Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Alan Moore's comments

A part of me thinks we should move and elaborate on Alan Moore's criticisms of the film into the reception area, paired up with the political reaction.--P-Chan 07:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article present Moore's charge about focusing on neo-conservatism as accurate? I consider this an oversimplification. In my judgement and others', the movie criticizes modern politicians, but links this to a general argument about fascism and its origins. The writers introduce alleged Muslim terrorists because -- since lies try to imitate the truth -- modern fascists trying to scare people would likely use the threat of Muslim terrorists for that purpose. Similarly, why does the article accept the claim that this movie portrays Muslims in a positive light? It doesn't contain a single Muslim! The film mocks some negative portrayals of Islam, but I consider that quite different. I'll try to edit the article to reflect NPOV. Dan 20:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do. This article is definetly in need of a fresh set of eyes, with fresh perspectives, who voices opinions and makes changes.--P-Chan 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Novelization

There is almost no information on the V for Vendetta Novelization, thus it may be more appropriate to have that information as a See also. (It doesn't add much to the article). Any comments or other suggestions? --P-Chan 07:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, is there anywhere we could just mention it, because the seperate article is just kind of pointless. Maybe in the differences section..I dont know...Cvene64 07:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean like in the promotions section or just a wikilink somewhere? Example: "As part of a pre-release promotion of the film, a Novelization based on the screenplay was released by Steve Moore V for Vendetta (novelization)". Like that?--P-Chan 07:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait. I think I see what you mean. We can put it into the differences section... and say that "the loss of detail from the process of the story moving to film, is reintroduced through a novelization by Steve Moore"... or something like that.--P-Chan 07:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, hmm, Im actually not sure. Both sound right to me. Its just, as it is, its just a heading that doesnt need to be there. Do what you think is best. :) Cvene64 08:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What should be the scope and size of the article?

List of Minor V Characters Should one be allowed - SGCommand

Sure. I'd suggest a title like V for Vendetta (film) minor characters. Or if you're catering for the film and the comic, then drop the (film) part. --Oscarthecat 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe have a section within this article called V for Vendetta (Characters). <Like in the Lion King article>. It would be very short and just a few sentences for each character. This would be great once we shorten the synopsis a bit.--P-Chan 18:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just thinking about this a bit more, I think there should be a list within this page. The characters in the novel and film are fairly different, as characters in the film have been amalgemated from multiple novel characters. If we have a common one for both mediums, it could look cluttery. If we do have one here, we could either breakup the "Starring, as" box, or we could start another category on this page. What do you think? --P-Chan 04:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article as it stands is already 45kb (although the Synopsis section is due to shrink a lot, as it's a blow-by-blow account of the whole story). Adding main supporting characters would increase it in size by quite a bit. How about a separate article detailing the minor characters, like was done with Calvin and Hobbes ? --Oscarthecat 06:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's actually 50kb now. (You must have checked the article, in the brief window right after it was vandalized.) Yeah, in regards to the size, that's a valid point. --P-Chan 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a character page that melds together the minor characters of Film and Novel? Or should this be left seperate? The two mediums are somewhat different. Any opinions?--P-Chan 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bold edit now done, making the section into a synopsis rather than a blow-by-blow walkthrough of the film. This is to address a point made by the peer review. --Oscarthecat 06:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is good practice that if a page gets too large, good content is not deleted but split off, Wikipedia is not paper.--Patrick 07:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Horray! (Hmmm.... now the Differences from the Graphic Novel seems too long in comparison).--P-Chan 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Taken from the V for Vendetta (filmplot) talk: This article should be put back in V for Vendetta (film), there is not really a good reason why it needs its own page. Sure the size of the main article was very large, but that doesnt mean you break off one of the strongest and most aesthetically appealing sections. This article, and the other are looking rather messy right now. Cvene64 13:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. As I understand it, such articles should have a synopsis but not a blow-by-blow walkthrough of the entire film. --Oscarthecat 15:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cvene64, what do you mean by messy? I encourage you to elaborate on some of your structural and design ideas.--P-Chan 07:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I merged the three topics about scope and size of this article together. Let's really discuss this. Unlike with past edits with this article, I don't think the right choice is really clear. When we think about this, let's keep in mind what a good article, and a feature article should be. I encourage you all to look at the criteria of both, and also at some of the previous winners that were films. November (film), Casablanca (film), Starwars --P-Chan 17:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Tasks pending?

