V for Vendetta

[PeniG]

We just got back. I have not read the comic and am not the primary audience, but my husband did read the comic (pulled it out and re-read it for the occasion) and was cheesed off that the release date was pushed back from November 5. As soon as the lights came up afterward, he started telling me differences from the book, but it's telling that some the of differences were things that, in themselves, he quite liked. The behavior of the public at the climax was very satisfying, and Stephen Frye's character, was, well, Stephen Frye in the closet and too naive for his circumstances, and we both liked him.

The criticism that a British comic was turned into an American movie is well-taken. From this side of the pond the politics don't look anything like as muddled as they apparently do over there, especially once you let go of any grounding in real political systems or philosophies. This is all happening in myth-space, and if you don't have that down by the time all those dead people appear in the final crowd sequence you'll have had a really bad time at this movie. I'm afraid I kept getting sidetracked by practical considerations, myself. (Where does he grow those roses and how does he get them to bloom to that stage when he needs them?)

It's a far from perfect movie, but with the right mindset you can have a good time. In any case, if you liked the comic, you'll want to go so you can lecture your friends on What Went Wrong. C'mon, you know that gives you plenty enough pleasure to cover a matinee ticket!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Yes, PeniG, The US has got a more Anarchist outlook, underneath that extra thick Capitalist coating, than the UK.

 

[morningstar667]

Watched it last night and was entertained throughout, which is the bottom line for any movie. IMO Jonathon ross wouldn't know a good film if it fell on him.

 

[MrRING]

LINK

!FREE ALAN MOORE!

Alan Moore has been done a great wrong that we, as fans and readers, are helping to perpetuate. Watchmen and V For Vendetta, two of the greatest works in comics, have been rendered by contract as to be forever in the ownership of DC Comics.

How can this be? Mr.Moore didn't want to sign away all rights for the works he and his collaborators made, and he didn't. The deal was that as soon as they went out of print for a short amount of time, the rights for both would be returned. Since no comicbook before Watchmen and V For Vendetta had ever stayed in print for longer than eighteen months, it seemed like a safe decision. But after they became smash hits, won numerous awards, and became hot properties for Hollywood exploitation, they have been in print non-stop for almost 20 years.

This is a horrible situation. A great writer has been legally and morally "ripped off" of his ability to control the destiny of two of his greatest works, and nobody has seen fit to rectify it. It would be a simple mater to return these two works to Mr. Moore considering the amount of money his work and his name have (and currently still) made for the company on a myriad of other projects that DC owns outright. They have even made multiple collections that are being sold not on the characters but purely on the writer's name. The attitude at DC seems to be that it's too bad for Mr. Moore, but they are going to exploit the loophole in the contract to do what they want, which is to keep these works for their own. They will continue to keep these rights, violating the spirit of the original contract until either the public stops buying them, or the industry exerts some pressure on DC to put the situation right.

I am thus proposing a revolution. A love revolution, because it is being conducted in the spirit of love for the generaous creative spirit of Mr. Moore, his incredible collaborators, and these seminal works. If you care to see this great writer reunited with two works that have become part of your lives and the lives of many others, then this is a time for gentle action.

What we can do:

If you are a librarian, do not order any copies of Watchmen and V For Vendetta for your collection. Continued library interest for this great literature (that does deserves a place in libraries around the world) will mean that your library's request for a copy will help justify the perpetual reprinting of the books and the continued ripping off of Mr. Moore and the other creators. Wait until the rights are returned before purchasing copies for your library. Write about this situation in library journals and blogs.

If you are a creator with any kind of clout, start asking the editors & owners at DC to considering giving Watchmen and V For Vendetta back to Mr. Moore and the other creators. A similar tactic was used when Mr. Jack Kirby was trying to get his original art back from Marvel. It wasn't 100% successful, but trying and failing is better than just letting this situation stand as is. And much of Kirby's work had already been stolen from the Marvel offices, hindering this earlier efort; the rights to these two books are easily returnable. I even remember fan publications, and the backs of some Eclipse comics, bearing "Free Jack Kirby" ads. It would be nice if we could do the same for Mr. Moore.

If you are a member of the general public (like myself), stop buying any new edition of Watchmen & V For Vendetta, including the Absolute Editions. It's that simple. Buy second hand, but refuse to buy any new editions. If sales slack off enough, perhaps the naked contempt for the original agreement Mr. Moore signed will shine through their spin, and they will either continue to publish books that no longer sell in order to keep from returning them to their creators and lose money in the proccess - or they will make the simple business decision to stop publishing them and allow the original contract to be fullfilled.

