Talk:V for Vendetta (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is undergoing a featured article review to ensure that it meets the standards of a featured article. Please add a comment to assist the process and/or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.

V for Vendetta (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

V for Vendetta (film) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 5, 2006.

V for Vendetta (film) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the V for Vendetta (film) article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

To-do list for V for Vendetta (film):	edit · history · watch · refresh
Feature Article Nomination Copyediting and any other changes to improve the articles are very much encouraged. The special features content of the V for Vendetta DVD needs to be expanded May wish to include HD-DVD info into the DVD section.

Archives
/Archive 1: March 2006 /Archive 2: April 2006 /Archive 3: April 2006 /Archive 4: April 2006 - June 2006

Contents 1 Norsefire (book) = Conservative Party (film)? 2 Criticism.....or lack there of. 3 Uhh... yeah 4 Sequel 5 Orphaned points 5.1 Novelization 6 Novelization 7 Movie vs. Graphic Novel 8 DVD section 9 Today's Feature Article 9.1 Shorter version 10 Recent changes to differences 11 FAC and images 12 'Strength through blah blah' 13 Date of the film 14 Political scene 15 Is V a superhero? 16 An award! Congratulations! 17 V recurring theme 18 Gay Theme? 19 Year of the events in the movie 20 St. Mary's Virus 21 Banned? 22 James Purefoy 23 Critical Recepetion 24 British totalitarian party? 25 Trivia 26 Removal of Trivia section 27 refs 23 and 26 28 Coalition of the Willing Flag 29 Sex Pistols references? 30 Trivia 31 Broken references 32 DVD ==features" 33 breakfast 34 1812 Overture 35 Plot 36 The letter V and the number 5 36.1 Arbitrary OR section break 36.2 Line by Line 37 Great Timing! 38 Freedom Fighter 39 Vandelism 40 Ending 41 Vandalism 42 Terrorist or Freedom Fighter? 43 Split off "Differences between the film and graphic novel"? 44 Is it just me... 45 Discussion of imagery 46 Some concerns from feature article review 47 Differences between the film and graphic novel and The letter V and the number 5 (aka list vs. text) 48 Norsefire = NF = National Front 49 Portman only Non-British Cast member? 50 V for Vendetta as an anti-modernist film 51 Article at Featured Article Review 52 Michael Medved 53 Graphic Novel: Evey Prostitute Reference

[edit] Norsefire (book) = Conservative Party (film)?

The film changes Norsefire's name to the real-life Conservative Party. In a pie chart showing the results of the election that brought dictatorship to Britain, the piece of the pie with around 90% of the vote is clearly labled "Conservative Party." SteveSims 06:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I recall the 90% black segment on the pie chart said NORSEFIRE, and there were two 5% segments in red and blue, saying Conservative and Labour. TR_Wolf

[edit] Criticism.....or lack there of.

This Article needs a better criticism section, the current section needs expanding. It seems a tad bit biased. Zerath13

No kidding. --Haizum 06:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uhh... yeah

Isn't it kind of appropriate that V for vendetta is a FA on guy fawkes night? Richardkselby 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be done a lot - I know Night of the Living Dead was FA on Halloween this year. Applejuicefool 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sequel

I saw this website about a sequel. Is it true & should it be commented on this site? www.darkhorizons.com/news06/060401b.php

I doubt it. Moore doesn't want anything to do with this movie; he said so in an interview. This article quotes it. Besides, there was no sequel to the graphic novel, so they wouldn't have any source material.

Looks like an April's Fools Joke.

I sure hope it's a joke. It would be stupid. All that would be left would be for Evey to make the final leap for England, to bring about true anarchy, or the "land of do as you please," as V so eloquently put it. There would be little more of interest, except to see Evey claim V's place, and maybe to see Dominic take Evey's place (assuming that Evey took up the mask and took in Dominic... I don't remember the end of the movie very well. Just the novel.). Ravenicus451 00:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned points

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

• 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]

• It is also worthy of note that the references to the political leaders profiting from selling the treatment to the "pandemic" disease are allegorical. Donald Rumsfeld, the current Secretary of Defense of the United States, was Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences from 1997-2001, and he remains a member of the board today. This places him in a strategic position to profit from the Bush administration's decision to purchase $2 billion of Tamiflu, a treatment medicine for avian flu.

Again, totally laughable attempt to connect irrational points to this film. The best comparison to the biological experiments in the film would be to the Nazis and the Soviets. Trying to connect Donald Rumsfeld is absurd. Jtpaladin 16:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• 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.

Of course, the film attempts to glorify the Gunpowder Plot which was nothing but an attack on England sponsored by Catholic forces, primarily Spain, because England rejected Papal domination of its' country. Jtpaladin 16:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Alan Moore later states in the foreword to the trade paperback edition of V for Vendetta that scientists now felt that even a "limited" nuclear war was not survivable. Thus biological weapons would be considered more plausible in the film.

