f13.net

Here (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/v_for_vendetta/trailer/large.html)

On a related note, Aint It Cool News did a screening of this movie at their annual film festival thing and apparently it's getting nothing but glowing reviews over there from staff and readers alike.  Of course we all know better than to trust any reviews that come of that site, but it does leave me to wonder if maybe this movie isn't the disaster I was expecting.

Looks cool to me (I didn't mind the first trailer either).

Nice touch with John Hurt in the Big Brother-ish role too.

Both trailers have seemed decent to me too (except for Natalie Portman's "accent" at the start of that second trailer).  The part where I had the problem was wachowski brothers + movie based on an Alan Moore comic + Moore wanting nothing to do with it.  The odds seemed to be stacked against this movie being done right.

Heh, don't rule that out completely. Probably 98% percent of the scripts out there will be filmed/have been filmed without consulting the writer. Many of them turn out fine.

I don't like the Wachowski's or anything, and I think Moore is a genius as far as comic writers go.....But.....It's his fault that he isn't involved. Directors and studios have bent over backwards recently to have Moore around, but all he wants to do at this point is be a chump about it. His fault. And everyone else's loss. The films are going to be made either way, whether he likes it or not.

Like I said, I don't care for the Wachowski's, but perhaps they may be in that minority of directors who'll have a good enough grasp of the material to not completely fuck it up. Alan Moore can't be the only one who would. Whether he wrote it or not. If that was the case, then he wouldn't have bothered publishing them for public reading in the first place.

Are they re-releasing the comics in any form because of the movie?  When I dug the comics out of the archives, I noticed that I am missing #8.

I'd enjoy reading any compilation -- they exist in book form?

They've had a TPB out for awhile now, that's how I first read it a year or two ago.  I have seen alot more copies in bookstores as the movie approaches though. 

Yeah, i noticed a V for Vendetta trade in my local bookshop the other day - might have to pick it up, as my original copy is starting to fall apart at the binding.

I finally read the book this week, and now watching that trailer, I can't help but think this will differ greatly from the book in some not so good ways.

I can't be bothered to watch the new trailers for this, but the old ones painted the movie as another special effects action movie with unnecessary cgi that Hollywood decided to belch out.  The comic was great, though, so there's some hope.

On the plus side, it can't possibly any worse than Ultraviolet.  How anyone thought that movie wasn't going to suck nuts of hairiest order is beyond me.  I want to shank the person who dragged me to that against my better judgement.

Having just gotten back from seeing this I can say that there are very few special effects or action sequences in this movie.  I'll say that there are some changes I didn't like, and some parts which I felt could have been more subtle, but all in all I thought it was a good movie.

Pffffffffft. I'm going to see that this Saturday. And you know what? It's going to be fucking awesome.

The minute they put Collision Detection in.

I went to see V tonight.  I enjoyed myself.  It was quite good.  I have not read the comic itself, as I decided that doing so before seeing the film would probably make me non-objective about the film and cause me to be less likely to enjoy it for what it was.  I'll likely pick up the V comics sometime in the near future.

MTV did an interview with Moore about the film.  Surprise, he's pissed. (http://www.mtv.com/shared/movies/interviews/m/moore_alan_060315/)

I read the interview and it actually makes sense. I still think I might enjoy the movie, but thats because I didn't want to express something with the books that got lost in the adaption.

Moore makes some good points.  And he's right that it was particularly shitty of them to say that he was excited about the film.

However, taken solely on its own and not as a less-than-loyal adaptation of an existing work, it's a pretty good movie.  Though the metaphor was pretty damn thin... I don't think they were even trying to hide it.

I thought the film was awesome. I had no expectations, though - we saw it purely on Sauced's inkling. But I loved it.

Excellent movie -- two thumbs up from me :thumbs_up:

I saw it and agree, it was a damn good movie. As for Alan Moore, he needs to get over himself and stop his bitching and whining diva-like bitchiness.

Actually I agreed with him.  If you want to change the basic message of a narrative, write your own.

Don't be a fucking douche and write your own under the guise of someone else's so that their fans come to your screenings.

Douche.

And it helps that he says "I don't take your money as well, give it to whoever cares". There are enough people ranting about their work being compromised who still take the money.

Except that they didn't change the basic message. Moore is just one of these whiny Artiste's who thinks he is special. About the only thing I could see him being able to be legitimately mad about was DC saying he was happy when he wasn't. But really, the man needs to get over being molested in kindergarten and just write some more comic books.

O RLY.

I liked the movie, but like I said it could have really used a lot more subtlety  The stuff they added in did change the message of the movie as it was obviously meant to relate to the current administration here in the US, whereas before it was a commentary on the politics in England at the time it was written.

They could have gotten their point across in the movie without all the "OMG our own government poisoned the water supply" stuff, and the character of Sutler and the Nazi type imagery around him during his public speeches could have been toned down just a little.  The didn't need to create a cartoonish, over the top villain for people to understand that there were some problems with the way the goverment was doing things.

I think it would've actually been more interesting if it was a tougher choice between V and the government.  If the government wasn't so cartoonishly evil, and they raised the level of moral ambiguity in some of the things V did, it would've been much more interesting.  Give the audience a chance to choose who they feel the "good guy" is.  Start discussions and whatnot.  Y'know.  Art.

But this was fun, and not stupid, so I enjoyed it.

Which is a lot of what the original book did. While the "villains" in the piece were pretty vile, V wasn't necessarily a great alternative. He blew shit up, and didn't seem to much care who got in the way.

I liked it, but thought the effort to tie it to current events cheapened it.

I had to go back and reread the book to see how different it was from the movie.  I was surprised to see how much the movie had diverged - it's really a completely different story.  Not really a bad one, just completely different.

In reading the comic now for the first time, I really felt they portrayed Evey as a much more believable and interesting character than Moore did.  She actually had a personality of her own in the film.

However, Moore is definitely doing (or definitely did, I guess) a MUCH better job with the government figures and showing their human traits.

Come to think of it, I don't think I ever find any of Alan Moore's female characters to be terribly believable.

I thought Miss Jupiter in Watchmen, and her daughter, were reasonably believable.

Evey's kind of a "Gee, Mr! Thanks for saving me! Oh you're taking me to your secret hideaway? Um... neat!" type.