Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Changes, V

I fee this article exaggerates the differences between the film and novel versions of V. V still kills plenty of people in the film. I don't recall anyone getting in his way and not being killed.

His statement "Violence can be used for good" implies he has no regrets about the people he's killed. Evey refers to him as a monster.

The mention of him making Evey breakfast makes no sense at all, in the comic he read's her a bed time story!

In both cases V as a character seems to be a brilliant, and charming, man yet also a ruthless and vengeful killer.

I don't feel the differences are even worth mentioning

Pat1717 01:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear war

Does the film explicitly state that there was a nuclear war? I heard America's war and a reference to war finally arriving in Britain, but not an actual mention of nuclear war.

Re:

No but "Shame what they did to Ireland" suggests something big.

LGBT Article?

I don't see how this falls into the LGBT catagory. Perhaps in that norsefire thought this impure similar to Nazi leadership in Germany.. but still, I don't think it should be in the catagory. Neverender 899 21:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the tune??

What's the piece of classical music played at the beginning, as the Old Bailey blows up (it's played over the loudspeaker)?? Thanks in advance - Aurelius. The tune is Tchaikovskz's 1812 Overture. You're welcome- mastermind

I'm looking for some lines from this film

When he is breaking Lilliman's arm what does V say? --72.16.114.224 06:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

thus I clothe my naked villany With odd old ends stol'n forth of holy writ; And seem a saint when most I play the devil.--

Gloster

Richard III

Act 1 Scene 3 MercuryGlass 04:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

My first time on Wikipedia. Please be gentle.

Orphaned points

Pulled from parts of the article. These could be used in the future, if the situation is right.

Flag of Britain under Norsefire

• The film makers and cast attended several press conferences: Comic-Con in San Diego, Babelsberg Studios in Berlin, Park Hyatt in Tokyo, the Berlin Film Festival, and at the London premier.

• (Interestingly, the official website can also be accessed through the URL 'whowatchesthewatchmen.com', as it was once the official site of the Watchmen film adaptation.)

• Laura Wittmann. In 2006 when appearing before the Armed Services Committee, Asst. Dep. Sec. Laura Wittmann (a University of Florida graduate) made reference to the movie, demonstrating the wide powers of the movie to cause consternation in the government.

• In order to film the domino scene (where V tips over black and red dominoes to form a giant letter V), 22,000 dominoes were needed as well as four professional domino assemblers. The whole arrangement itself took 200 hours to set up. [14]

• Also, St Stephen's Tower shows the start of the group of Vs at 11:05 pm, creating a giant V on the clock face.

• The government in the movie preaches “Strength in Unity, Unity in Faith.” This is similar to the original Gunpowder Plot in its religious undertones. The Gunpowder Plot was an attempt to assassinate King James I of England on the opening day of the Houses of Parliament over the separation of England from the Catholic Church.

Novelization

Main article: V for Vendetta (novelization)

. This should not be confused with the original graphic novel.

A novelization of the screenplay was written by comic writer Steve Moore, the same writer credited to first introducing Alan Moore to comics. (The two artists are not related). The novel follows very closely to the film's screenplay, but elaborates on a few scenes by reviving details from the original story. For example, it provides details surrounding V's escape from Larkhill by describing V "storing" bags of fertilizer at various points in the building.

An award! Congratulations!

On behalf of myself and the Kindness Campaign, I'd like to present this page with a gold medal for a job well done. Great job all contributors! Keep it up! ♥ JamieJones talk

Eheh. That's sweet! And I agree. It's a great article c=

The letter V and the number 5

Are there references for this section? It's neat, but possibly original research, especially about stuff like the Morse Code. --Wafulz 05:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

External links have now been added and there are many internal links to help remove the apearence of OR. The morse code part is actually easy to verify just by following a few internal links provided. -- UKPhoenix79 11:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that any of this is deliberate. --SPUI (T - C) 17:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys are being irrational. What is referenced needs to be referenced, what doesn't is not. Please answer my question, why did the FA review board not remove this if it was a violation of WP policy? Cbrown1023 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus in literary criticism and analysis, including film studies, is that authorial intent is far from the only thing that matters. That said, the section does seem to me overlong and prone to trivia. Certainly V is occasionally prone to V-filled dialogue. Certainly the connection between V and Five is present through the number of his cell. Certainly it's not necessary to prove these connections were deliberate. That said, an extended section of trivia should probably have some sort of anchoring reference for its significance. Phil Sandifer 03:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it should, of course, not be a sub-section of trivia. When sub-sections of trivia become nice and large and "prose-ified" they are moved into the main article. Cbrown1023 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong keeps on re-adding this section. He is an experienced editor and it is strange that he is readding this without discussing here. If he reads this I suggest you stop reverting and address your concerns. Gdo01 03:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If the consensus ends up being that this section stays in the article, I plan on having its Featured status reviewed. No featured article should have original research in it, period. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A lot of this just appears to be an expansion of the section at the comic's article, V for Vendetta#The number 5, so a lot of it is referenced, yet directly to the comic to where (as SPUI has been stating they are not) it is a deliberate instance.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Referenced to an IMDB trivia page? They add basically whatever random people submit, I think. --W.marsh 04:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The simplest way to fix the section is to revert it to the original version when it passed as a FA and not to allow people to make this into a trivia section. I have reverted it to its previous state and also introduced a couple of external links. There are many internal links so I doubt that this section should be a problem now. -- UKPhoenix79 06:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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 honour to meet you and you may call me V.

— V's introduction to Evey

File:VdaggersVforVendett.JPG

In his battle with Creedy, V primes his daggers into the letter "V" before throwing them. (image removed to prevent copyvio)

There is repeated reference to the letter “V”, as both letter and number, throughout the film. For example, V’s introductory monologue to Evey (above) begins and ends with “V”, has five sentences, and contains 49 words that begin with “V”. Similar references are made through V's background, choice of words and action. V is held in Larkhill cell number “V”. It is revealed that his favorite phrase is “By the power of truth, I, a living man, have conquered the universe”, which translates into the 5 "V"ed Latin phrase: “Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.” In a dance with Evey, the song V chooses is number five on his jukebox. When V confronts Creedy in his home, he plays Beethoven's "Fifth" Symphony, whose opening notes have a rhythmic pattern that resembles the letter “V” in Morse code (···–). The Symphony’s opening was used as a call-sign in the European broadcasts of the BBC during World War II in reference to Winston Churchill’s “V for Victory”. The film’s title itself, is also a reference to “V for Victory”. In the battle with Creedy and his men at Victoria station, V forms a “V” with his daggers just before he throws them (shown in picture above). After the battle, when V is mortally wounded, he leaves a “V” signature in his own blood. The destruction of Parliament results in a display of fireworks which form the letter “V”, which is also an inverted red-on-black “A” symbol for anarchy. Like the Old Bailey and Larkhill, Parliament was destroyed on the fifth of November.

I have added this section as it is the text that passed the original FA nomination thus should not be altered to much as it might give the appearance of original research. -- UKPhoenix79 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections in an FA? Come on. The section clearly did not recieve ample scrutiny at FAC, and if people keep inserting this the FA status will be challenged and probably removed because of it eventually. --W.marsh 14:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree there should not be a trivia section, removing V's introduction to Evey is ludicrous, as that "V"-laden soliloquy it is a significant part of the story and is easily verifiable to anyone who wish to check the comics or the film. More importantly, I do not see why OR is an issue here, have some of us actually checked the OR page about what counts as original research?