I'll go over it for a copy edit, but is anyone aware of any large gaps in material that could be sourced for this article but isn't. I don't think the images will give us much trouble in the longrun: all film articles need pictures of the main characters. We need to get moving on this article so that it can be featured on the mainpage by November 5th, lol. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I was just in the middle of writing a message inviting you to look over the article... and here you are. Isn't that some scary ESP? Or should I say... that was quite a coincidence. But then again... there are no coincidences, only the illusion of coincidence.  :) In any case, yes.. we gotta remember the 5th of November!  :) --P-Chan 08:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the referencing. I think we have everything pretty much covered. (I'll double-check).--P-Chan 09:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If the plot was put back in, I think we should have all images in that section.Cvene64 08:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the old giant plot? Yeah, I agree. But then again I don't think it's going to be coming back, due to it's size. Who knows. In any case, pictures can still fit into the plot that we have now. N'est pas?--P-Chan 09:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know the old plot probably wont come back, but I feel having a seperate article is almost redundant, and its not aesthetically pleasing having no images in this plot section....Hmmmm...Im going to go think...Cvene64 09:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Welll, I still actually think the old plot should be brought back, a lot of people worked on it, and it was the most important part of the film's page, now the first thing on this page is a very short plot description with no images, and it does not capture some of the great scenes as well as the old one did. Both artiles are similar enough to be merged, and it really is not that long. It was this articles best section, I was pretty sad when it was moved or whatever. I really want to bring it back, its not that much longer, and it sucks having to go to a seperate page to see the plot images and so on.Cvene64 09:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just checked the Wiki Film Project, and while they don't necessarily have a rule for it, there seems to be a preference for shorter plots. I think we can go either way. I certainly don't have too much of a preference for one over the other. --P-Chan 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do not mind it being shorter than the seperate page one, but I just want it in the actual film article, with images representing the appropriate events and so on.Cvene64 02:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that you reversed some of my subheading changes. I really think that the Box Office and Critical sections should be combined. They are both kinda small by themselves and traditionally, those two sections are usually combined anyways. You should check on the feature articles and on the WikiFilmProject to see what I mean. Also, the casting section normally does come after background, in most instances at least. In any case, I have a feeling that we're getting into a bit of a deadlock on this article. After pretty soon, maybe after veteran look at it and a bit of proofreading, I think we should just have another peer review and then go for a Good Article nomination. That way we can really really open up the opinions on what should be going on here. The changes that I'm doing right now, that you are reversing aren't even the controversial pieces. I'm much more concerned about the Themes (modern dystopia) & Political sections, with POV and all. I think those will sections are far tougher. Anyways, I'll chill it for now. --P-Chan 03:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont mean to be counter-productive, but those headings really need to stay:

• Box office is usally always always its own section, especially a film of this genre/people (Wachowskis/Silver)
• Having Reception->Political is flawed, reception is far too general, a viewer needs to be able to navigate to what aspect of reception he/she wants to read
• Combining all production except for advertising, makes it look messy and thrown together. Again, people would not be able to acess specific info if it was just one section, and as I said it looks thrown together-something FAC reviewers dont appreciate

Seriously Chan, I really do want to help, I hope these points can sortra explain my actions. Cheers Cvene64 02:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I understand what you are saying. Wanting to help is great and you have helped an awful lot and everyone knows that. The size of the synopsis, pictures and ordering are really just smaller issues, that can be solved in a pinch. Let's just wait until more imput comes in. As well, let's both cite feature article guidelines or feature article examples whenever we're working with an issue. That way, it will be easier to communicate and at the same time get us both more into the wiki groove. For example, if I say that the casting normally comes after production... I would mention that the film articles November, Casablanca, and Blade Runner all follow this format. Not saying that we should blindly follow the FA stuff, mind you, but it's a start. --P-Chan 01:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok good! I think what else really needs attention is the critical reception. It doesnt flow that well, and could even be pov in some areas. How should we tackle this? I might go look at some other articles to get an idea. Cvene64 03:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at other (feature/good) articles is a good idea and I encourage you to do that first. You're right in that it doesn't flow well. And do you mean a POV for or against? --P-Chan 04:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well POV, as in it is kind of like the movie was absolutely hated in the UK..which I dont think is true. Iam looking at ways to rewrite the section. Cvene64 12:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point, let's remove those comments and replace them with something else.--P-Chan 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