Reproduce this information to as many news groups and other websites as you can. Make it known what your feelings are about the fact that both Watchmen and V For Vendetta are not the property of it's creators due to bad faith business decisions. Refuse to buy new editions. Get the word out. Post flyers of this message at conventions. Ask questions. Care.

For Mr. Moore's own view of things, please read here:

LINK1 at Comicon Beat
LINK 2 at Comicon Beat

Sincerely,
A fan, not related to Mr. Moore or any of his collaborators.

 

[ghostdog19]

LINK

Alan Moore has been done a great wrong that we, as fans and readers, are helping to perpetuate. Watchmen and V For Vendetta, two of the greatest works in comics, have been rendered by contract as to be forever in the ownership of DC Comics.

How can this be? Mr.Moore didn't want to sign away all rights for the works he and his collaborators made, and he didn't. The deal was that as soon as they went out of print for a short amount of time, the rights for both would be returned.

what a rediculous idea. The person instigating this ought to brush up on copyright law and the ACTUAL history of the matter they've greatly concerned themselves with.

The rights, including movie rights, would have reverted to the original owners after a period of time after "V For Vendetta" had gone out of print and THAT NEVER HAPPENED, which is the point. The reason for umbridge is simply that back then no body could ever have predicted the books success. David Lloyd, Dez Skinn AND Alan Moore all agreed to the terms, albiet naively, but nobody was to know the book would be so successful.

So, in short, Moore's a victim of his own success here and it really is nothing more than that. People are now kicking themselves in the same way Fox kicked themselves when George lucas started making good out of the merchandise rights (back in the days when merchandise wasn't what it is today).

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

'V' victorious at weekend box office

Sunday, March 19, 2006; Posted: 10:53 p.m. EST (03:53 GMT)


LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Audiences were in a rebellious mood, lifting the action tale "V for Vendetta" to the top spot at the weekend box office with a $26.1 million debut.

The Warner Bros. film, which stars Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving in a story of revolution against a totalitarian British government, bumped off the previous weekend's box-office leaders. Time Warner Inc. is the parent company of CNN and Warner Bros.

...

"V for Vendetta" was adapted by Andy and Larry Wachowski, creators of "The Matrix" franchise, from a graphic novel about a masked freedom fighter battling British fascism in the near future. The film was produced by Joel Silver, who also made "The Matrix" flicks, and directed by James McTeigue, a protege of the Wachowski brothers.

Critics generally gave thumbs up to "V for Vendetta," calling it a smarter-than-average, visually impressive action thriller. The movie touches on disturbing notions in a post-September 11 world, raising questions about when violence is justified and examining definitions of freedom-fighting vs. terrorism.

"Here we have a movie about a guy who wears a mask the whole picture, with controversial subjects, some hot-button issues. Not the standard-fare movie, and we did a strong opening and attracted a huge amount of people," producer Silver said.

------------
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

BOX OFFICE

Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc. Final figures will be released Monday.

1. "V for Vendetta," $26.1 million
2. "Failure to Launch," $15.8 million
3. "The Shaggy Dog," $13.6 million
4. "She's the Man," $11 million
5. "The Hills Have Eyes," $8.1 million
6. "16 Blocks," $4.7 million
7. "Eight Below," $4.2 million
8. "Tyler Perry's Madea's Family Reunion," $3 million
9. "The Pink Panther," $2.5 million
10. "Aquamarine," $2 million

www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/19/b ... index.html

 

[PeniG]

I'm afraid when you look at the competition - trite comedies, remakes of a classic B horror flick and of a remake (yes, it's third time around for The Shaggy Dog! CGI technology has a lot to answer for), and movies that have already been out for weeks - this isn't quite the triumph they're trying to make it out to be. There really wasn't anything much going on at the movies this week, and to call V the most interesting premier or having the most intellectual content, or even "the best Alan Moore adaptation yet," is not to say much.

There's so many reasons I prefer books. But movies make a better date.