• It introduces a theory or method of solution;
• It introduces original ideas;
• It defines new terms;
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Addition of the soliloquy clearly does not fail any of these conditions. Removing it, meanwhile, has severely deteriorated the quality of this FA. Tendancer 15:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections are not, by definition, outlawed. (see WP:Trivia) Cbrown1023 03:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CBrown. That said, I don't really think the V5 section is Trivia at all. To me, trivia is similar to the IMDB trivia section... it's a list of unorganized, notable facts. "Trivia". Eg. Natalie Portman shaved her head, and everyone was shocked during such and such event.... The Dominoes shot was outsourced to 5 kids and a dog from Texas.. etc". That would be trivia. The V5 section is a legitimate theme. --P-Chan 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not trivia, but it's not well sourced, either. It doesn't belong here as it's currently written. If it's a legitimate theme, get some reliable sources on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the section to it's original FA format. Interestly enough, the two existing references... reference sections that are already pretty obvious. For example... the upside-down-anarchy symbol.. does not even try to be subtle... and the fact that V was in Larkhill prison cell "V" is explicitly shown in the film. Dark Shikari does a pretty good job of the breakdown below, as to what is where in the film. If there are any specific concerns, please feel free to bring them up, and we'll move from there one statement at a time. Is this alright? --P-Chan 00:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary OR section break

I'm concerned with the whole thing, because if it's supposed to reflect our "best work," it shouldn't be original research at any point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research. I think there is a wiki clause somewhere that states that obvious inferences can be made, without breaking the OR restrictions. (If someone knows where the clause I'm referring to is, referencing it here would be very helpful.) These statements can all be supported through viewing the film.--P-Chan 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to be civil here, but like what P-Chan just said, have you read the whole discussion that has been going on (referring to Badlydrawn's comment)? Above, another user mentioned why it is not original researched and copied information directly from the WP:OR page. Cbrown1023 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are my two places of problem with this article's section from WP:OR:

• "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;"
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"

Furthermore, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." all of this is from WP:OR. I thought you might find your clause in our verifiability policy instead, but I instead found this: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article."

So yeah. I read the above argument, and it doesn't mesh with the policy, IMO. The section should be removed, and this never should have been promoted with it there.--badlydrawnjeff talk 00:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, CBrown, I don't dispute the section. i don't know about it one way or the other. It contains original research, and I'd appreciate you not changing the tag on me. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Would you have to reference the statement: "Batman is based on a bat." Not trying to be snooty here. Just trying to find a resolution.--P-Chan 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a little bit much, but in a featured article, not only would the history of the creation of Batman be sourced, but it would be expanded much past one sentence. I would expect a source or two for that section. For instance, I don't know Latin - how can I trust that the sentence actually translates that way? Why Latin? Does the Fifth Symphony really translate into morse code that way, I don't know. Furthermore, for Churchill's "V for Victory?" That probably is true, but how do I know where you found that from? It's absolutely original research, and many of those absolutely need sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone think of this? Instead of just saying, "There's original research! It should be removed right now!", you should be putting {{fact}} tags everywhere they are needed. Like I did above with P-Chan's statement? Cbrown1023 01:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No. It should be removed if it's going to reflect our "best work." We would never pass an FA with fact tags all over. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No... I mean put them there. You are just being naiive if you think that just because an article is an FA that it means it is complete and nothing of importance will happen and it will no longer grow. Plus, if you point out specific things that need to be fixed, then they will get fixed faster. It is also better than having that ugly {{OR}} template. Cbrown1023 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being naive, the section is simply OR. It really should be outright removed nd sourced before putting it back in than ahve fact tags, as the whole thing is OR. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We should try this, don't use the words OR or Original reasearch. You look up, you see a ton of it. We should explain our positions without that. Cbrown1023 01:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How about you instead explain how the section doesn't violate everything I posted? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Because we are arguing on how it is, not how it isn't. Our "control" (using the science definition, standard for comparison) is the Featured Version, which is shown above. That is the "best work" that you keep referring to. Also, the proof is mentioned above somewhere... I don't have the patience to dig it out right now. Cbrown1023 01:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I've already demonstrated how it is. If you can't demonstrate how it isn't, than this should probably either a) be removed so the article can keep its featured status, or b) be reviewed and possibly lose it.

Keep in mind that it is very difficult to prove some of this to someone who has not seen the film. (I guess you just have to take my word for it.... like you would the plot.) All of these comments reflect actual scenes in the film. Though.. let's not argue in circles. Badlydrawnjeff. I'm really open to what you have to say. Is there a specific point that you really think is OR?--P-Chan 01:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, the entire section is. I've posted the relevant text from WP:OR. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

P-Chan's the one you want to talk to. If you did your reasearch (not that you didn't) you would have noticed that he was heavily involved with turning it into an FA. Cbrown1023 01:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I see what you mean. In retrospect, the Morse code is not explained in the film, and is not common knowledge, thus it should be referenced. Does this satisfy your issues with the section?--P-Chan 01:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

With one part, sure. as I've said before, essentially the whole section is OR. I also just looked at the source - that's hardly reliable in any way shape or form. See WP:RS for that. Also, removing the OR tag is still bad form, but I'm holding to my promise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Line by Line

• For example, V’s introductory monologue to Evey (above) begins and ends with “V”, has five sentences, and contains 49 words that begin with “V”.

-Descriptive Statement, based on counting the monologue's letters and sentences.

• Okay, is this part of the imagery, or just a character quirk? How are we to know if it's one or the other?

• V is the main character and this is section is talking about V's relation to the letter V & 5 so even if it is a part of the imagery, or just a character quirk both are valid points to its inclusion since either would be a direct reflection of the main character.

• But how do we know that?

• Are you saying it is a coincidence that he has a monologue with so many V's in it?

• I'm saying we simply don't know. Thus the need for strong sourcing. To assume is a straightforward OR violation.

• Similar references are made through V's background, choice of words and action.

-General introduction summary statement, doesn't need sources, is justified by further statements that should be or are soured.

• I disagree. We're making an assumption and advancing a theory here.

• V's past starts in Larkhill (the quote below) as a fully formed adult with amnesia and from that point onwards some form of V is referenced throughout his (known) past & present.

• Right. As I said, it's an assumption advancing a theory.

• V is held in Larkhill cell number “V”.

-Explicitly shown in the film, during the Diary Scene.

• If the rest of the section were okay, I probably wouldn't challenge this.

• It is revealed that his favorite phrase is “By the power of truth, I, a living man, have conquered the universe”, which is a translation of the 5 "V"ed Latin phrase: “Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.”

-Explicitly shown in the film.

• I don't recall any Latin in the film. I also don't know Latin. How am I to know that's a proper translation?

• EVEY: (She turns back to the carving) I was reading the inscription. What is it?

V: A Latin quotation. A motto. "Vi veri veniversum vivus vici." "By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe."

EVEY: (She nods) Yes, I suppose you have. This place is the only universe I have right now.

Undated Early draft

So, again, how am I to know it's a proper translation?

• Vi veri universum vivus vici found in wikipedia
• [1] in wikiquote
• The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus. by Christopher Marlowe

Asside from all of this I have no real sources proving that Veni, vidi, vici means "I came, I saw, I Conquered" or found on the us dollar I cannot prove that E pluribus unum is Latin for "One from many", Annuit Cœptis meaning "God has favored our undertaking", or Novus Ordo Seclorum which is interpreted by many to mean "a new order for the world" but is actually "New Order of the Ages"

Okay. So how are we supposed to know this, again.

