• The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
    Price is $300 $250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
    Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.

  • Today marks the 24th anniversary of 9/11. I pray that this nation does not forget the loss of lives from this horrible event. Yesterday conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was murdered, and I worry about what is to come. Please love one another and your family in these trying times - Spark

Vendetta....

Monocrom said:
I never said he was. But the producers of the film took the character of "V" and transformed him from a controversial freedom-fighter, into a psychotic lunatic! ..... He actually becomes a bigger threat to the people than the corrupt Government that he's fighting against! Ooops!
Click to expand...
In that case, it seems like neo-conservative propaganda to me, reminiscent of National Socialism (perhaps I'll change my mind when I see it). Freedom fighters = bad, going against the government = bad, sticking up for oppressed people = terrorism. That's the kind of image that the people in power need us to absorb, in order for them to do whatever they want.
 
Apparently he IS a conterversial freedom fighter. That's why we're debating it.

The movie is not to make a point about today. There are no connections between it and current American politics, or British politics that I know of.

V liked the government, he wasn't an anarchist, but it was the new dictatorship he couldn't stand.

He's not a bigger threat to the people. At the risk of hurting some scenes in the movie--characters make television shows that lightly make fun of certain political figures, not even anywhere close to what we see about the president every night on late night talk shows, much less the Daily Show. The person in question was killed. The government kills anyone it can find that's gay.

I just don't think you can see the film and come away thinking the government in that movie was worse than v.

Folks, you've got to stop pretending to be offended by the content. You're not. It has nothing to do with you. It's a fictional movie, set in a fictional UK. It's fiction. Were we offended when Neo kills folks in The Matrix? It's just as fictional.

I'd hate to see what you folks thought about Heinlein's 'The moon is a harsh mistress.'
 
Spoiler
.
.
.
.
.
.
The gov't he's fighting tested biological agents on anyone they didn't like (Dr. Mengela, anyone?) and then released those biological agents on a school and a water plant, killing over 80,000 to drum up fear to get into power. How is what V does worse than killing 80,000 of your own citizens and operating death camps?

Frank
 
I have to agree with SiverFox: The deathtoll incured by "V" is actually fairly small for the average Hollywood hero not to mention a Hollywood villain. Neo kills many more innocent in any part of the Matrix , just because they have turned or might turn into agents.The buildings that V blows up are EMPTY and abandoned. You don't really have a use for a parliament or parliament building under a dictatorship, now do you?

In many ways the Matrix and Ventetta are comparable. Both fight against a fictious oppressive regime. The reason why Matrix is not nearly as controversial is the simple fact that it is harder to draw parallels between the opressive rule of machines and any contemporary government than between a fictious government and any one in existence.

The V in the original comic book is actually an anarchist and the author was not pleased to see the character toned and watered down. Not the other way round. However, I don't really see how you can argue with the intent of the comic book. The movie has clearly parted quite a ways from the comic book and most people that see this movie have not read the comic book. Also the comic book was written during the last days of the cold war. A very different environment that we have now. I would say the comic and the movie will have to be evaluated independently of each other.
 
Artfully Martial said:
Apparently he IS a conterversial freedom fighter. That's why we're debating it.

The movie is not to make a point about today. There are no connections between it and current American politics, or British politics that I know of.
Click to expand...

One of the things making this movie so controversial is that Alan Moore, the guy who wrote the original graphic novel, blasted the producers of the movie for turning his work into liberal propaganda! He hates the movie version of his work and believes that the film IS trying to make a political point.
 
There is no liberal agenda to the film. There is no point being made about US politics. I wish you were close enough. I can get you into the movies for free here. Then you could see what we're talking about.
 
You know I watched a show about this movie on MTV, and while it was a rather blah endorsement of the movie- working very hard to play up a big "is this responsible film-making in the post 911 world" angle/controversy. When the host (the dorky guy with the glasses) asked Natalie Portman if it was a commentary on modern politics, she said "no, its not." However, when the same interviewer was talking to the director, he said "this movie could really be seen as a commentary on the Bush Administration don't you think?" and the director answered "Yes, I really think it could." He went on to talk about the reduction of freedom of expression in the name of thwarting terrorism.

That's the angle of the Director, so take that for what its worth. HE'S in the editing booth, not the actors. As far as politics, the comic was a commentary on the Thatcher administration in England- as the author has said himself a few times. He also, as others have pointed out, has stated publicly that he has no use for the film or what DC comics did to his creation.

I'm going to go see it this weekend I think, but from what I've heard I'm excited to see it.
 
Metis said:
the morals were pretty heavy-handed. i don't think we need to have "gays good / church bad" hammered into us any more. we get it, regardless of which side you take on either. but that's Hollywood.
Click to expand...

Right on... The message was loud and clear. The commentary on a civil liberty restricting, gay hating, fear mongering, religious extremist government (hint: Bush administration) was hard to ignore. That being said I've always been a sucker for movies which overthrow Orwellian governments, and about half of this movies imagery was directly from 1984.

As for V as a terrorist, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Although I take exception to the "cleansing acts of violence" portrayed in the film. I think that revolution is a grity, dirty, bloody business and by making it a bloodless, awe-inspiring, hippie wonderland it glorifies destructive acts. Also, why does he blow up an icon of democracy? Especially one that had fallen into disrepair and unuse?

