WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

I honestly never read V for vendetta and I honestly loved the movie but why was it hated by alan moore fans it has all the characteristics of a good movie, good acting, good story, good direction, yet it was so widely disliked by alan moore fan boys.

So can you tell me why?

Or make fun of my stupidity.......

either one works for me

Personally I liked the film. I can't rave about it, but it was OK. Did it match Alan Moore's story perfectly? No.

I think most Moore fans would state this as the reason they didn't like it, or even hated it. I'm sure some of them will chime in and give you some specifics, but my answer will likely be what their explanations boil down to.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin

Because it deviated so sharply from the graphic novel. Especially the ending. And that the film omitted the fact that V was an anarchist.

(BTW I didn't hate the film)

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

Personally, I was in the same boat for a long time. Liked the movie, hadn't read the graphic novels, didn't much understand why Alan Moore fans hated the movie.

But then, elsewhere on the board, I mentioned the lesbian storyline of the movie. I talked about how it was beautiful, but heavy-handed and transparent. During those scenes, I could hear the Wachowskis yelling to the audience: "HERE ARE LESBIANS! AND THEY'RE IN LOVE! IT'S BEAUTIFUL! IT'S OKAY! FEEL SORRY FOR THEM!" But then someone -- Vynson, probably -- said that those scenes were actually very close to the graphic novel.

And then it hit me. The movie deviated so much that while the subplot felt right in the graphic novels, it stuck out like a sore thumb in the adaptation.

So now I understand. Or at least, I think I do.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

The movie made the message of the story a Pro-Democracy one rather than an anti-Government one. It also managed to take all the subtle and layered subtext from the graphic novel and ham-fistedly turned it into blindingly obvious statements that kept constantly hitting the audience over the head. The whole "HIS NAME IS SUTLER BECAUSE IT SORT OF SOUNDS LIKE HITLER" and "THESE PEOPLE WERE GAY AND THIS GUY HAS A KORAN AND THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T LIKE GAYS OR MUSLIMS" and "THIS IS A WAR ON TERROR WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE" moments in the movie made me cringe.

_________________
The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking. The solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I would have become a watchmaker. - Albert Einstein

^hmmm... Ya now that I think of it that scene did feel out of place. (not that it wasn't good just didn't fit)

And as V being a hardcore anarchist VS being a nice romantic, alot of people picture an anarchist as a punk teenager with red mohawk, and a nice romantic would draw more of a crowd.

I don't hate the film, either. I think the overall mood of the movie is quite good, the voice work by Hugo Weaving, excellent and Portman's Evey was lovely.

The "end" of the film (Palace of Westminster's destruction) is the beginning of the graphic story. V then goes on to hack at the very roots of the regime in power: Courts of "Law", communication center, leaders in power.

V's obvious madness was watered down, at the same time managing to water down most of the evil undertones of the individuals with whom he has his vendetta. V is nuts. But driven to nutdom by some pretty nasty people. V is also upset with the complacency of the public. It's this he attacks. This is the key to ending the evil empire from the inside.

It's presented in the film, but as there is more in the book, it kind of sticks out in its simplicity.

I am not disturbed by way the love-story of V's cell-neighbour was portrayed, though. Very nicely done.

Nice fight-scene at the end! <-- eyecandywhore

_________________

CC22: if you'd have read it since 1982 when it was first published in serialized form, then all through its ten month DC run through 1988/89 which finally saw the story completed after a three year hiatus, then picked up the collected graphic novel published thereafter and read that umpteen times as well before the film was released in 2006... you'd have the answer to your question.

Garbage.

To be honest, I am a big fan of the film... really enjoyed it. Yes, I know it was changed quite a bit from the comic... but I can live with that.

Big Props to Hugo for never showing his face, there are too many actors who wouldnt risk that these days. He was awsome just as a voice!!!!
Shame they couldnt get someone like that to do Judge Dredd back in the day!!!!

Anyway, Loved the film... LOVED the Comic!

_________________
Uridium.

... probably a bigger issue we could talk about.

I'm dating myself here, but I remember being grossly disappointed when Blade Runner originally came out. It didn't look or feel like I thought Philip K Dick's Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep? should. I still saw it twice in the theatres because there was still something compelling about the film. Note that it's been rereleased in a new director's cut. It's become iconic and has influenced a whole shitload of scifi/action/horror films because it managed to set a tone. It also captured Dick's essential question, which was "how do you define a human being?"