Sorry if I'm jumping in on an old topic, but since the script itself gives the translation, it does not matter if the translation is correct or not, as this is about the film and not the Latin phrase. Perhaps the OR concern can be alleviated by rephrasing it to say "according to the film"... --plange 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• In a dance with Evey, the song V chooses is number five on his jukebox.

-Explicitly shown in the film

• See the Larkhill thing.

• When V confronts Creedy in his home, he plays Beethoven's "Fifth" Symphony, whose opening notes have a rhythmic pattern that resembles the letter “V” in Morse code (···–).

-In retrospect, this needed a reference. Sorry.

• Okay. It needs a reliable one, though, not a random website.

• http://www.shadowgalaxy.net/Vendetta/vmusic_from.html According to google it is one of the top sites about v for vendetta. The only sites that top it is the official movie website, imdb, wikipedia and rotten tomatoes.

• Those, of course, aren't reliable sources in any case. Especially not for a featured article.

• Well it is clear that this is a fan site on V so you might be right, but it is the most popular one out there on this subject and it too leeds credence to this as does everything below.

• It can't "leed credence" because it's unreliable.

• In addition to that if you you can go to Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) and hear the 1st 4 notes or you can listen to this (listen^ⓘ). in the article it even has this section It is commonly asserted that the opening four-note rhythmic motif (short-short-short-long; see above) is repeated throughout the symphony, unifying it. Here are examples taken from the Web: "it is a rhythmic pattern (dit-dit-dit-dot*)... Then you follow the internal link provided and you will see that it has a rhythmic pattern resembling the letter “V” in Morse code (···–)
• If one goes to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony in popular culture#1940s you will find During World War II the BBC adopted the first four notes as the call sign of the European Service principally because they represent the letter V for Victory in Morse code. The irony that they were composed by a German was not lost on many of the audience or for the more musically educated that it was "Fate knocking on the door" of the Third Reich.
• or Beethoven's Fifth Symphony in popular culture#1980s In Chapter 8, Book 1 of the graphic novel V For Vendetta, the Symphony is identified as the piece played while title character V commits an assassination. The song is significant because, as is noted by one of the detectives, the initial "da da da dum!" is morse code for the letter "V".

• And none of this is referenced. Zero. If there are references over at those articles, by all means truck them over here, but it's not done properly here.

• The best reference is the human ear please (listen^ⓘ) to the 1st 4 notes. You will also see above in my previous notes that they are rythmically (dit-dit-dit-dot). If you check morse code you will see that ***- is the letter "v".

• That's essentially the definition of original research.

• For the record, in the book the character of Finch explicity points out that the music is Morse Code for V when they are listening to the surveillance tapes. While this is not mentioned in the film dialogue, there is little reason to doubt the reason for this choice of music. To draw a parallel between a film and the book upon which it is based is not original research, it is citing the original story source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.241.158.225 (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

• The Symphony’s opening was used as a call-sign in the European broadcasts of the BBC during World War II in reference to Winston Churchill’s “V for Victory”. The film’s title itself, is also a reference to “V for Victory”.

-This is something that is obvious to me, and I think many other people who have read this article. But if this is not obvious to yourself, then a reference can be provided.

• It's only obvious to me because I studied history in college. There's no reason for this to be obvious to the general reader.

• internally referenced to V sign#Winston Churchill and the victory sign or see above for more internal links

• See above.

• See above.

• In the battle with Creedy and his men at Victoria station, V forms a “V” with his daggers just before he throws them (shown in picture above).

-Explicitly shown in the film.

• Okay. Again, though, it's an assumption of his purpose.

• considereing how so many V's are used in the movie it is hard to believe that this would not be on purpose.

• And that's a direct, explicit violation of WP:V/WP:RS. We cannot make assumptions based on primary source material.

• A movie that has a character that goes out of his way to make V's in everything from words to items it is no coincedence when it is purposefully done. At some point some things like the plot are left for the reader to believe that this is true. One cannot source every idea or sentance in every article. Just look at other FA films like Gremlins (picked purley at random) where in the special effects part it talks about fake snow but does not sorce anything proving that there was indeed fake show or the entire "Charges of racism" section. Every film... heck every FA article out there could be nitpicked to death but that would never accomplish anything except for leaving a blank page.

• So, essentially, the argument is "It's obvious to me." And if there's a question about the fake snow, perhaps we should be asking for a cite there. Especially if there's a section for "charges of racism."

• The image is that of a "V" shape regardless of his purpose, deliberate or not. The image is there prominently, and recognizably as a "V."

• After the battle, when V is mortally wounded, he leaves a “V” signature in his own blood.

-Explicitly shown in the film.

• Sure, but I wouldn't even be sure of the relevance to this section, including the dgger thing. He went by V.

• The destruction of Parliament results in a display of fireworks which form the letter “V”, which is also an inverted red-on-black “A” symbol for anarchy.

-This is obvious. (Similar to Batman is based on a bat).

• Obvious? I don't recall this scene very well, so you'll ahve to forgive me. Regardless, if the rest of the section was good...

• A for Anarchy, E for Execution the v is seen in the trailer youtube v dominoes

• Like the Old Bailey and Larkhill, Parliament was destroyed on the fifth of November.

-Explicitly mentioned in the film.

• Which is fine. We should easily be able to source this, though - it's a reference to the Guy Fawkes thing, which could easily be sourced.

(Hope this helps. Tell me if you need something else).--P-Chan 01:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've made my inline notes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've also added some notes :-) -- UKPhoenix79 07:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• And I've responded. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• As have I have again -- UKPhoenix79 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Tag, you're it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think the matter of "virus" beginning with "V" and having five letters is moving into numerological nonsense. "Virus" is a real word that wasn't made up for this film, and the number of letters it contains is mere coincidence, unless one wishes to argue that the word was originally coined with a pun in mind, or that the filmmakers only included a virus as part of the plot because of this rather banal fact. Sometimes the letter "v" will just show up in normal usage. I also think that saying "Viadoxic begins with the letter 'V'" is rather unnecessary; anyone can just look at the word and tell that. It smacks of assuming that the reader is somewhat dimwitted.

I also fail to see the point of referencing the binary version of the letter "v." How is this relevant?

Great Timing!