 

[gl5211]

Well I went to see this movie last night. Never read the source material, but i didn't like the movie. I was bored and i felt the plot was very predictable. honestly i checked my watch and yawned alot. well and natalie portmans fake british accent was grating...especially when she fell out of it periodically. i just don't understand why they don't just cast real brits, the fake british accents are nearly as grating as the fake southern ones...i say they all need much better dialect coaches.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

A good review here:

www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=60843

 

[GreenJeanz1]

LINK

!FREE ALAN MOORE!

Alan Moore has been done a great wrong that we, as fans and readers, are helping to perpetuate. Watchmen and V For Vendetta, two of the greatest works in comics, have been rendered by contract as to be forever in the ownership of DC Comics.

I second the motion that this is a load of horseshit.
But most interesting of all, if it were true....what these people want to do would prevent many people(like myself) from actually having an opportunity to read V For Vendetta, and halt expansion of the fanbase
If the aforementioned copyright nonsense was true, there are much less destructive ways people would be able to get their protest across, ways that wouldn't be patently disrespectful to the author, potential fans, and the comic book itself.

 

[MrRING]

GreenJeanz, this is from the second link that was posted in the thread:

LINK

THE BEAT: Let me take you back to when V for Vendetta began appearing at DC…85 or 86. At Warrior you did own V for Vendetta and when you went to DC what was going through your head?

MOORE: What happened, at DC, they'd been asking if we'd do the Charlton characters and then they said, we don't want you to use the Charlton characters, can you come up with your own. I said yeah we can and we were assured, if you come up with characters of your own, you'll be able to own them under this new different deal that forward progressive DC comics is doing now, and I believed this. I was completely convinced by this. They seemed to be nice people who were treating me well and were offering what seemed to be a wonderful deal. So we signed the stuff on Watchmen and started work on it. At this point, they were asking, well what about V for Vendetta. I'd been shying away from anybody who wanted to own the work, but because I thought this was some new deal, that I'd been told about, I actually said to Dave Lloyd "I trust these people now, Dave." [laughs] I can hear myself saying it now. I trust these people, they won't take this away from us. As soon as they stop publishing it, it will be ours. And this was a time that no comic book had remained in print for more than 18 months,

THE BEAT: So you just didn't know at that point.

MOORE: Nobody knew. As Neil Gaiman pointed out to them later when he was saying, look it's a horrible situation you're in with Alan. You know as well as he did that back when he signed that contract, nobody could have predicted that these books would remain in print for that long.

 

[ghostdog19]

From a Dave Lloyd interview with Andy Diggle:

http://www.newsarama.com/general/DavidL ... dLloyd.htm

------------------------
AD: Alan Moore’s negative reaction to the screenplay, and subsequent squabbles with producer Joel Silver, are well documented. Do you share Alan’s point of view to any degree, or has it all been blown out of proportion?

DL: As I said above, I regret all that. Alan is entitled to his point of view, and I have my own.

AD: Do you feel you’ve been treated fairly?

DL: Well, I signed a contract with DC in 1985, selling V For Vendetta to them under certain terms and conditions. They’ve abided by that contract to the letter. I get all that I’m due from it.

Nothing in their contract obliges DC or Warner Bros to send me or to show me any scripts for a V movie, or to pass comment on them, but from the very first script that was written for one - written over ten years ago by someone whose name I shall not grace with a mention, and which I would not have supported in the way I support the present one - they always have.
-------------------

I think it's pretty safe to say, given the terms of the contract and reverting copyright were subject to the book going out of print, Alan Moore is pretty much a victim of his own success in that respect.

In the case of V, it's akin to Fox films griping about George Lucas getting such a good merchandise deal.

If it's any concellation to Moore, you live and learn. or so they say.

 

[MrRING]

I see it as similar to John Fogarty's problems with Fantasy Records... the label certainly had legal rights on their side, and Fogerty had in some respects put himself in the position he was in and had signed away lights. But most people recognized that Fogerty was really being ripped off when Fantasy sued him for sounding too much like himself in his solo work (Fogerty won that one but it went to court). In a similar way, I figure 20 or so years is just about too much for an agreement that seems to have been signed (if you believe Alan Moore, and I do) in the spirit and understanding that it was a temporary agreement.

DC ultimately are fullfilling their legal rights... but I think the situation could be greatly improved, and he is indeed trapped by his own success with these two works.

 

[ghostdog19]

In a similar way, I figure 20 or so years is just about too much for an agreement that seems to have been signed (if you believe Alan Moore, and I do) in the spirit and understanding that it was a temporary agreement.