meaning of veniversum

V's motto is "vi veri veniversum vivus vici", but veniversum does not seems to be a latin word. at least it is not referenced in the most used latin dictionary here in italy. Is this word a neologism?

You'd probably know more about that than me. If it is a neologism, then it certainly is a popular one. Upon putting "veniversum" into google, I get 49,900 hits. --P-Chan 09:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Savidan

I've been asked to review this article. I'll post my comments here as I think of them. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 12:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

1. The plot needs to be merged back it. It is unheard of to create a subarticle for a film plot. Just after a quick glance, I think that the same information could be achieved with better word economy. If not, remember that it doesn't have to be a blow by blow of the film. Just a summary. Don't think of it as trying to replace the experience of going to the movies.
2. The differences from the graphic novel section is unclear as to what happened in the novel and the movie. It needs to be written with a certain degree of parallelism (e.g. X does X. Are you talking about the novel of the film? A newcomer would be clueless).

Iam going to move the plot back per your suggestion. I think it is reasonable, as you say, it doesnt need to be so detailed, but once the text is a part of the main article, we can refine it.Cvene64 09:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I made a workspace where we can examine the two synopsis side-by-side. This may be the best way to examine when, as there are no pictures, no moviebox that get the way. Just by eyeballing it, the old one is 2.3 times the size as the new one. Another change is the fact that the new one is not in a chronological structure and breaks up the plotline into major themes.

Beginning - Evey's awakening Finch and the background The finale

When performing an analysis, take a look at what you think can be cut from the old one and what areas are essential. That way you can get a better idea as to the size of the end product. Again, if new is 1, then old is 2.3. So are we aiming at 1.25, or 1.75, etc. As well it should be pointed out that the current size of the synopsis is the same as in many of the feature articles. --P-Chan 18:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Exact word count 679 and 1641 Ratio is roughly 1 to 2.4

Plot/Synopsis Side-by-side comparison:

• /Workspace

Comments on the Graphic Novel

Just finished reading the V for Vendetta original graphic novel and have made a few observations:

1. WOW. That's good stuff.
2. V is more insane (in a good way) in the comic than he is in the movie. The movie moves towards humanizing V (he is romantic, watches movies, cooks), whereas the comic portrays V as bizarre and something other than mere human (schizophrenic symptoms at the detention center, his reaction to getting shot, Shadow Gallery's orientation).
3. Evey's transformation is far more extreme in the comic. In the comic, she turns from a little girl to a mature and imposing character by the comic's end. This is contrary to the film, when Evey is shown to be pretty tough and mature to begin with (she maces a police officer).
4. Sutler/Suan is portrayed very differently. In the film he is a totatlitarian cliche, whereas in the comic he is sort of a victim. (He still has a peripheral role though).
5. V for Vendetta is not a futurist film, and this should be removed from the description of the film. Blade Runner and Minority Report are futuristic, this film is not. This film is simply set in the future. (I think the novel is slightly more futurist than the film is.)
6. Another difference is that the fascist elements are more overt and there are almost no religious elements in the regime in the comic.
7. The comic is many years long, whereas the film is just a year in length.
8. Much of the story revolves around the Party, and we get to see how human and fragile Norsefire is. Creedy, Mrs Heyer, Conrad, etc are stuck in the power game and seem to be more motivated by power than by ideology. (Sutler, and Creedy are clearly portrayed in the film as not nice people). Thus, you can actually see V as more of an antagonist.
9. Also, placing the story in a Post-Apocolyptic world puts a totally different spin on things. If the government falls, many lives could be lost. So there is a very real trade-off between freedom and "the trains running on time". You don't get that feeling in the film. Once the government is gone, it's not the end of the world, they could just get a new one.