Rather coincidental time to put it as featured article huh? wink wink..... SpookyPig 00:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's so unlike Raul to put this for FAOTD of today. --Prittglue 00:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Who actually thinks Wikipedia lacks a leftist agenda? Haizum 02:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What I think he means is that Raul has avoided matching articles to the most topical day about it (e.g. Lost (TV series) was a featured article on the day before the 3rd Season premiere), so this even surprised me. Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 04:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have avoied it so - and only insofar as - the featured article would not clash with "In The News" or "Selected Anniversaries". That was not very well likely in this case, which is why I granted the request. Raul654 08:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all a huge conspiracy to turn the world into communist homosexuals. 67.185.76.131 02:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yay! I'll have friends now!74.129.17.185 06:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a coincidence, but not my idea either. Still, not a bad idea, IMO. Raul654 02:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it was definitely a good choice. Quite fitting. Remember, remember, the 5th of november? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I second that my friend! ↔ ANAS - Talk 16:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I mean -- at least you all admit it. See you in hell anime libs. Haizum 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are you instigating? The date was chosen because it is featured prominently in the movie. No bias, just a fitting way to "feature" a featured article in a way its fans will understand. Gdo01 04:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Haizum is just afraid he'll turn gay because this movie and them damn lib'rals is on the main page. 67.185.76.131 04:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your implication is that 'turning gay' is a bad thing -- how intolerant. Haizum 06:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

...not to mention the southern inflection you are using as a stereotype. Haizum 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I'm implicating that conservatives seem to think you can "turn gay" and seem to be deathly afraid of it. Oh well, back to the article. 67.185.76.131 07:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Morons infect every facet of society. Haizum 08:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Fighter

Does anyone think of the US army upon hearing "freedom fighter"? I know that is not what it means, but people do become brainwashed by tv. Are we becoming propagandistic... Can we say, perhaps, a rebel? Brusegadi 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Freedom fighter" is usually the positive term for a militant. When one supports a militant(for example, the heroes of the American Revolution), they are called "freedom fighters." When one disagrees with the militant, they are called a terrorist. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fire fighters fight fire, crime fighters fight crime -- what do freedom fighters fight? Haizum 03:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to all involved for the Featured Article status. It was a fitting way to acknowledge Nov. 5, eh? --Christofurio 03:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandelism

The section "Themes" seems to have been vandalized, in its place being "I am the coolest". Should the page be locked?

201.43.6.118 03:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Charles Black

Just click reload. It has been fixed. We really need a notice or something that announces that clicking reload will usually get rid of any vandalism being seen from a previous revision. Gdo01 03:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really know much about how the stuff works or saves. I don't edit often. Thanks for the fix.

201.43.6.118 04:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Charles Black

Ending

Who is seen at the end? There's the little girl, Evey's 'rents, Valerie, the gay couple, Stephen Fry's character, the male gay couple and Sara, but who else? I think I saw Dominic and Dascombe, but I can't be sure. Therequiembellishere 04:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There's Dominic, the old guy from the bar, the glasses girl (in spirit), the girl's parents, the middle-class boy, Valerie and Ruth (in spirit), and Gordon (in spirit). Where do you think you saw Dascombe and adult Sara? Also, there are black people in the ending, but I thought that they killed all the black people (according to the novelization).- JustPhil 23:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who was killed by this regime appears "in spirit". So yes, black people do appear, specically the gay guy that was beaten in Valerie's flashback. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.255.91.32 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

I can't remember. I'll rewatch it, but I do belive DAscombe was there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Therequiembellishere (talk • contribs) 21:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism

This page has been vandalized, and not even cleverly. However, I cannot find where the vandal made his edits. How do you revert pages?

See WP:REVERT. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?

The article only calls V a freedom fighter, but in the film, even he though he does make England freer, he is given a more complex treatment than simply that of a freedom fighter. In this film the government refers to V as a terrorist, and in the Graphic Novel he is considered a terrorist. I know that this is a very politicized subject, and even if it is not appropriate to label him a terrorist there should be some mention of this on the site.

In the "making of.." extra on the DVD, Stephen Fry remarks "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". They are very interchangeable, but still a bit POV terms. Seeing as V is portrayed as somewhat of an antihero, I guess referring to him as either a freedom fighter or a terrorist is more or less justified - Jack (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Split off "Differences between the film and graphic novel"?

Nice article, and great timing with being on the main page. Having just read this from the start, never having looked at the article before but having seen the film, I easily get as far as the "Differences between the film and graphic novel", but then the article degenerated into a series of bullet points, which put me off the remainder of the article (I'll probably read it later today). Can I suggest that this section is split off from this page, so that it doesn't interrupt the prose and can be read by those with a specific interest in cross-comparison of the film and graphic novel? Alternatively, I think that it should be moved further down the page. Mike Peel 08:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I suppose other solutions are available, perhaps someone can write a more concise and compromise paragraph with major differences and explanations and refer to a separate article for the detailed information. ↔ ANAS - Talk 16:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll reinsert the original "Differences" section, which was present in the original FA Version. Tell me what you think.--P-Chan 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me...

... or Natalie Portman's head quite prolific? -- Chris 19:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of imagery

I notice that much discussion of the imagery/symbolism in the film has been removed. Visual symbols are highly important in V for Vendetta.

In particular, I note that this paragraph was excised, which mentions two visual puns - "* The memorial to the St. Mary's disaster shows children dancing in a circle. This is reminiscent of a famous memorial showing dancing girls in Stalingrad, which was one of the few structures left standing after the Nazi attack on the city [2] It is likely also a representation of children playing "Ring Around the Rosy", a game which, according to popular belief, involves a rhyme derived from the symptoms and effects of the black death, although this has been proven to not be the true source of the rhyme."

This part, at least has been retained: 'The "black bags" worn by the prisoners in Larkhill are likely a reference to the black bags worn by prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.'

This also has been removed:

"Early on in the film, public loud-speakers announce that London is under a yellow-coded curfew alert. This is similar to the US Government's color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System."

"Coalition of the Willing, To Power!" has also been retained, and a reference to Nietzsche has been inserted, which seems realistic, but should also be seen in light of the famous film Triumph of the Will, which is as likely. ("Triumph of the Will" is probably distorted Nietzsche, as a lot of Nazism claimed to be)

"In the graphic novel, the Chancellor is named Adam Susan, whereas in the movie he is called Adam Sutler, which is a combination of the names "Susan" and "Hitler"."

It is an oversimplification to claim that Sutler is a mere portmanteau. I am going to add something about the actual meaning of "Sutler", which is defined as "An army camp follower who peddled provisions to the soldiers." (see here[3]) --MacRusgail 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Some concerns from feature article review

I have closed the FAR since the article is currently on the main page. It will be better to resolve these content disputes here before opening a FAR. Joelito (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As there's been a rather heated war over the "Letter V and the Number 5" section, this needs a review since it appears consensus is to keep the section in. The problem? The section is entire original research, and does not cite any reliable sources to back up the claims. No featured article should have original research in it, period. If the section doesn't stay out, it shouldn't be featured. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see any OR in that paragraph. Can you point to a particular statement that is original research? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Heck, I'll go through some of them and see.

• There is repeated reference to the letter “V”, as both letter and number, throughout the film.

General introduction summary statement, doesn't need sources, is justified by further statements that should be or are soured.

• For example, V’s introductory monologue to Evey (above) begins and ends with “V”, has five sentences, and contains 49 words that begin with “V”.

Trivial statement, can be deduced from counting the monologue's letters and sentences.

• Similar references are made through V's background, choice of words and action.

General introduction summary statement, doesn't need sources, is justified by further statements that should be or are soured.

• V is held in Larkhill cell number “V”.

Sourced.

• It is revealed that his favorite phrase is “By the power of truth, I, a living man, have conquered the universe”, which is a translation of the 5 "V"ed Latin phrase: “Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.”

Needs a source, but is not original research. Should be written as "it is revealed in the film" or whatever to imply that it was indeed revealed in the movie.

• In a dance with Evey, the song V chooses is number five on his jukebox.

Trivial information that can be sourced from the movie itself.

• When V confronts Creedy in his home, he plays Beethoven's "Fifth" Symphony, whose opening notes have a rhythmic pattern that resembles the letter “V” in Morse code (···–).

The first part is a trivial fact, and the second part is well-known information that should be very easy to source.

• The Symphony’s opening was used as a call-sign in the European broadcasts of the BBC during World War II in reference to Winston Churchill’s “V for Victory”.

Should be very easy to cite.

