, either; they often convey subtleties that are nearly impossible to put into words.
But even leaving that aside, suppose we cede that the written word is somehow deeper than film, at least in novel format. That's _one_ medium, certainly the longest by word of any common one (epic poetry is all but extinct), and if you're going to equate verbosity with depth then it's clearly your runaway winner.
So how is film more superficial than a play? Or television? Or radio?
The typical script is longer (more words) than a short story or a typical poem.
Hell, how is it more superficial than a comic book? A typical film has more words and more imagery, and if they're used intelligently there's a lot more opportunity for complexity in those images.
Hollywood may make a lot of crappy films, but last time I was in the local newstand there sure were a lot of Archie comics in there too.
The film medium is not the problem. Comparing Watchmen, V is for Vendetta, and Sandman to Pearl Harbor, XXX 2, and Deuce Bigalow isn't any more reasonable than comparing Amethyst and Archie to Brazil and Full Metal Jacket.
rage, rage against the dying of the light