I think that the Diferences section should be rewritten to incorporate the themes and feel of the story, and not details in the plot. Details are minor and typically people don't care about the scenes as much as the meaning. (And Savidan is right, when he says the format is confusing.)--P-Chan 01:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Section on Sutler in "Differences between the film and graphic novel"

The section Differences between the film and graphic novel makes the claim The name change from "Susan" to "Sutler" is apparently a mix of the names "Susan" and "Hitler." without any reference or footnote. I would like to remove this sentence until a footnote is provided as this is not necessarily true. Any comments? WikiFew 21:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right there does need to be a reference there. It was from the Berlin Film Festival press conference for V for Vendetta, when John Hurt was asked by a critic what his inspiration for the character was. I believe John replyed... well it certainly was no accident that my character's name sounds like Hilter. (Or something to that extent). I'll be sure to put a reference up. --P-Chan 21:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

An idea

When the plot is edited and moved back, I think having the casting images will violate fairuse, as any information-purpose they serve can be done with the synopsis images. Of course, we need to think about what images we want to use in the synopsis, I think an image of Finch should be included somewhere etc.

Don't know too much about fairuse policy, but having just the synopsis images introduce the characters instead of casting, sounds like a good idea.--P-Chan 09:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is no need for images to be used in the casting section I propose we do this to maximise the space. Thoughts? Cvene64 04:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey that looks nice! (I think it's a totally new idea as well). The only concern I have is browser size. I have a wide screen browser and the chart digs into the next section (Publicity). Is there a wikipedia policy in regards to what browser size, the pages should be optimized for? Regardless, I think's great. --P-Chan 04:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chan. Do you mean it cuts into the line of the next heading? (it does for me as well) That can be solved by either splitting a paragraph or just expanding the info a bit, so the table is not that little bit longer than the text. Cvene64 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's right. It cuts into the next heading. Here are two possible variations to fix the browser problem.

#http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:P-Chan/Workspace

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_%28film%29#cast

--P-Chan 04:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Scratch the first one, it doesn't work right. What do you mean by spliting a paragraph? I just opened a "cast page" below that we can work with.--P-Chan 04:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What does it look like now for you? (the experiment page) Cvene64 05:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it still goes into the next heading (I think it's my browser settings). I should be ok though. I think either the new system you proposed or the one in Casablanca (film) would be better than the one we're using right now. (You're right about the pictures being better spread throughout the article).

Well..erm..I'll get back to you on this..Cvene64 05:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. I think the new ideas are better than one we're currently using. So if you can perfect it, then that would be great. Even if you don't, it's still usable. Cheers.--P-Chan 05:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

/Cast experiment

I added the Casablanca format, for now. I think in the long run, it's the best one just because a lot of feature articles and good articles use that format. I used to wonder why this was so, but not anymore. The table format is just not very good for adding comments to and (as we both found out) it seems to be difficult to properly set into an article (it's kinda bulky). So I think for now we should keep this format. 1) People are more likely to add comments to it, 2)it's smaller, and less cumbersome. 3)Plus the feature articles and good articles tend to use it. There is currently no Wikifilm protocal that calls for a table format either, so we aren't breaking any rules by using it. --P-Chan 21:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Only problem might be that, some cast members have writing and some dont. But its the best way to go. Cvene64 01:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Real life

A few users dropped this statement hours ago. I think this would be considered original research. The only way to include something like this in the article, would be if political commentators themselves were making this link already.--P-Chan 22:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that an article devoted to a film based on a totalitarian Government in Britain, makes no comment on totalitarianism in Britain. Is your "original research" argument saying that we have to find someone to make this obvious connection? If so, who? Mindjuicer

Check out this link. [[1]] If you still think it's ok, you can reinsert it into the article. Maybe one of the British users can comment more on this.--P-Chan 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I had read it and I still think I understood your point. I think if the film wasn't meant to reflect real life, it wouldn't have incorporated modern elements listed in [[2]]. These journalists are highly respected, and you don't seem to dispute that their articles are relevant to V. If they wrote the same articles but mentioned V in passing, would that make their articles more relevant to V (as that seems to be your criterion)? Mindjuicer