DC ultimately are fullfilling their legal rights... but I think the situation could be greatly improved, and he is indeed trapped by his own success with these two works.

In the spirit and understanding really doesn't apply to a contract unless its written in black and white. Put it in perspective and you get him thinking 'this is temporary' because back then no one would have envisaged this book doing this well for this long.

Like I said before, victim of his own success. It's unfortunate but hey, its what they all agreed to in black and white.

 

[CuriousIdent]

I saw this movie on Sunday night.

I'm a big fan of the novel. It really is one of those books which really flips your entire view of what a comic book is - or rather has to be - onto its head. It worried me to think of this anthology strip title, turned limited series, turned graphic novel (It's really that complex a history) in the hands of the Wachowskis, who let's face it are NOT the greatest of writers.

That said I was utterly blown away by this movie.

Yes, it different. Yes things have been significantly changed. But what is important is that this IS a really good movie. If you pulled the concept of adaptation away, and never even knew there had been a graphic novel, it would STILL be a good movie.

I think the reviewers have been overtly harsh, so far.

The changes made to this are more to set it in a setting which is as relevent to us today as the novel was to the early 90s. Read Moore's own introducton to the tpb of V for Vendetta, and he states there are things we know now that means V does not work as a story - in particular the belief that quite so many people could survive a nuclear attack.

V the movie switches nuclear for chemical. The original V was set in 1997. While no date is given for this movie, the timescale is very much the same distance into the future as the novel was. The changes made are relevent, and don't encrouch on the feel and atmosphere of the book - which is the most important.

Yeah, they have changed the ending. But not the overall message. The change made is more like making it a more visual expression of the book's ending, which might have been too subtle for a big screen movie - or even worse, looked like the Wachowskis were planning a sequel

It's a great movie. I still prefer the novel, but would urge people - even if you haven't read it - to go and see this movie. It is relevent andwell done.

 

[CuriousIdent]

Channel 4 have a 20 minute promo film made in 83/84 based upon V somewhere in their vaults for a proposed V tv series. Now theres something which would be nice to see.

Really? This sounds interesting. Has anybody actually seen this or knows where it might be located? I'd be very interested to see it.

As for Marvelman being V. That certainly would explain the character's change of character from the early strips...

I personally always thought that V was Ruth, the lesbian partner of Valerie, the woman in room IV.

In the doctor's reports she mentions that the test subjects did sometimes mutate from their treatments. And as Valerie arrived at Larkhill considerably later than the point Ruth would have been interned.

After all the drugs and tinkering it is my belief that Ruth changed sex, physically.

It would also explain V's trips to the shutdown cinema in the first volume of V for Vendetta, wanting to see his lover one last time.

It also follows with the interview comments earlier in this thread, with Moore thinking that editors might not have been comfortable with a transexual character.

That was always my take on it.

But he definitely is NOT her father...

 

[StoryofE]

I'm big fan of the book and I thought it was pretty good. It was as good as Hollywood could have done with a book like that. I went in with very low expectations and ended up enjoying it. Hugo Weaving was effing great as V.

 

[Ravenstone]

I believe V is male, purely because he's referredto as 'the man in room five'.

I find interesting that the woman doctor (whose name completely escapes me!) describes him as ugly in her diary, but when he shows his face to her, says he is beautiful.

She says something in the diary about his changes being more mental than physical as well. So I'd assume V to be male and always male, based on that.

But definitely not Evey's father.

 

[Timble2]

I saw the film last night. It works quite well and thought thatthe rows of thosands in Guy Fawkes masks isn't in the book it works well cinematically.

It is different from the book but I don't think it's the travesty that some people claim it is. Natalie Portman wasn't really strong enough for Evey, but she made a fair stab at it and her accent didn't waver as much as some people claim (it's on of those performances where she might have been better if she'd spent less effort on the accent).

I stayed involved through the film, it's not the book, but is quite an effective action film that still retains some sort of intelligence underneath it.

 

[Mob1138]

Channel 4 have a 20 minute promo film made in 83/84 based upon V somewhere in their vaults for a proposed V tv series. Now theres something which would be nice to see.

Really? This sounds interesting. Has anybody actually seen this or knows where it might be located? I'd be very interested to see it.

Dave Lloyd saw it years ago, i'm sure Moore has as well but nothing came of it. It's something i've tried to track down for years but with no joy.

As for Marvelman being V. That certainly would explain the character's change of character from the early strips...

