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."
And just pull it back 2 days for release.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
My expectations for anything done by them are decidedly weaker anyways.
I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
Bullshit. Post-production is "scheduled" to the day. It has to be. You don't suddenly go "whups, let's take another 4 or more months".
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.
Are we really as stupid as we look? What the fuck is with an "anonymous spokesperson"? If you can't quote them, don't print the story. Oh wait, it's not a story, it's a clever press release.
V for Vendetta has come under scrutiny for the coincidence of its subject matter and the recent terrorist bombings in London.
It has? Could have fooled me. Most everyone in the (US) theaters I've seen the preview have murmered "looks good" etc. Since a few hours after the train bombings, a lot of Londoners were saying "look, could you all get over it? We have." Especially given the typical audience for this film, I doubt any of the said audience will give a crap.
"It's that horrible word: intellectual. I mean, you have to think about the movie"
What? They laid out the entire plot in the trailers (or so we're led to believe). Facist, authoritarian government. Agents of whom attempt to rape Portman. "Good" guy rescues/befriends her. He's doing the whole "government is evil, I'm gonna blow it up, yo" and she's doing the "I'll die for you, yo. I am stretched on your grave, I'll lie here forever, yo." The government is all "Your ass is ours, yo."
What part of that requires any "thought"? The fact that it's blatantly playing off how fascist US/UK government has become?
Appropriate quote: "Ah, MIND taxing time again, now is it?"
The whole thing reminds me of Gilbert Godfried's joke at Hugh Heffner's roast, a couple says after the WTC attacks. "I'm kinda concerned, my flight has a layover at the Empire State building". Most everyone laughed. One or two people yelled "too soon, too soon." So he told the Aristocrats joke, and boy did those two people wish they had kept their mouths shut :-)
Please help metamoderate.
uh, she looks really ugly in the clips of this movie I have seen. I guess I don't go for the sinead o'connor look.
;-)
Sure, hair is one body part one may pay attention to, but on the other hand...
In the last two days, the stock has dropped from 70 to 50, with no bottom in sight. Sadly, I'm invested 50,000 shares in it, so it's hurt me/the market quite a bit.
For those of you who wonder why it hurts the stock, V for Vendetta first was scheduled for November, which is a good month for movies. March is typically much weaker. Secondly, people don't want to hold onto it for 7 months as opposed to 3.
yet film is perhaps our most superficial medium
If you can say this with a straight face then your movie criticism is fairly worthless, IMO. The medium of film is no more superficial than the play, and substantially more complex than radio, photograph, etc. It's true that some real stinkers have been made, but you can walk into the local bookstore and see whole aisles full of superficial, boilerplate romance novels, mysteries, and self-improvement guides.
Films like High and Low, the Last Flight, Requiem for a Dream, and so on have serious depth to them.
I'd certainly put dozens of media ahead of film as far as shallowness (perhaps starting with the billboard and the pamphlet--both of which _can_ have some depth but on average rarely do).
Hell, the sculpture is generally pretty damned shallow; for every Hand of God or Unfinished Slaves, there are hundreds of generic classical-styled garden decorations and huge crappy abstract installation pieces outside of corporate headquarters. Idem painting with all the pseudo-impressionist doctor's lobby pap, cute puppies/kids, etc.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
-Moore's The Dark Knight Returns and The Watchmen (and of course V)
-Ellis' Transmetropolitan (and perhaps Preacher by the same writer, though I'd like to see *that* put to film)
-Spiegelman's Maus
-Sin City
Now, I don't know whether you prefer "classic" comic books, but I consider the above comics/series to be the best the industry's offered in the past couple of decades. You got any better ones?
As for the film being flawed: it's a conversion, so it's not going to be perfect, but it's the closest conversion of a comic to film that I've ever seen, not just in terms of story but style.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Yep, the Matrix has fuck-tons of Christian imagery, just like lots of other Western literature. At the end they lay it on so thick it's almost funny (Neo is crucified; <Keanu>whoa</Keanu>). Did you think Signs was a really deep movie, as well?
You can also view it as a case for existentialism. "... an existence without meaning or purpose.
And if we take the opinions of the writers of the Wikipedia, The Merovingian can be seen to allude all sorts of stuff, like Satan and Hades. Is he the personification of part of Tomas Hobbes' philosophy? Is The Matrix essentially the allegory of the Cave? Who knows?
How about our hero's journey from Star Wars? Some excerpts:
Well, it looks like The Matrix can be cast as a pretty formulaic hero's journey as well.
So, can you please explain how this stuff is deep? Or does "deep" mean, "I can apply what I learned in my high school literature/philosophy course?" Is Harry Potter deep?
My advice to anyone who will go to watch the film is read the original first and let that blow you away
And my advice is to ignore that advice - see the movie first. Think it's cool. Enjoy, etc, etc. Then read the comic book. If it's truly all that, then you'll be blown away again. Do it the parent's way, and you'll probably be disappointed with the movie.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
The ban was brought in to get rid of the protester in your picture, who's been there for over 4 years (June 2001). It failed miserably, a judicial review a few days earlier found that, due to a technicality, Mr Haw was exempt from the new law.
The law (amongst other things) bans all protests within 1km (about 2/3 of a mile) of parliament, unless you get permission from the police. Like in North Korea, you can apply to the police to have a march celebrating your leader and they'll probably allow it, although they don't have to.
You're wrong on so many levels.
... putting PC ahead of everything.
... horribly. Unchecked Jihadis blowing people up left and right ... and the counter-reaction of ethnic purges. So yeah, go ahead and create a Balkans 2.0 out of PC idiocy or political immaturity. Meanwhile, here on Planet Earth imperfect compromises mean Average Joe Brit doesn't get blown to bits in London or Birmingham, and Leeds and London Mosques don't get burnt to the ground with people in them either.
Blair pandered to various Muslim groups including Muslim Council of Britain to outlaw criticism of religion
For those accused of terrorism, you know, plotting to blow up commuters and such, ordinary people like you, he wants trials to be able to use (in closed court session) secret intelligence, such as wiretapping someone's IM messages to Jihad Central back in Waziristan Province Pakistan.
That's sensible. Let the perfect be the enemy of the good (any developer knows what I mean) and you will create a situation where the solution will sort itself out
One way or another the British people will stop terrorism.
Moore's book has almost no bearing on current reality; as a prognosticator he's stuck in the 1980's which was the end of the Cold War. He's been unable to view since then a modern world that doesn't have as it's backdrop Atomic-armed superpowers staring down at each other; as opposed to various extremist jihadis with no government but adherence to a sixth century religion.