Yes it would... the more respected the source the better. For example, the makers of the film have never said that the film was targeting the American administration. So that could never be said in this article. However, everyone else has been making that connection, and thus gives it validity. Now with your example, I'm not sure. In the state that it's in right now, I don't think it is strong enough. You can change this maybe with a bit of different wording.... or if you can find articles to make it stronger, then by all means do so. --P-Chan 20:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"The film's release in Britain coincides with many respected political commentators warning about the Blair Government destroying Britain's long-standing liberties, through ID cards & associated mass surveillance, radically expanded police powers and the dictatorial powers created in the Civil Contingencies Act & Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill [3]."

Reception sections

I split the reception bit into two seperate section: Reception (containing box office and critical) & Political reaction. This is why: very few articles have a seperate section for critical and box office. I looked at the articles you mentioned that did (Warkowski and Silver) and could only find Kiss Kiss Bang Bang with the two sections seperate. All the other ones I looked at had merged sections. Also, the Feature articles and Good Articles all have merged sections as well. Take a look at the wikifilm project:

---

Reception Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count). Websites such as Rotten Tomatoes ([4]) and Metacritic ([5]) collect professional film reviews and calculate a numerical score from them for each film. In the case of what the general public thought of the film, tend towards the expression "money talks" and provide a summary of the film's commercial success, consulting sites such as Box Office Mojo ([6]) and Box Office Guru ([7]).

---

I doesn't mention anything about seperate sections and in fact, seems to catagorize them together. I think Box office is most important for then a film first comes out, but 1 year from now, it isn't that relevent whether VFV was 2nd or 3rd in the UK. (Also, the two sections are fairly small anyways and can still be cut down). The formula for the reception section should be reviews by major critics, Rotten tomatoes/Metacritic and then box office $ (which are the most honest gauge of public acceptance). IMDB info should be toned down as well.

The reason I split the political part apart was because it contains comments from people who don't normally make reviews and are more in the business of providing political commentary. Anarchists, Lewis Rockwell, Frontpagemag, these guys should be seperate because they are in a seperate realm. (I would not expect Lewis Rockwell to comment on Kiss Kiss Bang Bang the same way as they would V for Vendetta.)

I hope this explains everything. I'm doing this based on the best expert info I can find on Wiki. --P-Chan 22:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Box Office having its own heading

P-Chan, I don't mean to keep changing it, but they have got to remain seperate. There was a lot of buzz and speculation as to how V would perform at the box office, and consiering it involves names such as Silver/Wachowskis, a lot of people have been following it. (It has been in the top 5 most viewed on bxofficemojo.com sinced its releaase). It really must remain as it own subheading, its far too important to be merged. Cheers Cvene64 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe you missed a block of text that was imputed in response to this issue. I moved it above your last statement so you can read it more clearly. No other Silver/Wachowski film article contains a seperate critical review/box office numbers (aside from Kiss Kiss bang bang). Neither do any of the Good Articles or Feature Articles (please read my comments above). Is your reasoning for the seperatation simply that a lot of people are interested in this info? If that's the case, well then can't they simply follow it when it is in a paragraph twice the size? Keep in mind that we are not promoting the film, we're trying to create a quality wikipedia article that adheres to standards set by the community. Unfortunetly, I do not see the reasoning behind splitting those sections.--P-Chan 02:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've remerged the sections. I really don't understand why the box office numbers are so important, but if you really want to promote the numbers, then one way to solve this is simply to place the box office numbers on top, as a line just before the reception. Like this:

Current Box Office Numbers: V for Vendetta has thus far grossed (USD) $66,037,682 in the United States and $37,100,000 elsewhere, for a worldwide gross of $103,137,682.