The idea as told to me by Dez Skinn was that V takes place immediatly after Marvelman ends. How it would have worked out is anyones guess now as Moore really did realise it was a bad, bad idea.

I personally always thought that V was Ruth, the lesbian partner of Valerie, the woman in room IV.

Its not, V isn't anyone.

It also follows with the interview comments earlier in this thread, with Moore thinking that editors might not have been comfortable with a transexual character.

That was always my take on it.

That was The Doll, it was a different strip he pitched to IPC and Marvel UK.

But he definitely is NOT her father...

Nope, it was never considered apparently[/quote]

 

[CuriousIdent]

Channel 4 have a 20 minute promo film made in 83/84 based upon V somewhere in their vaults for a proposed V tv series. Now theres something which would be nice to see.

Really? This sounds interesting. Has anybody actually seen this or knows where it might be located? I'd be very interested to see it.

Dave Lloyd saw it years ago, i'm sure Moore has as well but nothing came of it. It's something i've tried to track down for years but with no joy.

Hmmm. I don't claim to have any intimate knowledge of these kind of things (I did a university module on tv corporation laws, but that was years ago...) but if I remember rightly can't you - as a license payer - request BBC archive footage, a pilot reels. Something to do with public interest, or somewhat. I don't really recall properly.

I don't know if Channel 4 have a similar policy at all, but it might be possible to bother somebody over there about it?

 

[MrRING]

I thought the earlier V film was simply a student film...

 

[Mob1138]

I thought the earlier V film was simply a student film...

It was, but it was pitched to C4 and the intention was a series would follow.

 

[Mob1138]

Channel 4 have a 20 minute promo film made in 83/84 based upon V somewhere in their vaults for a proposed V tv series. Now theres something which would be nice to see.

Really? This sounds interesting. Has anybody actually seen this or knows where it might be located? I'd be very interested to see it.

Dave Lloyd saw it years ago, i'm sure Moore has as well but nothing came of it. It's something i've tried to track down for years but with no joy.

Hmmm. I don't claim to have any intimate knowledge of these kind of things (I did a university module on tv corporation laws, but that was years ago...) but if I remember rightly can't you - as a license payer - request BBC archive footage, a pilot reels. Something to do with public interest, or somewhat. I don't really recall properly.

I don't know if Channel 4 have a similar policy at all, but it might be possible to bother somebody over there about it?

Last time i tried to track it down i got a "oh yes, its somewhere i think" and heard nowt back. Might be a good time to try again...

 

[CuriousIdent]

[quote="Mob1138Last time i tried to track it down i got a "oh yes, its somewhere i think" and heard nowt back. Might be a good time to try again...[/quote]

Yes, probably a good time to ask them again, while it's in the public consciousness...

Who should I bother/write to?

 

[Mob1138]

No idea now, last time i tried was nearly a decade ago.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

Well, I found a copy of V for Vendetta going on the cheap the other day, and thought I'd treat myself. And I have to say...

Hmm. Yes. Hmm.

To be fair, it had its moments. The diary extract concerning Larkhill, for instance, perfectly captured the clinical, dispassionate evil of the concentration camp. But overall...I dunno. I just got the impression that it was all a bit of a Spartist masturbatory fantasy, really, and not exactly the work of power that others had said it was.

One of the main problems, I found, was in the government's response to V. The simple fact is, totalitarian states love bogeymen like V, because they serve as a convenient scapegoat/totem for all public ills, and can be used as both a focus for the mythical 'enemy within', and a front for any further nefarious activity that the authorities might plan. Quite simply, they could have used a trumped-up charge involving V to arrest anyone they liked; they could have used his image and deeds (and probably even manufacture some) to fire up public opinion against 'the enemy within' (ie, your neighbour, your colleagues, a stranger that looks at you funny in the street); they could use him to instil terror into the public - and thus reinforce their position as public 'protectors'. Stalin did similar with Trotsky; Nazi Germany did the same with the Jews (who were so broadly characterised by that regime as to be effectively a single entity). You don't even have to be a totalitarian (though in the light of what follows, some will disagree) as it seems that Bush & Blair are quite happy to do the same with Bin Laden. And if Orwell's 1984 provides a good approximation of what a repressive state is really capable of (and I think it is), then you don't even need a genuine, physical bogeyman in the first place - ie, Goldstein.