One final question. For all of you from the UK, do you love or hate Guy Fawkes? Some things I've read seem to think of him as a revolutionary (certainly portrayed that way in the film) but you have an annual celebration where you burn his effigy as well, right? Just a confused neighbor across the pond.
 
Just saw the movie last night. I did like the Matrix better, but I don't want to take anything away from V. V was a superb movie. Great plot and sweet fight scenes. I was thinking what gimmick would the brothers who directed the movie will do this time around. What they did worked. Don't want to spoil anything to you guys.
 
V blows up the parliament because it doesn't exist in the world of the movie. He blows up a structure, which is unecessary because of the lack of an actual parliament. In my opinion, anyway.

There is no Church bad message in the film. There are two characters, a priest and a talk show host who both seem to discuss religion and are bad guys. But these guys specifically affected V in person--he's not against them based on their religious beliefs, nor does he care about anyone else in the priest hood period. He is also against a certain doctor. I can say personally that doctors, as a group (or undoubtedly, any individuals) feel that this film is a commentary about the evil of doctors. These people are individuals who personally acted against him (V). I'd love to elaborate more, but for fear of hurting the film, I shall not.

There is NO connection to current politics, period. Saying that it could be applied to current politics by the director says nothing about Bush or any other famous politician. I mean, on some amorphous level, any film that talks about politics could be connected to current politics. We could claim Shakespearian plays are about current politics with this line of reasoning. (really)

But this is too much. People are projecting imagery into a great film. Not everyone is out to get Bush (although a lot are). However, if Bush DID do the same stuff the characters in this film did, you'd be against him. Of course, he didn't, but I digress.

I don't think anyone that actually sees the film will come away feeling like it's any kind of commentary on current politics.

If the writer of the comic didn't like the movie, you should take that as a sign he has poor taste in films. Don't take it as anything else.
Even great comic book authors aren't guaranteed to appreciate great movies.
 
Must admit I have NO strong feelings for OR against Guy Fawkes or his "gunpowder, treason & plot". It was an awfully long time ago. He was dealt with pretty severely anyway, I seem to recall from my history books that he & his co-conspirators were "hanged, drawn & quartered" NOT a nice way to buy the farm. (Perhaps we could bring that method of execution for Osama!?)
One "Guy Fawkes connection" I DO miss, is seeing British kids with a poorly made dummy made of old clothes stuffed with newspaper etc, hanging around the shops and asking "Penny for the guy?" You used to give em afew coppers (1p & 2p coins NOT Policemen!) which I always assumed they'd spend on Fireworks, Treacle Toffee or Parkin (A sort of cake!). Then of course they "guy" would be sat on the bonfire on Bonfire Night & as you say, burned in effigy!

But NOW, the kids seem to concentrate on Halloween & so we now have organised teams of the little feckers, knocking on your door every two ruddy minutes to say "Trick or Treat!"
SO much more annoying! And to scumbag British kids, a trick isnt toilet-papering your house, its setting fire to your car, or at the very least leaving a bag of "flaming doggy-do" on your front step!

"Bah Humbug to Bonfire Night AND Halloween!"
 
Wow, this thread turned into a heavy, non-knife related political discussion. Lets lighten it up a bit.

What king of knives does V use?
Are they a real production or custom model or just a movie fantasy prop?
Last, but not least, any good scenes involving the very hot Miss Portman?
 
Artfully Martial said:
I don't think anyone that actually sees the film will come away feeling like it's any kind of commentary on current politics.
Click to expand...

I HAVE seen it. I'm not accusing the filmakers of making a propaganda film, but I do think there is commentary. I think the fact that several figure heads of the evil government speak openly about people needing God, hating gays, and effectively eliminating all freedoms is important. These are the things that Bush is critisized for. I think that the director of the film saying that he believes it could be viewed as commentary is also significant. I'm not saying its a bad movie either. In fact, I'd encourage people to go see it. It's thought provoking to say the least. I just don't agree with its portrayal of violence as an ultra-noble high-minded route to revolution.
 
Artfully Martial said:
There is no liberal agenda to the film. There is no point being made about US politics. I wish you were close enough. I can get you into the movies for free here. Then you could see what we're talking about.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the guy who actually wrote the graphic novel and created the character of "V," disagrees with you.
 
Artfully Martial said:
Sure he disagrees with me. It just so happens he's wrong. It's too bad.
Click to expand...

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think the guy who actually wrote "V," knows more about the differences between the graphic novel vs. the movie; than you do.
 
The knives look like very stylized stilletos. Almost like the knives which were used in the left (or NON-sword hand!) as a blocker/blade catcher. IF Im correct (I very well may NOT be!), I think this was an Italian style of sword-fighting.
Perhaps it wouldve been nice to see some more modern "tactical" blades in use, especially in the modern setting.
 
He no doubt does know far more about the differences between the comic and movie. If that were what we were debating, it would be a valid criticism. If you choose to dislike a movie based on its differences, that's quite a different matter, and there's no way I can debate that you're wrong there. It's just how you feel.

If the author of the probably excellent comic V feels that the movie is a political commentary on U.S. politics, he's just wrong, however. Maybe he should see the film too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top