Is this a workable compromise? --P-Chan 02:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I did not see what you posted before. Its fine. Don't worry about placing anything at the top. Merge is the way to go :) Cvene64 06:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good.  :) --P-Chan 04:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The UK reviews

Can I enquire why the text I added on 6 April regarding the critical drubbing the film received from major UK broadsheet newspapers was excised? I appreciate that it may have been a bit unwieldy and 'repetitive' but if it's worth mentioning that "Despite the film taking place in Great Britain, the film did not reach number one at their box office on the opening weekend" the negative reaction might be considered a significant factor. PChen did ask afterwards why it might have been that the reaction was so negative in the UK compared to the rest of the world, and I was unable to come up with any response. A lot of the professional film critics seem to have gone along with Scott Foundas' remark about the film simply being shoddy, but that wasn't my impression of the film I saw. In fact, I found it difficult to reconcile their reviews with my own experience. A possible explanation could be that the destruction of major London landmarks, the 'context' of the 7 July tube bombings, etc. might have prejudiced the reviews, but I'm not sure I buy that explanation. I think the simple fact is that the critics just didn't like the movie - which just goes to show (again) that critics aren't always in tune with general public. (If this isn't the place for such an explanation, then forget about it.) Demos99 11:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. Yeah we were talking about this a lot earlier. I'll put the comments in question here, so we can think of a solution. I took it out earlier, and the reason for that was because I think this could be considered original research. I agree with what you're saying though, they do seem more negative. Strangely enough, I think we're some of the first people to actually point this out. I asked the people at Wikifimproject if there was anything like a Metacritic/RottenTomatoes that specifically targets the UK. Didn't get a response. Here's a question, who is the biggest film reviewer in the UK, in terms of influence? (In America it's Ebert of course). --P-Chan 16:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I took it out once because I thought it was POV. It can be reworded, with maybe one or two examples, certainly not that many though.Cvene64 01:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The film had a less favourable run with the media in the United Kingdom, being met with poorer reviews in the UK than in the US with many newspapers and magazines disparaging the film, including The Times [4], The Guardian [5], The Independent [6], The Daily Telegraph [7], and Time Out [8]. Jonathan Ross, on the BBC's Film 2006 programme, concluded his review saying: "If it had been called V for Vasectomy I could scarcely have found it a less enjoyable experience, so please don't let your curiosity get the better of you when it arrives down your way." [9]. However UK reviews were not completely negative, with critics Mark Kermode and Zadie Smith praising the film's virtues of "honest exploitation" [10] and adolescent radicalism [11].

---

The V speech

49 V's version

Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

55 V's version

Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

---

The Exact differences between the two versions are

• The addition of this highlighted sentence:
  • ...vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous...
• And the differences between:
  • ...vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor...
  • ...vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor...

---

I agree with Fightingdaman in that there are most likely 49 V's in the V speech. I don't know where the 55-version came from originally, but it doesn't seem to match the film. --P-Chan 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this is the correct one but from what I remember of the speech it had "vis-à-vis" in it. The 49 v's listed on the article doesn't have this word while the 55 v's does. I might be seeing this movie again over the weekend and I will look out for this word. I hope that others out there could enlighten us on there experiences with this monologue -- UKPhoenix79 07:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there not a script available online. Bootleg copies of the film? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Scripts probably not, but bookleg copies I'm sure there are. I saw from a movie clips site, V's speech and the 49 version is definetly correct. --P-Chan 00:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like I was mistaken... it is ashame since those extra V words seam like they could have been added in very easily... I was surprised that he didn't say "vis-à-vis" during his speach since I thought he did... Oh well. I wonder where the 55 V's version came from? -- UKPhoenix79 11:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Who altered my Edits

I made several refrences to the concern of America in V for Vendetta but its been removed. I demand to know who removed it and why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.167.26.214 (talk • contribs) 23:43, April 23, 2006 (UTC)

If you click on the "history" tab at the top of the article page, you'll see a full record of every edit, along with edit summaries. In this particular case, this edit shows that User:P-Chan removed your most recent addition, with the edit summary, "Too much original research, speculation and off-topic material (If you need to reply please use talkpage)." I've got to say that I agree with P-chan; the "Shattered Union" link is pretty tenuous, and although the filmmakers may well have wanted to suggest the "War on Terror" in their references to "America's War", it's not an explicit reference, and unless we can find a reliable source making that connection it's original research to draw it here.