And yet, faced with this faceless(!), innominate bogeyman - who was, quite literally, a blank canvas to which anything could be ascribed - the repressive, controlling (and, being fascist, politically opportunist by nature)goverment just...ran around like headless chickens.

And then there was the problem with the government itself - or, more to the point, those in the higher echelons. To a man, they all had some neurosis or other - Prothero, a repressed gay with a fetish for dolls; the asexual leader; the cliched pervert priest - but this, though it makes for good drama, is incorrect. As the psychologists who interviewed the former leaders of Nazi Germany found out - and who, I believe, coined the phrase 'The Banality of Evil' as a result - the kind of men who do head such organisations are the kind of men who like to adopt the missionary position and keep their lawns tidy. Dull, ordinary little men, in other words - just the kind of men who would quite happily see people get carted off to an execution camp, and be troubled by nothing more than the idea that it might make it a bit harder to balance the books for a while.

Now, I'm not saying that totalitarian leaders are immune to having a kink or two - but to suggest (as the book does) that a totalitarian mindset is identifiable by its sexual perversions is just plain nonsense. It is the ordinary person that one has to be wary of in this context. The one who remains untroubled by doubts about his sexuality, his thoughts, his deeds. Someone unimaginitive, who does not question himself too much.

Ironically, the only character who did question herself - the doctor at larkhill - was portrayed, with some sympathy, as an ordinary person who, well, just went off the rails a bit.

Another problem was Valerie's testimony: it was a little too melodramatic for my liking, and formulaic: teenage lesbian discovers her sexuality, and the disappointments of youth, with a girl who later goes straight; parents, inevitably, react with rage when said lesbian comes out. Ok, so this was the early eighties, and such issues hadn't really been dealt with in comics before. Bit it still felt as though it was trying too hard to portray a Nice Lesbian Who Just Wants To Be Loved, rather than a genuine character. Perhaps, if Valerie had been portrayed as someone not quite so saccharine, I might have identified with her a bit more - and understood that V was therefore inspired by a living, breathing person, and not a cipher.

I admit, it sounds like I'm doing a demolition job on the thing - but I'm not. The book had moments of genuine, unsettling power, but it just felt...incoherent. As if the parts meant more than the sum.

Which, considering the politics that V himself espouses, is rather apt, I think.

 

[Doctor_Occupant]

One of the things you have to remember when reading the graphic novel is that Moore was rather...uncomplicated...when he wrote it.

He didn't study the psychology of evil. He had something to say, he said it and it worked possibly rather better than he had intended.

One of the better things in my copy of V for Vendetta is the introduction by David Lloyd, which captures a lot of what I remember from 80s Britain. It's important to understand the context of the book, or at least it helps a lot, and it's not something that travels well. Americans don't understand the fear present at the time and a certain section of the population becomes defensive and annoyed when you tell them that America was responsible for a lot of paranoia and worry.

V for Vendetta is still a strong story 20 years later. Yes, some of the characters are rather cliche and don't really stand up to comparison with real world examples of the same thing. However one of the messages of the book holds true no matter who's saying it: if you sell your freedom for security you get what you asked for and it's no one's fault but your own.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

Yes, you're right - Alan Moore has admitted to some naivete in writing the work. And, unfortunately, it shows. Perhaps my expectations were too high, as I'd only ever heard good things about it. But I'll settle for V being a pretty good pulp melodrama, and not the work of high art that many seem to think it is.

BTW:

One of the better things in my copy of V for Vendetta is the introduction by David Lloyd, which captures a lot of what I remember from 80s Britain. It's important to understand the context of the book, or at least it helps a lot, and it's not something that travels well. Americans don't understand the fear present at the time and a certain section of the population becomes defensive and annoyed when you tell them that America was responsible for a lot of paranoia and worry.

Are you suggesting that I'm American, or sumfing?

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

V For Vendetta (R1) in August

Warner Home Video have announced the Region 1 DVD release of V For Vendetta for 1st August 2006. Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked man (Hugo Weaving) known only as "V." Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and deception, V ignites a revolution when he urges his fellow citizens to rise up against tyranny and oppression. As Evey uncovers the truth about V's mysterious background, she also discovers the truth about herself - and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plan to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption.

Available in single-disc (separate Widescreen & Full Screen versions, $28.98 SRP each) and two-disc special edition (Widescreen only, $34.99 SRP) features are TBC.

www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=61510