![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ingvildAnticipation for a certain movie has run high on the internet for a while. It has been referenced wildly. It has had a great number of icons made for it. Some have been convinced that it will be the awsomest [in internet lingo this is SO a word] thing ever, others that it will be stupider than a donkey who has just become professor of Stupid at an online university.
But enough about Snakes on a Plane. Time for me to talk about V for Vendetta. Spoilers within.
I don't know quite how to approach this. Do I approach it as a rabid Alan Moore-fan (which I am), or as someone who laughed out loud at the cinema (which I did)? Do I treat it as an adaption or as a movie? How influenced will my review be by what others have written?
First things first: it's a movie. That means it has a limited amount of time, and that it needed to cut down and simplify. I actually have no problem with this. V for Vendetta, while no Watchmen, is really quite compact, with a large and complex set of characters. Therefore I have no problem with them cutting out some characters, like Helen Heyer, Rosemary Almond and Derek Almond. I understand why Lewis Prothero no longer collects dolls, or why leader Susan isn't in love with the fate computer any more. Because Rosemary Almond is gone, I understand why they had to change the way leader Susan - Sutler in the movie - was killed.
What I don't understand is why they felt the need to add another complication: the whole St. Mary's/Three Waters cover-up. Neither do I understand why they felt the need to change Leader Susan to Chancellor Sutler - except that sounds more nazi. Sutler=Susan+Hitler, as someone somewhere commented.
I can understand why they blew up Parliament last. It's because the world at large won't understand the significance of Downing Street. However, it creates a logical plothole: who can believe that no-one would notice that V had extended the tube rails to go under Parliament? Who can believe that no-one would check, when they knew the target and had a whooping one year warning?
The changes to Gordon made him a more interesting character - his rebelliousness - but I don't understand why they left out the sexual relationship between him and Evey. His show mocking Sutler, while incredibly funny, didn't fit into the context. His assurances that all they wouldn't do anything else to him than make him do an apology show fits into our world. Not V's England, which was a fascist dictatorship.
V himself was changed. He was milder. He didn't blow up things as much as he did in the graphic novel, and he actually apologised to Evey for torturing her. It fit better with the movie, where he was more of a man than an idea, but they were trying to push him as an idea, not a man there as well, and that didn't quite work. And what was the point of that forced romance between him and Evey?
I've seen many people, including Natalie Portman, saying that the changes to Evey were the biggest ones made. She's older and has an insurgent past. She's more active. Even so, I don't understand why the one person who became V at the end of the graphic novel was the one who didn't become V at the end of the movie. I'm sure![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
waterfall8484 has commented on this (I haven't actually checked yet, but she was the one commenting on it on the bus home), but the many V masks, while an awesome visual, defeats part of the purpose of thinking independently. To quote Life of Brian: "Yes! We're individuals! Tell us more!"
For my money, the biggest difference was the loss of the spy cameras. It took away a lot of the claustrophobic atmosphere of the graphic novel (emphasized by David Lloyd's clear but cramped art). At the same time, it pulled the teeth of the Norsefire government. Changing Prothero from the Voice of Fate to a talkshow host only helped. You don't believe that this government can send elderly people to the gas chamber for no other reason than that they are no longer productive. You don't understand why the people are so cowed. And it explains Gordon; both why he dared do that critical show and how he managed to collect insurgent art.
The conclusion: it works well as a movie, with some plotholes created by changes made from the graphic novel. All in all, I could watch the movie for enjoyment, but I'd read the graphic novel for thought. And I'll never be able to hear Tchaikovsky's 1812 Ouverture without imagining the British Parliament going boom again.
To close this up: A scene they left out and a scene they changed and the scene I would have screamed at for ten minutes if they had left out.
But enough about Snakes on a Plane. Time for me to talk about V for Vendetta. Spoilers within.
I don't know quite how to approach this. Do I approach it as a rabid Alan Moore-fan (which I am), or as someone who laughed out loud at the cinema (which I did)? Do I treat it as an adaption or as a movie? How influenced will my review be by what others have written?
First things first: it's a movie. That means it has a limited amount of time, and that it needed to cut down and simplify. I actually have no problem with this. V for Vendetta, while no Watchmen, is really quite compact, with a large and complex set of characters. Therefore I have no problem with them cutting out some characters, like Helen Heyer, Rosemary Almond and Derek Almond. I understand why Lewis Prothero no longer collects dolls, or why leader Susan isn't in love with the fate computer any more. Because Rosemary Almond is gone, I understand why they had to change the way leader Susan - Sutler in the movie - was killed.
What I don't understand is why they felt the need to add another complication: the whole St. Mary's/Three Waters cover-up. Neither do I understand why they felt the need to change Leader Susan to Chancellor Sutler - except that sounds more nazi. Sutler=Susan+Hitler, as someone somewhere commented.
I can understand why they blew up Parliament last. It's because the world at large won't understand the significance of Downing Street. However, it creates a logical plothole: who can believe that no-one would notice that V had extended the tube rails to go under Parliament? Who can believe that no-one would check, when they knew the target and had a whooping one year warning?
The changes to Gordon made him a more interesting character - his rebelliousness - but I don't understand why they left out the sexual relationship between him and Evey. His show mocking Sutler, while incredibly funny, didn't fit into the context. His assurances that all they wouldn't do anything else to him than make him do an apology show fits into our world. Not V's England, which was a fascist dictatorship.
V himself was changed. He was milder. He didn't blow up things as much as he did in the graphic novel, and he actually apologised to Evey for torturing her. It fit better with the movie, where he was more of a man than an idea, but they were trying to push him as an idea, not a man there as well, and that didn't quite work. And what was the point of that forced romance between him and Evey?
I've seen many people, including Natalie Portman, saying that the changes to Evey were the biggest ones made. She's older and has an insurgent past. She's more active. Even so, I don't understand why the one person who became V at the end of the graphic novel was the one who didn't become V at the end of the movie. I'm sure
waterfall8484 has commented on this (I haven't actually checked yet, but she was the one commenting on it on the bus home), but the many V masks, while an awesome visual, defeats part of the purpose of thinking independently. To quote Life of Brian: "Yes! We're individuals! Tell us more!"For my money, the biggest difference was the loss of the spy cameras. It took away a lot of the claustrophobic atmosphere of the graphic novel (emphasized by David Lloyd's clear but cramped art). At the same time, it pulled the teeth of the Norsefire government. Changing Prothero from the Voice of Fate to a talkshow host only helped. You don't believe that this government can send elderly people to the gas chamber for no other reason than that they are no longer productive. You don't understand why the people are so cowed. And it explains Gordon; both why he dared do that critical show and how he managed to collect insurgent art.
The conclusion: it works well as a movie, with some plotholes created by changes made from the graphic novel. All in all, I could watch the movie for enjoyment, but I'd read the graphic novel for thought. And I'll never be able to hear Tchaikovsky's 1812 Ouverture without imagining the British Parliament going boom again.
To close this up: A scene they left out and a scene they changed and the scene I would have screamed at for ten minutes if they had left out.