But I digress...

Graphic novels are a little dicier than print to convert to film. Comics have a visual component built in, so there's a bit of an expectation of what the movie is supposed to look like on the part of fans.

Now, you can do a Sin City or 300 and do it just like the novel. It works mostly because Miller is visually a brilliant ( if somewhat unsubtle) storyteller. With less linear authors (Moore in particular) it takes a more disciplined approach because of subtleties and layering and multiple themes. I think in the Beard's case, most of the movie adaptations have fallen flat because of Hollywood's shoot it/can it/ rush it to the theatre attitude.

Just my two cents...

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

Alan Moore's writing smacks of TRUTH, whether he's writing about anarchy, superheroes, love, sex, history, or murder. It is both sincere and heartfelt. Even if you do not agree with the expressed sentiment, there is no question that Moore believes, and sincerely wants you to see his side.

This sincerity has not been accurately represented in any adaptation of his work, mostly because to present someone else's sincerity as your own is inherently insincere.

This is why V for Vendetta has some cool scenes, but is, in fact, absolutely wretched.

Only if you don't really believe the message you're spreading.

If a filmmaker decides to adapt an Alan Moore work from the perspective of "I'm going to make this movie so that I can do cool visual tricks and make a quick buck," then yes. It's insincere.

But if that same filmmaker tries to adapt the same material from the perspective of "I'm going to adapt this material because it has a message that I completely agree with and it deserves to see film," then that's sincerity.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a movie's message can only be as sincere and as truthful as the filmmaker and not the material it's based on.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Then thank the gods that Mr Snyder just happens to be one of those rare sincere film makers of which you speak!

Film obviously being the most superior communicative and/or entertainment medium known to man, how lucky we are then that a director of Zack's proven calibre has now come along to finally bestow the gracious gift of cinematic adaptation upon Watchmen, thus salvaging Moore's amateurish efforts from the wilderness of twenty-one years' worth of mere second-rate comic book shitness. It's about goddamn time they did summat worthwhile with Watchmen... HURRAH!



Sheesh.

Over-reacting, much?

I never said that Snyder was one of the latter. I was simply implying that the Wachowskis were among the former.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

So just where then on your sagacious sliding scale of sincerity does Snyder sit, sir?

Nicely done, CLINT.

I'm tempted to think that Snyder's doing this because he genuinely believes in the material. Still, I'm going to withhold my judgment for now.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Way too preachy for my taste. That's why I walked out of the film in the theater. I mean, damn, that dialogue was like telling a deaf person he can't hear. (no disrespect to any deaf person currently viewing the forum and or posting)

I liked the movie having read the GN a week before going in...I found the GN quite confusing after Evey ran away from V....
I never really got or cared about Gordon's scenes...
I think, despite its flaws, it was pretty good and it should be stressed that it would be impossible to fit every subplot in...what resulted was the translation of the whachowski's (two very clever men) reading of the GN...
they emphasised all the themes that stood out the most for them and unfortunately had to remove some of the rest...
I'd say its the best Moore adap yet - if not V then what? LXG?!

It is a pity, though, that the politics was taken out for the American audience (yeah I know that means most of you, please don't be offended)
From my understanding the Democrats and Republicans are much closer together in terms of policy than Labour and the Conservatives here.
It's hard to jump ship! Moore is very anti-Conservative (particularly anti-Thatcher - oo you guys might get your first female President soon, mightn't you?) and I think that's completely key to the GN...
And despite being an anarchist Moore emphasises that the Nazis, *hrum*Conservatives, in the film are ordinary people, just like the NSWP were under Hitler. In the film it's greedy men in suits mostly. Damn.

_________________

i think as with a lot of bigoted comments, one person says it, people see their point and say they feel the same. i liked v for vendetta, but it wasn't great, but the pics i've seen of the watchmen look like its going to follow the book RELIGIOUSLY! thank god! and therefore will be great like 300 and sin city (touch wood)

as a note to another comment by broken finger i think. the reason 300 and sin city translated to film much better than moore's work is because since his daredevil days, miller's work has been highly cinematic. borrowing highly from film noir imperticular. whereas moore is a very traditional comic book style, and as he said himself, they were never meant to be made into movies

_________________