Mon, Mar. 20th, 2006, 11:23 am
paranoiaebw: V is for Vagina?
So I saw “V for Vendetta” the other day and I must say I enjoyed it. I found it’s messages mixed at times but overall it was alright. I’m a huge fan of the graphic novel and I do understand that the changes may take away from the actual movie. I guess the reason I enjoyed it though is because I thought it was going to be a big piece of shit with a ton of action scenes in it. While they did add some action I don’t think they over did it and it worked well.
The biggest problem with the movie is this:
They have a love story/tension between “V” and Evey. I do think this is stupid (as I actually agree with my friend that “V” was possibly her mother) BUT “V” is a Hollywood movie and that sort of stuff is bound to be thrown at us. One of my friends was so mad by this so another guy challenged him to name one major Hollywood movie where a romance/tension of some sort wasn’t put in with at least two characters in it.
You know the best answer he could come up with? Predator 2!
THAT’S reaching if you ask me! SO-my question is, can you think of any major Hollywood pictures where they don’t put some sort of love story in there for the audience?
Mon, Mar. 20th, 2006 03:28 pm (UTC)
Hey, Predator 2 was the best I could come up with on the spot. I was trying to fish through the movies I own and, after getting to what I remember being on the third shelf, that's the one. I have no doubt there have been more recent action movies, or major Hollywood movies in general, lacking any love subplot, but I just honestly can't think of any.
Mon, Mar. 20th, 2006 03:30 pm (UTC)
oh i'm sure there is. I guess my big point is that they are few and far between. So can we really be bothered by the romantic subplot? It is a hollywood movie and that is a hollywood vice.
Mon, Mar. 20th, 2006 03:59 pm (UTC)
I think I can be bothered by it if I find it poorly handled, and I shouldn't have to expect it in every movie. It does seem to be the staple of the action movie, though. And we see that it doesn't work all the time. I thought the romantic subplot in Batman Begins hindered that movie, as well, but the same type of romantic subplot fuels other action films like (and I hate to say this) Spider-Man or even Hulk to a successful degree. Hell, even King Kong (then again, that movie can be considered a love story in its' own right).
It really depends on how the subplot is used and, I thought, is was used quite poorly in V For Vendetta. If the romantic subplot is handled fine, then awesome. I'm all for it. If it's tacked on, then I don't. And we shouldn't have to expect it in every movie, but I supose it seems to be (at times) a necessary aspect of character development.
But there are few, no question. And . . . I forget what else I was going to say. Damn asshole two computer downs with his goddamn cellphone.
(Thanks for getting some more conversation rolling in here, Vaughan)
Mon, Mar. 20th, 2006 04:33 pm (UTC)
molotovnitemare: you just struck a chord
i don't know why producers insist on these romantic interests when they are not only unecessary, but poorly developed as well.
insert convenient love triangle HERE for entertainment, and screw 'em if the audien want people to like one another for a REASON!
worst movie to ever do this, that i can think of... volcano
(don't ask me why i was watching it). we have civil engineer meet geologist for the first time. they exchange some snide power struggle remarks. CE leaves room. geo's asst says "i think he likes you (WTF?)" geo says, he's a dick. asst: "good, you like him too." and THAT'S IT now they like each other, and they even LOVE one another (even though they barely spend any more time together throughout the movie), through the magic of suggestion.
i fucking HATE THAT!
Tue, Mar. 21st, 2006 06:46 am (UTC)
OKAY how in the hell can you like the movie if you LOVE the graphic novel? The great thing about V for Vendetta is that it breaks conventions, it's daring, it portrays terrorism in a positive light, really potraying the old adage that one man's terrorist REALLY is another man's freedom fighter (ah, the Boston Tea Party). They butchered the dialogue and turned V into a love struck monster, making him human, which he is not supposed to be. V was supposed to be an IDEA which is why he's behind the mask in the first place. I loved the book because it did not sacrifice its integrity or its message so it could be exploited for all entertainment purposes possible, which is why it was (and still is) such a groundbreaking piece of literature (thank you Frank Millar and Alan Moore for making comics for adults). But the film DID that and that's why it is no different than any other Hollywood film.
I mean come on, the posters all read "Freedom! Forever!" Fuck that, no where do I recall such a proclamation in the graphic because it's a trite American ideal. V deserves much more ingenuity and edge.
As far as movies without a love sub-plot:
Uhm, what about The Sandlot (lifeguard chick?), Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me, Night of the Living Dead, Tora Tora Tora, there do exist some
Tue, Mar. 21st, 2006 01:26 pm (UTC)
I totally undrestand what your saying and that's probably why I wasn't "in love" with the movie. It's been a few years sense I've read the graphic novel SO it's a little "fuzzy" in my mind BUT the movie works on one level seperate from the book for me. Alot of the changes I felt they made were just typical hollywood conventions. While I hate those conventions I can't be too bothered by seeing them in a hollywood movie. I knew what I was getting myself into.
The only defense I can have for any of the changes is that there is only one movie based off of any type of book that I can recall little to no changes (off the top of my head), and that was Sin City. Sometimes Changes can make the story better too if they fit what the directors vision for the film is (not saying this is so in "V"). Take "Fight Club". The end of the movie is much better than the book-even the author thinks so.
Wed, Mar. 22nd, 2006 05:59 am (UTC)
But the soul, the overall IDEA of the book and its characters remained intact for Fight Club. If they changed Tyler Durden in anyway not befitting of his character in the book for the movie, I would have raised hell over that. Changing the ending of a film, at least in the minute way Fight Club was ended, dosn't bother so much as the above comment on character change-up and that has a greater impact on the film as a whole than an ending change.
Sun, Aug. 6th, 2006 02:27 am (UTC)
I realize many changes were made in the film adaptation, and yes, it is due to Hollywood convention. I can accept changes. They did change a lot of the actual story, as St. Mary's and Three Waters were not included in the graphic novel at all. There was obviously some kind of relationship going on between V and Evey even in the graphic novel. There had to be for Evey to change so radically.
When I watched this movie, I was expecting something entirely different from the graphic novel, to be honest. Many of the changes did disappoint me, especially how he blew up the Old Bailey. Personally, I enjoyed the conversation V had with Madame Justice before he blew it up in the novel. Many things I enjoyed in the novel were not in the movie.
But, since I saw the movie as something separate from the novel, I could accept it. As movie, it is excellent, in my opinion. As an adaptation, it falters. I was looking for more of the filmmaking techniques and the performances. See my second entry for more details. (Please notice how I don't reference the novel).