• The film’s title itself, is also a reference to “V for Victory”.

Might be OR. This sentence is on shaky ground.

• In the battle with Creedy and his men at Victoria station, V forms a “V” with his daggers just before he throws them (shown in picture above).

Trivial fact, sourced using a picture.

• After the battle, when V is mortally wounded, he leaves a “V” signature in his own blood.

Trivial fact as above.

• The destruction of Parliament results in a display of fireworks which form the letter “V”, which is also an inverted red-on-black “A” symbol for anarchy.

Cited.

• Like the Old Bailey and Larkhill, Parliament was destroyed on the fifth of November.

Trivial, by definition.

• Finally, when Evey first tells V her name, he remarks that it is ironic, since her name (pronounced "eevee") is "vee" said backwards and forwards put together.

Trivial fact from the script itself.

I can see only one sentence here that should be removed. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Why mention all of this, though? It just seems like trivia. Has anyone but Wikipedia cared enough to write about the importance of all of these references? --W.marsh 18:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, Wikipedia is different, it is not a fan site, it is a free encylopedia (and to answer your question, I'm sure they have). Cbrown1023 22:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I second Shikari completely. Of course it's all trivia when taken individually. (how many times did he say "trivial", after all?) But taken together, it becomes a notable theme in the movie. A good list of some of the very subtle (and not-so-subtle) examples, then, just serves to illustrate how carefully the film was put together. (And I also have no doubt that someone somewhere has certainly compiled a similar if not much-more-extensive list.) At the same time, if it's a simple restating of obvious trivia which can be seen simply by paying attention, it can hardly be OR. --Arvedui 09:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So if it's that important, why can't you find any reliable sources on it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Differences between the film and graphic novel and The letter V and the number 5 (aka list vs. text)

I don't like the change. This is a list, whether you put it in prose or not. Using *s makes it much more readable. --217.235.243.238

I'lll keep this for open for about an hour, and then make a change accordingly. If the prose form really bugs you, feel free to revert it back. --P-Chan 21:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the prose a lot more- it looks better, and it's just as readable. --Wafulz 21:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not really prose, it's a list without *s. Itemizing it makes it clear to the reader that they are items. A text block suggests coherence that just isn't there. --217.235.243.238

I don't understand - you already made the change. What are you keeping open? --217.235.243.238

I'm keeping open the *decision* to adopt a prose form or a point form. I'd rather not have an edit war erupt on the article page, especially today. (We already had one today with the section on Vs/5s.) If we have a talk conversation about this now, it will save us some headache later.  :) --P-Chan 22:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I generally agree, though I still don't understand what change you want to make in an hour. You already did the change. --217.235.243.238

Ok fine. Let's just keep it then. Just to give my 2 cents... I think we should keep prose, as a list form would break "Wikipedia is a not a grocery list" rule. The paragraphs should surround major differences between the two formats, otherwise we could slippery slope into listing all the little details between the two, which would not be good. --P-Chan 22:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep what? You already changed it!

This is not about grocery lists, or a List of countries were the third letter is an F. It is a list, or a Vector (computer science), of information, even if in what you call prose. I don't have any beef with a text that explains the differences, but a list should look like a list.

Well... It's not really a list. It's a passage describing the major differences between the film and the graphic novel. --P-Chan 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the single items have no connection except for the section they are in. Remove any one and nobody would notice a difference. That is not true for a text. --217.235.243.238

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to there, but I will try my best to address your comments. In reality, there are a lot of sections, in a lot of articles that can be displayed in a list format. In this article the criticisms, the reviews, themes and even the music section can be portrayed in a list format. But they aren't, simply because of the generally accepted conventions of Wikipedia. I personally, think the prose format looks fine in an encyclopedia. Having it in such a format prevents "listing" of minor and unimportant details. It also allows one to organize the points into more coherant thoughts. I think if you were to have it in point form, it would degenerate the article one step closer to fan-site. (We won't want that). Did I address your concerns?--P-Chan 00:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you made your point at least. I agree that it is an advantage to avoid tiny details, but I don't think allowing to organize them into a text is an advantage unless you actually do. So my suggestion would be to find out if this particular list (and maybe other lists in this article) can be organized in that way, or whether they stay lists in whatever form. --217.235.236.80

Yes, I think the prose format is much more suitable, if made right that is. Here's my suggestion, why don't you (or somebody else) write a concise paragraph with only important and major differences and explaining them clearly (since many people haven't read the novel or even seen the movie) and starting a separate section or article for the differences in details, which even leaves room for expansion with more information and explanations in the future. What do you think? ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This sounds good. Let's do that.--P-Chan 00:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the current paragraph is more than perfect. I changed its place to the bottom of the article, a more suitable place for the section. If anyone has more information on the differences he can start the article for that as proposed above. Thanks. ↔ ANAS - Talk 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is this what you call a consensus? Let me show you one example paragraph:

While V is characterized as a romantic freedom fighter in the film, he is portrayed as an anarchist with questionable tendencies in the graphic novel. He neither cooks breakfast for Evey, nor is he concerned about the loss of innocent life and is instead portrayed as something bizarre. Evey Hammond undergoes a more drastic change in the novel than she does in the film. At the beginning of the film, she is already a confident woman with a hint of rebellion in her, whereas in the graphic novel she starts off as an insecure, desperate young prostitute. By the end of the graphic novel, not only does she carry out V’s plans as she does in the film, but she also clearly takes on V’s identity. While the film portrays the Chancellor as a power hungry totalitarian figure, the graphic novel paints him as a sympathetic and troubled character.

There are four distinct items here, which have nothing to do with each other (except the section), so why is "prose" (it's really not) better than a list? Scratch that, it is a list, you just put senctences next to each other without any coherence. The text is hard to read, because the reader tries to connect the sentences but can't.

To quote P-Chan: "Let's discuss this. We have the time." So don't make changes until this is discussed. (Also, your reversal removed additional content. Take better care next time.)

What this tells me is that we have to take better care in turning each of the paragraphs into real paragraphs. You're right. In some of those paragraphs, there needs to be an introductory sentence to tie in the rest of the paragraph.--P-Chan 15:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

About the V and the number 5, I think if you count the alphabet and get E as fifth number, isn't a rather coincidence, and if you cant it backwards, you'll get the letter V as the fifth letter, also isn't a coincedence. Plus there was a reference to Evey's name, pronounced EV, 2 times the 5th letter. And the numerals that V is 5 in Roman numerals, why was that removed? NeiNie 07:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Norsefire = NF = National Front

While numerous comparisons between Norsefire and the British National Party have been made, surely the origin is the National Front, who not only have the initials "NF" like Norsefire, but have a flame, i.e. "fire" as their logo. They were big in the seventies and eighties, when the book was written. --MacRusgail 16:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) p.s. And their newspaper is called The Flame.

Portman only Non-British Cast member?

"Portman received top billing for the film and is the only non British cast member." Isn't Hugo Weaving an Australian? And therefore a Non-British cast member? I believe that because of this, it the note should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anas Salloum (talk • contribs)

According to Weaving's article: Hugo Weaving was born in Nigeria to English parents Wallace and Anne. --Wafulz 20:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Stephen Rea is irish, yes Northern Irish but till not British. ie not from the isle of Britain, but from the isle of Ireland -- UKPhoenix79

British seems to include people from Northern Ireland. This is to flimsy though, the phrase is not important and should just go. --217.235.250.66

Ireland is one of the British Isles. Residents of Northern Ireland hold British passports. Mallanox 00:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The passport also says "United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland". NB: The use of "British" to describe people from the republic is political, and highly offensive to many of them. --MacRusgail 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta as an anti-modernist film

Someone asked me why V for Vendetta is a anti-modernist film, since I put that term as a category. Here is my opinion.