I'd also like to draw your attention to a few Wikipedia policies and customs:

1. Wikipedia:Civility. If content you've added is removed, it's not very polite to demand who removed it. If you have a question, just ask. See also Wikipedia:Etiquette.
2. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. When people do things that annoy you, it doesn't help to get upset. We're all on the same side here!
3. Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. If you type four tildes, like so: ~~~~, it'll produce an automatic stamp with your IP (or username, if you choose to register) and the time of your post. This is very helpful for following conversations.

All that said, I hope you continue to contribute to this article and to others — consider this a friendly suggestion and a helping hand. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello 203.167.26.214. Yes, I was the user who removed the points earlier. As to the reason why... I think Josiah summed it up pretty effectively and I don't think I can add much else. (Thanks Josiah, much appreciated). It would be considered original research to make that statement earlier. Also, the Shattered Union reference adds little and will generally draw people off track. Did this address your concerns? If not, feel totally free to explain it in your own words. (I've included the comments below) Cheers.--P-Chan 06:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Also, take note, in one of the news brodcast from BTN, it mentions that the United States no longer exist and that there is civil war. This indicates that at somepoint in the near future that "America's War" on terrorism will lead to it's demise. This consept also appears in the turn based strategy game; Shattered Union. In the game, a incompentant president's administration leads to domestic chaos, which, later in the game's events, leads to then nulcear destruction of Washington D.C. by Russian hired terrorist.These leads to a Second American Civil War. Something similar to this might have happened before Norsefire took power in Britain. Another possibility is that a regime like Norsfire came to power in the US, but lacked control allowing states to declare secession. The full history of the pre-Nosrsefire world is never explored. Like the graphic novel, Britain's future is left uncertain, and a possible sequel is still unherd of.

---

The Nation

Is there a workable idea here that can be refined and added to the Political comments section? (I found and removed it from the article from an unsigned user) In it's current form it's not useable, because of its current size and word economy.--P-Chan 07:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Original article: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060410/klawans/2

Likewise, liberal periodical The Nation's film critic Stuart Klawans issued a similarly stinging rebuke of the film, writing:

"By dint of his heroics, V gets England's narcotized citizenry to abandon their television sets, gather in the streets and become--an audience, passively watching a sound-and-light show. The cops, being just ideas of themselves, do nothing. The bombing of the Houses of Parliament--what an excellent target, for someone striking back at a dictator!--is also just an idea, and therefore can be very pretty, for a wanton act of destruction. And should all these big ideas give you a headache, Evey will explain that this blow for freedom has been struck by (I quote) "the Count of Monte Cristo.

Revenge is liberty. I can't recall hearing that particular idea from Tolstoy, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Vaclav Havel, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama or the makers of Batman Begins. But, as the Wachowski brothers would say, that's another paradigm."

Misc Notes

• I made the mistake earlier of thinking that part of the reason that Moore left was due to the content of the script. Upon reviewing the interviews again, I found out that this was not the case. While he did bash the themes and plot, why he left was totally tied to the poor treatment the man has generally received from the industry. (The man seems to have a lot of integrity).
• Michael Moore doesn't really say anything about the film, and just links an article (written by someone else) to his website. I'm considering removing his name.
• I rewrote the differences Graphic Novel section to get away from details and towards the more substantive differences between the two verions... like the themes, intent, etc. (How V received his powers, and what job Gordon has... I feel are more descriptive than substantive). I think this might also be a good place to talk more about Moore's comments.
• The part concerning the reception needs to change focus. The reviews of the film were pretty good overall. If Rotten Tomatoes says the ratio of good and bad reviews is 3:1, then there should be 3 good reviews and 1 bad one. Also, I think the IMDB stuff is a little fluffy and should be trimmed down significantly.
• I think most conservative Christians don't like this film at all. And if there is one generalization I think we can safely make that generalization.
• The Anarchists comments all come from the same New York group.

The purpose of all of these recent changes of course, is to prepare this article for another most stringent peer review or maybe a GA. --P-Chan 04:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)