Slashdot Log In
V For Vendetta Delayed until March 2006
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Aug 18, 2005 05:47 PM
from the on-hold dept.
from the on-hold dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Beware the ides of March! (Score:4, Interesting)
-Charles
No, that's not how it works - here's why... (Score:5, Informative)
So, a November 5th release is very appropriate for V for Vendetta, especially as this year is the 400th anniversary of the plot. Releasing the film in March 2006 doesn't have quite the same marketing effect or poignancy.
I've commented on V for Vendetta in its original comic book form on Slashdot many times. I won't bother to drudge up what I've written elsewhere but I will summarise it all here: V for Vendetta is one of if not the greatest comic ever written, and there is no way that any film adaptation will ever do it justice.
My advice to anyone who will go to watch the film is read the original first and let that blow you away before you watch whatever butchery the story has to undergo to suit the media of film and the tastes of Hollywood execs.
Re:No, that's not how it works - here's why... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would have said the same thing about Sin City two years ago, and I would have been dead wrong.
Re:No, that's not how it works - here's why... (Score:5, Informative)
Alan Moore has nothing to do with the V for Vendetta movie (his choice), Fate has been changed to be a shock jock, Evey isn't going to be caught selling herself to start the film, in the film there are a great many people dressed like V all being unhappy with the government together (which is always funny, anarchists being anarchists together). The list of ridiculous changes from the comic to the movie is somewhat long.
If you have any love for the comic, you'll be most displeased with the movie.
Re:No, that's not how it works - here's why... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:No, that's not how it works - here's why... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:No, that's not how it works - here's why... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:No, that's not how it works - here's why... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:"Remember...5th of November" (Score:5, Informative)
The full text of the original poem, which dates to 1606, one year after the Gunpowder Plot, and was initially delivered as a church sermon is:
Remember, remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot
Sign me up! (Score:5, Funny)
Uh... where can I get tickets?
Historical signifcance (Score:5, Informative)
Jedidiah.
Clever Tagline (Score:5, Informative)
Remember remember the 5th of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot
I see no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
The V comic book was great -- this film will suck because the Wachowskis are hacks, living it large off one good film (albeit one with an obvious and portentious, pretentious dialofue carried by its special effects).
Re:Clever Tagline (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
V is for Vuh-yeah-right. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not buying it that a movie about terrorism in London just happens to get delayed at this time.
-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
Re:V is for Vuh-yeah-right. (Score:5, Informative)
.
Incidentally, here's what producer Joel Silver had to say about it [warnerbros.com] at the San Diego Comic-Con:
Question 13: In the post 9/11 sort of climate, where Britain and America seem to be getting closer and closer to the world of this movie, what made you decide to make it now, and how do you think it's going be received?
Joel Silver: I think it's a really great time for this movie. I mean, it's a controversial film, and we're in a controversial time. There're some really bold and impressive ideas in the original story, which was written in the late 80s, and it's the perfect place for us to show the film now. What happened is that when the boys finished the Matrix movies, they were kind of burnt out, but they had written a script for me for this before they made the Matrix movies. They said that they were very happy with working with James McTeigue, who had been our first assistant director on the Matrix films, and they wanted James to have a shot to direct a picture. They said, "We were thinking about going back, rewriting V -- we'll produce it with you," which I was happy to have them do, "And we'd like James to direct it." And they said, "We think the time is right for it." So that's why we're doing it, and I think it's going to impress a lot of people and make a lot of people think, which I think is important for movies like this today."
.
And here's the original comic's artist, David Lloyd's thoughts on the subject:
"Question 16: David Lloyd, as a creator of the original story, and the rest of you making it, what are your feelings about the London bombing, and also present-day London with video cameras all over the place... which is kind of how the story of V FOR VENDETTA was.
David Lloyd: Yeah, that's very interesting about the CCTV cameras, because when we did that in the '80s, there weren't that many around. I mean, society has actually become a lot more like the one that we actually painted. The question about London and terrorism, and what's happened there -- I think it's important that we try and understand terrorists. I think there should be lots of movies made about terrorists, and politics generally, and one of the reasons I'm so happy about this film is that it does have a very strong and uncompromising political message, and there aren't many films made like that now. So, in terms of what's happening in London over the last week, I think it's going to be healthy to try and understand what leads a person to terrorism. There's that old cliché, isn't there - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter - and if we try and understand that, then maybe we might be able to solve the problems that cause terrorism more easily."
New Tagline (Score:5, Funny)
insulting my intelligence (Score:5, Interesting)
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 :-)
Re:insulting my intelligence (Score:4, Informative)
Given that Alan Moore has read the script and spared little invective when describing it, I think we can presume it has been substantially changed.
Jedidiah.
larry wachowski? (Score:4, Informative)
will they really do it right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh look, an innacurate /. summary. *shock* (Score:4, Informative)
No so parallel... (Score:5, Insightful)
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??!?
Re:New Tag Line (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Remember Matrix 2 and 3 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Remember Matrix 2 and 3 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.