I believe that even though the plot of this movie is set in a futuristic society, its argument is a clear protest on how society is developing. It is not only just a warning; it is also a critique on the ways things are being conducted in the present time. I mean, it is clear the connections concerning America and its suppose propaganda machine. Even if you don't accept that connection as clear, you have to understand, as it is part of the own plot, that there is a reference to the media as being use to fool people. Please discuss.Maziotis 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

More po-mo than anti-mo, with their frequent cultural backreferences, and "deconstruction". --MacRusgail 15:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a different reading. I believe it is clearly anti-modernist, as it doesn't drift away that much from the original story, told by Alan and David. But i can see how this category might be a little bit POV, unlike the other movies in it. I hope more people give their opinion.Maziotis 18:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Opposing retrograde change is not anti-modernist. If anything, the film is pro-progress, or at least anti-authoritarian.SteveSims 03:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Traditional anarchism, the type that Bakunin espoused which inspired V the comic character in turn inspiring V the movie character, is absolutely modernist, believing that change is possible and alteration of institutions can cure society's ills. (I'm leaving out Zerzan-style anarchism here just for the sake of simplicity). It's pro-action, indeed violent action, which doesn't seem pomo or anti-mo. Bakunin-style anarchism also comes from the socialist tradition, and whatever the long history of internal dispute between anarchists and Marxists/socialists, a lot of core agreement is still there. The ending, which is filled with a whole society uniting for progress, is also very modernist. 209.77.79.7 04:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Article at Featured Article Review

Due to the inaction regarding the original research within the "Letter V and #5" section, I have listed this article at featured article review. Link at the top. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OR issues now resolved. -- UKPhoenix79 07:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have a shot to get over there and say thanks for dealing with most of the issues. I'm much more at ease with it now than I was when this was main-paged. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the FAR template here, which should not just be removed, rather changed to the appropriate review template. The FAR should reflect whether consensus was reached that issues are addressed. Will reviewers/participants pls indicate on the FAR whether all concerns have been addressed, so the FAR can be correctly closed or continued per consensus, as the case may be. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 14:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Medved

I do believe this line "Moreover, one of the most negative reviews came from Michael Medved, who called the film "V for vile, vicious, vacuous, venal, verminous and vomitaceous." Medved also said that the audience will lose interest about halfway through the film and that it has a confusing ending." should be moved from "Critical reaction and box office" to "Comments from political sources"... one only needs to read the source with it to see that what he said is very, very politically based. - Jarn 06:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Medved is a fat moron with a molestor mustache. The only reason he is in film is to try to "warn" people of free thinking. Why should we give a shit what he thinks? Delete him from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.255.91.32 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

That's ridiculous. You want to delete a critic from the article because he criticizes a movie you like? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.55.43.234 (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Graphic Novel: Evey Prostitute Reference

I reintroduced the reference to Evey being forced into prostitution as one difference between the film and the graphic novel. This was edited out previously, but it seems a crucial difference. No need to editorialize why, but if people don't want that reference I'd be interested in hearing why. SlipperyN 01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's an important difference between how the two Eveys are portrayed. Good call.--P-Chan 03:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible copyright problems

The sentence "In the original story, Fate was a Big-Brother-like computer which served as Norsefire's eyes and ears and also helped explain how V could see and hear the things he did."

appears to be copied from http://www.philipcoppens.com/vforvendetta.html

84.245.182.214 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nooooo way man. I was the one who wrote that exact line. I noticed that as well. I'm absolutely certain he copied it from the Wikipedia site. Absolutely.--P-Chan 03:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed some key references from the article

I just noticed that someone really went out of their way to remove any reference to an article written by Justin Raimondo. This is an important reference, as it was used several times in the article.

"Go See V for Vendetta. Antiwar.com. Retrieved on 8 April 2006"

I'm not exactly sure why these references was removed and I will reinsert them.--P-Chan 19:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the Cast Section

There seems to be a lot of spoilers popping up in the cast section. (In particular, check Valerie and Sutler's entries.) What's everyone's opinion on this? Should they be removed, should they stay, should they be modified to be less spoilerish?--P-Chan 19:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Aliteration

I think we should include the long alteration used in the film i think the longest in recent record.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. It has already been added to the article. (See the themes section).--P-Chan 08:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note on FAR

So this passed, finally. Could editors please check the bottom of the FAR—two outstanding issues were still listed, one serious (no ref for Monte Cristo). And just to state the obvious: no one rush to add any more OR in here :). Marskell 16:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe. One day goes by and then suddenly there is peace. If I ever need to recommend an arbitrator, I certainly know who to ask. Thanks Marskell.--P-Chan 06:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually.... I don't think it's quite over yet. As you said... there are a 2 issues left...--P-Chan 06:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad my attempt at neutrality was appreciated. You did a lot of running around trying to meet concerns and deserve much credit. I know subjects like this are difficult—allusions to other aspects of culture just seem so obvious, that we don't really need to source, right? Well, we do. Possibly the writers knew nothing about Monte Cristo or Winston Churchill and were just working with general memes in minds (I didn't think the movie was particularly clever, to be honest). Language like "explicit connections" is particularly suspect here. Marskell 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for the compliment Maskell, it's much appreciated. In regards to your third sentence though... I think have to clarify my position, as I believe your statement misinterprets my statement.

Yes you're right, to draw allusions to other cultural aspects simply because they are "obvious" is folly. However, that's not what I'm talking about here. The film makes explicit literal connections to The Count of Monte Cristo that are descriptive in nature and require little interpretation (this is unlike the Phantom of the Opera parallels, which have no explicit mention, and thus require the interpretation of secondary sources). In the case of Monte Cristo, (1)lines from the film are directly quoted on multiple occasions, (2)the V character dresses up as Edmond Dantes and acts out scenes from the film, (3)V and Evey watch the film together (and talk about the film and the need for revenge afterwards). (4)Evey even calls V Edmond Dantes at the end of the film. That's pretty explicit and is pretty much an extension of the plot.

That said, I did change the statement to incorporate several external sources, simply because the nature of Wiki-review means that people who have never heard of or seen the film before will be reviewing it, and it's less problems for everyone if there is redundant sourcing. (I'm quite glad you shared your comments on the film! Seriously! I think not being a fan of the film, gives a FARC reviewer an extra garnish of credibility.)--P-Chan 20:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Moore's comments

The racial thing is mentioned - but surely, more importantly, it is shown - there are no non-caucasian characters to be see.

As to anarchy - will "Anarchy in the UK" do ? -- Beardo 07:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a black gay man at one point, isn't there? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not with eyes. There were no eyes.

In the movie, Dr. Delia Surridge said that in her journal. Does that mean V is blind?--Mato Rei 14:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

you didnt really understand the movie, did you?

• did you? --Mato Rei 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

V = Valerie?

Has anyone ever thought about V being a very burned (thus deep voice) Valerie? It all seems to fit. Was this ever publicly discussed somewhere? Maybe it is worth mentioning. --84.178.86.98 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, seeing as V is frequently described as "The man from room five" throughout not only the graphic novel and the film, but also the fact that we actually see V when he escapes from Larkhill and is a muscular male figure. Also, coupled with the fact that being badly burned does NOT in fact make your voice extremely deep, and the fact that this is purely speculation and entirely OR, it should not be mentioned.194.125.57.218 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

error?

Shouldn't the following:

"war in Iraq and other parts of the Middle-East with strong political tensions ("Iraq, Kurdistan, Syria: before and after, Sudan")"

Read as the following:

"war in Iraq and other parts of the Middle-East AND AFRICA with strong political tensions ("Iraq, Kurdistan, Syria: before and after, Sudan")"

As the Sudan is, of course, in Africa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.120.154.218 (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Recent change to "The letter V and the number 5" section

I'm a casual observor of this article and read it a couple of times (I've never worked on it). I recently noticed the change someone made to the "The letter V and the number 5" section added a listy numeric breakdown of the V speech. I think this looks unencyclopedic and is generally a bad idea. It should be reverted as soon as possible in my opinion. Quadzilla99 10:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Intentional break in continuity

When the imitation Vs are taking off their masks at the end, several shots of the faces of different members of the crowd are shown. There are people who have definitely died, like Valerie and her girlfriend (both arrested, presumably long dead), Deitrich (executed), and the little girl in pink with thick glasses (who was shot).

Don't know if this is important, but I didn't find any mention of it in the article. It's probably symbolic of how V is everyone, and how ideas don't die, etc.

-Vowels —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.4.204 (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Phantom of the Opera theme section

In V for Vendetta, V owns a mirror containing a quote from the play Faust which is the Opera that is being continuosly performed at the Opera House that the Phantom haunts in the Phantom of the Opera...should this be added? The Culprit 19:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Response from anarchists

Not all anarchist response has been negative to the movie: I think a bit more of the back-and-forth from the community could be included. I myself am an anarchist and loved it. 209.77.79.7 04:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

"Jonathan Ross from the BBC was one of the few to blast the film"

There were far more than a "few"--the article used to touch upon what many claimed to be the film's supposed errors (both plotwise and otherwise), but now doesn't at all. Why?

'V' is the twenty-fifth letter of the English alphabet

How the hell did that line make it into a featured article? Or what alphabet are we actually talking about here? --- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I removed that sentence. --Pentasyllabic 18:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hate to add a comment which doesn't add to the talk page, but HAHAHA

Time/Administration reference

This might seem petty but isn't this incorrect?

"the then-current George W. Bush administration in America"

I do believe our president is currently George W. Bush. I'd rather not edit the page since i'm not up on all the how too's and whatnot so i'm going to leave it up to you to take a look and fix it.Kaiser13 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's correct in this context - he was the current president then. It's a chronologically independent way of stating that GWB's presidency influence the movie's development. MattLohkamp 14:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.lohkamp (talk • contribs)

V references stretching it a bit?

Most of the V references mentioned in the V section are valid, but isn't, "November (the only month with a V in its name)" pushing it just a bit too far? Guy Fawkes was not obsessed with the number 5, or the letter V. Also, the article rambles a bit when adding up the number of letter "V"s in V's speech. gazok (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Baby Jessica Footage

There is a shot of news footage that looks like it was news footage from when Jessica McClure fell into a well in Texas. Can anyone confirm?

I don't get it.

"This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia."

WTF? Phoenix7731 15:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Norsefire in both the graphic novel and the film terrorize LGBT men and women by sending them to concentration camps. AgentFade2Black 02:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make it related.

I disagree, anonymous commenter. It becomes a major subplot during the later half of the film, starting when Evey escapes to Gordon Deitrich's home. The character is a fan of literature and the arts, and he is also in the closet; the characterization reminded me very much of Dave Sim's portrayal of Oscar Wilde in Cerebus. Later, in prison, Evey reads a letter from a persecuted lesbian woman named Victoria, which gives her hope.

The movie illustrates the fear that many in the LGBT community have that a highly security-minded regime would be anti-homosexualist. The other major point by which this film becomes relevant to the LGBT Studies group is the discussion that Larry Wachowski is exploring his sexuality. Various people and magazines have reported seeing him dressed as a woman, or dating a dominatrix, or in the company of a mostly transgendered adult film star.

In short, this movie's frank discussion of LGBT oppression makes it relevant. --75.161.64.166 21:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken cites

It appears citations number 32, 36 and 59 have dissapeared. Alientraveller 12:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

V for Vendetta Template

I'm removing this template from all its articles:

Which, I agree, is fairly provocative. However, I don't see how "V for Vendetta" deserves this on its own, or what useful information it provides. Surely the links in the articles are sufficient? If people want to revert my changes, that's fine by me. But please reply to this post so we can get a discussion started. At the moment I see no reason why the template should exist. Maccy69 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted my previous edit and requested a template deletion instead, see below. Maccy69 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:V for Vendetta

Template:V for Vendetta has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Maccy69 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting sorely needed

Lots of junk has been added since last November 5th, and we will need a cleansing fire to clear it out :) Judgesurreal777 21:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Myspaces?

I'm wondering if it's worth adding the Myspaces for V or Chancellor Sutler to the External Links, or possibly to the Publicity section. They don't really have anything important to add to the article, but it would be a fun item to include regardless. Thoughts? Kyu! (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Another "V" reference?

Just after V is shown beginning his return to Evey and the train near the end of the movie, the scene shifts briefly to Big Ben showing five minutes to midnight (in the shape of a V, nonetheless), a possible reference to the Doomsday Clock. Worthy of mention? Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Get a third party source on it, and sure, it could get a mention. --Cast (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The 11:05 reference

I am sorry, but it simply is NOT TRUE. The clock shows 11:04. It is ridiculous, because even IMDB makes an untrue reference to 11:05. Here is a screenshot proving my point. Please remove the reference! Salkinium (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the reference due to the lack of counter arguments. Salkinium (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

us uk opening

The US version is different to the uk version. In the UK, they don't have the bit about Guy Fawkes, presubly cos everyone knows it already, whereas in hte US, no would have heard of him. In the UK it starts with a montage of violence and chaos around the world and pulls out from a tv report declaring 'Only Britain Stands'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.201.145 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What year is it set in?

The comic is set in the nineties but all i know is that the film is set sometime after 2015. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco13 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is 2015. Farslayer (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's much later than 2015. I haven't seen the film in about a year, and would have to see it again to give a fair estimate, but I seem to recall coming to the conclusion that it could not be set any earlier than 2030. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.204.38 (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It has to be after 2015 because the lesbian girl mentioned something happening years ago in 2015 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco13 (talk • contribs)

The lesbian woman said she starred in her first film (The Salt Flats) in 2015. When she was in the internment camp, she wrote in her letter to V that she "had roses" for three years, i.e. she had a lesbian relationship with a woman she met at the filming of The Salt Flats for three years (they grew Scarlet Carson roses on their balcony) before they were arrested and put in the camps.

Therefore, the lesbian woman (Valerie) and V were in the camp in 2018. This was years before the main events in the film because these scenes from the camp in 2018 are shown only as flashes from the past.

At the end, V says he has waited for this day for twenty years. This would mean that the film takes place in 2038 assuming that V was in the camp only for a few months in 2018.

On the other hand, a news broadcast on BTN (the propaganda tv channel) says V was linked to the St. Mary's epidemic which took place "14 years ago" which would mean that the film takes place in 2032, assuming that the virus was spread immediately after it had been developed at the camp. To explain this inconsistency, we might assume that the virus existed for years before it was used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.197.174.60 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot

However, the attack had actually been engineered by Norsefire as a plot to gain power. The virus - along with its cure - had been engineered through human experimentation on "social deviants" and political dissidents at Larkhill detention centre. Among them was the man who would become V. Although all the other test subjects died from the experiments, he gained heightened mental and physical abilities at the cost of significant physical and mental disfigurement. These abilities enabled V to destroy the centre and escape, vowing to take revenge on Norsefire's regime.

I'm not sure that the first sentence is actually true. The idea that that Norsefire were behind the attacks comes from William Rockwood. When Finch asks him if he has proof, he replies 'Why do you think I'm still alive?'. However, Finch subsequently discovers that Rookwood has been dead for twenty years and that the man he met was V in disguise who was just telling him what he wanted to hear in order to manipulate Finch into surveilling Creedy, so that V could then make Creedy paranoid and thus manipulate him into killing Sutler.

The proof is never forthcoming and I think this is left deliberately ambiguous. It reminds me very much of the conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks of September 11th 2001 (and may be a direct allusion) which range from 'the government were behind it all', to 'They Let it Happen', to the government just making political capital from the attacks. All these interpretations can be placed on the events surrounding the St Marys virus in my view.

Unless I missed something I think the paragraph should be rewritten to say that the viewer is led to believe Norsefire engineered the attack but subsequently an ambiguity is introduced.

MarrsAttax (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed something, the film makes it rather obvious that the virus was spread deliberately. 99.255.9.117 (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Moore's Criticism about the movie's lack of mentioning anarchy and racial purity

In the scene after everyone gets their masks, the store Robber makes a cry for anarchy.

At one point Creedy makes a point of questioning Fitch's ethnic heritage, asking if he was Irish.

So technically both issues were included in the movie, although I agree that both could have been expanded on in more depth.

The "cry for anarchy" made is a reference to "Anarchy in the U.K.", a song by 70s punk-rock band, The Sex Pistols. There song is about chaos and violence—not the anarchism Moore is referring to. The brief mention of prejudice against the Irish is a nod to ethnic bigotry, but the movie does excise any reference to racial purity and the elimination of unwanted races. Thus, both of Moore's points stand. If you have any notable third party sources that challenge Moore, we can use those. --Cast (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nobody in the film decried Muslims and Americans as inferior at all. 69.105.111.111 (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

lol'd at the fact that you just HAD to mention Americans. It applies of course, but still, lol'd. 99.255.9.117 (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler

Can there be a spoiler alert added to the PLOT section. Knotslanding (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the "spoiler alert" tags were depreciated from Wikipedia on the basis that, as an encyclopedia, spoilers are implicitly part of the information presented. There are no "spoiler free" zones on an encyclopedia, because information should not be withheld. Readers just shouldn't read the article if they don't want spoilers. --Cast (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Users should expect to see spoilers if they read a Plot summary and it is good to have a complete summary but those of us who don't want spoil it for readers who haven't seen the film yet we can be be more careful and tactful about how and when the spoiler details are included. In general it should be possible to you might do - if trigger happy editors don't get in your way - to carefully modify the Plot section so that it is laid out in chronological order so that readers can read part of the Plot summary without giving away the ending until the end of the plot summary. You can probably also remove some of the redundant plot details from elsewhere in the article so readers can get background information without having too much given away. Some editors may fight you on this so unfortunately you may need to be a bit sneaky about this kind of cleanup but a lot of it can be included as copyediting and cleanup of poorly written sections. Good luck. -- Horkana (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fry (Deitrich) in the final scene

In the final scene, in which every one is taking their masks off in front of Parliament, Stephen Fry is amongst those. Could this not disprove the presumption that he was executed after Creedy's men black-bagged him? Sam 1124^{Talk to me!} 09:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is done for many characters that died throughout the film, including Evey's parents, the little girl with the glasses, and Valerie and Ruth. My belief is that this was done to show that, while they may no longer be alive, the ideas they stood for are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.111.130 (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Freedom Fighter

Something I noticed reading the article: V is termed a "Freedom Fighter", a *highly* debatable terminology, as it is connotative of a good person. Similarly, terrorists do pretty much the same thing but are connotated as bad people.

I think you understood the film better than you thought you did! In the novel, V was a terrorist, but people agree with what he does. Both the movie and the film raise the question: "If a terrorist is doing it for the right reasons, is it really bad?" V is a terrorist, but the government he's fighting is equally, if not more, terroristic. The story raises the point that while when an individual uses fear to manipulate people, he's a terrorist, but when a government uses fear to manipulate people no one says boo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.65.149 (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering this, I wonder if there is a neutral term we could use to avoid passing judgement stating whether V is the hero or the villain (to be clear, villain protagonists are the vogue these days, and, amazing though it may seem, some people like fascism.)

Moreover, I feel quite justified in wondering about this, as the V (comics) article discusses this in its introduction, but still terms him a freedom fighter. Continuing in this vein, the article for freedom fighter points this out (though not about V himself). Lethe (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the point of the film, certainly the novel is that sometimes acts of violence are needed to fight regimes which use fear and violence to maintain control. The use of Freedom Fighter in describing combat against a fascist state is entirely accurate in the context of the movie. It is also notable throughout the film that V does not injure or terrorise any non-combatants, unlike terrorists, who pretty much by definition aim to terrify through the indiscriminate use of violence against civilian and combatant alike.

The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is just which side you're on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.95.30.229 (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

error with dates

the date of filming and release is incorrect i am changing it back from 2006 to 2005.86.168.10.71 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)(aliK)

   i have changed some of the dates. please check for inconsistencies and make shore that the problems with release are correct and that any other problems are amended.86.168.10.71 (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)(aliK)

"Black bag" jobs.

The term "black bag" referring to either the bags instruments were used in, or placed over target's heads, predates the film, Abu Ghraib, and the comic itself. By decades. Don't see why it has to be treated especially in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.184.42 (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Group Anonymous

As I understand it, the loosely affiliated online group Anonymous has adopted V's Guy Fawkes mask for their purposes...should we include that info in the article? I know a lot of their memes fall by the wayside, but they have been using it awhile, especially in their anti-scientology campaigns. 70.176.224.140 (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Aguy

It makes sense to make that backreference in the article for Anonymous but I don't think it makes sense to include it here. -- Horkana (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Exclusion of "Fate" from the film

Other differences include the computer system "Fate", which is completely missing from the film. (In the original story, Fate was a Big Brother-like computer which served as Norsefire's eyes and ears and also helped explain how V could see and hear the things he did)

At 1:54:53 in the film, a Norsefire officer speaks into a radio, "Eyes and ears have detected movement heading to Trafalgar Square." I believe that's an allusion to Fate.

1:33:29 -- "...why there are eyes and ears in every room of this house..."

Only 53 V's in the monologue

By my count of the monologue provided, there are only 53 V's. This is using a browser feature to highlight all instances of the letter so none can be missed in counting. Also, that's 53 instances of the letter, not 53 separate words beginning with the letter as the article suggests, of which there are only 49. I have seen references to this 55 elsewhere, and wonder if it actually comes from taking something else into consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.151.12 (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is so that the original theatre version had this speech of 55 words beginning with V:

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 it 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 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 vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honour to meet you and you may call me V.

But then when the DVD came out, it had a new voice-over with only 49 words beginning with V:

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 is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V. 84.250.128.82 (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be a comparison section in the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)