IMDB 8.2/10 (38,206 votes)

Alan Moore was wrong about the lack of ability to survive a limited nuclear war as he was in much of his bizarre political thought throughout the story. In the film, the comparison of the "Coalition of the Willing" and "Nazism" is just more laughable nonsense. Jtpaladin 16:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

This really needs to get added back into the article, and the novelization article needs to be expanded (this blurb says more about the novelization than the article itself). I haven't read it so I don't want to go editing it, and I'm not sure where in this article the novelization belongs. I am adding it to the adaptations section of the main V for Vendetta article, however. Lord Bodak 13:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novelization

Ok, we can def not end the article with this. I say we merge it into the differences section, just write at the end how there is one and briefly talk about V's escape from Larkhill etc. Its just random. We should merge it into diff.section - but not create a sub-heading, just merge. Thoughts? Cvene64 15:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the whole thing needs to be removed into the talkpage, until we can figure out what to do with it... it's not going to grow much bigger than it is already.--P-Chan 17:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Without the novelization, the article looks cleaner now.--P-Chan 00:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Upon pondering over this whole Novelization thing.... I think it may only end up being a wikilink somewhere, or a See Also. It's a little hard to incorporate.--P-Chan 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How does the novelization of a film not fit in the article about the film? Let's be realistic here. It needs to say more, but it belongs here. Look at Return of the Jedi or any number of other films with novelizations. Something more than my one-liner should probably be there, but I haven't read the novelization so I can't write about it. But I am adamant that it belongs here, and if it keeps getting removed, no one can improve it. Lord Bodak 22:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Star Wars novels are fairly notable, the Vendetta novelization had a very small release, and in the big picture of things is not that notable. There have beeen efforts to include it, but it just doesnt look/flow right. The best it can do right now is be in the V category. This is an FA, but that doesnt mean it cant be taken down, and a stub like paragraph at the end of the article doesnt do us any favors. Cvene64 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should be improved beyond just being a stub paragraph. But the novelization exists, it is relevant to the movie, and not including it in the article is a major omission. Being an FA should not be justification to omit relevant information. Lord Bodak 22:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it should be noted in the text then, a whole heading is just crazy. But a heading or subheading will just comprimise its ability to maintain FA status. Cvene64 23:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree Cvene64. Lord Bodak, in regards to your comments on the ommission, keep in mind that this article is 51k and is less than half a year old. That's pretty big, and the DVD hasn't been released yet. There is a tendencie at Wikipedia that once articles reach a certain size veteran editors will start to request the article be split up with daughter articles. So, while we probably could put in a whole section on the novelization, we probably shouldn't as it may not be that important in terms of content. Does this address your concerns?--P-Chan 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie vs. Graphic Novel

V for Vendetta was one of the first movies in a long time to peak my interest to actually see it in the theater, not once, but twice. Shortly afterward, I reaquainted myself with the graphic novel. For his sake, Alan Moore should be greatful anyone would be able to make sense of his works, let alone be so invoked to to put them on the big screen. I deeply admire integrity, and Moore has that. But he seems to lack a real understanding how you present an idea at the right time. When the graphic novel was first published, it was relevent for the time, but as governments and societies change, the same theme will be lost upon people. Asked many high school of college students who Margret Thatcher was, and you'll get, "Who?". Thatcherism, as it is termed, has past. But the story can still hold value if it is changed to fit modern times. And the movie does just that, keeping with the basic ideas while adding elements that make it more plausible and interesting for the moderen masses. In fact, contrary to Moore, the movie is far more realistic than the original story. Moore views the movie villains as caricatures, but the opposite is true. Moore uses very stereotypical images for the villains, such as a heavy set and pompus Prothero and 'un-named' Leader, business poster child Creedy, and burnt out and ragged Finch. Various element of the books are caricatures, if not down right silly and unbelievable. The movie fixes many of these problem, untilizing actual people instead of editorial cartoons. The 'leader' has a name, Prothero is arogant, but realistic,...in general, the characters are more crisp in the movie. V is is less of a mental patient and more of someone with a genuine vendetta, someone who is actually human. The change of Evey from prostitute to working girl makes the relationship between she and V even more interesting, since the viewers will less likely see both of them as outcasts. The movie Evey represents a far more logical personna to which the viewers can relate to the story, stepping into her shoes and really absorbing the experience. The novel Evey is the more stereotypical tragedy girl and not too believable, at least not today. The graphic novel strays a lot and can be hard to follow. The subplot involving Almond seem trivial, even though Moore tries to justify it at the end. Eliminating it from the movie allows the viewer to focus more on the prime theme of the movie, the politics...cont.

• It's very true that the graphic novel was a child of its time, and likewise the movie is a child of its own time. That way, it has an impact on the world around it, instead of reiterating old themes that are no longer current. There are no "right" or "wrong" interpretations of the story, and Moore is certainly entitled to his opinion. For me, the movie works better as a commentary of contemporary issues. --Agamemnon2 08:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. The film is better. I just don't like the idea that he was an anarchist, I like the idea he was an Anti-hero. --69.67.229.117 03:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD section

Whats everyones view on this? It doesnt have to be there, and righth now it is the poorest section of the article, its really just a trivial list. Cvene64 07:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree when you say it sticks out like a sore thumb. It probably will be added eventually once we see all the special features and directors comments, but right now it certainly can be removed. Your call.--P-Chan 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm just worried that it is not really of the quality that the rest of the article is. Also, I just want to say that a DVD section is not by any means a necessary part of a film article. So yeah, I'm justs not too sure we should include just a date and special features. Also, we should consider how the article is going to deal with awards and nominations in the future. But yeah... Cvene64 08:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed it for now. I don't have any plans to keep it out, but it needs to look like Revenge of the Sith's section to be acceptable, and it can't have weird stuff like how Portman reveals her dark side in an SNL skit. Cvene64 08:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is released on HD DVD now. See a review at http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/vforvendetta.html. Worth adding I think. (AndyPennell 23:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Today's Feature Article

[1]

Cvene64 brought up the point earler that we should probably get going on the Today's Featured Article. (For the Fifth of November of course!) :) It's also probably a wise idea that we get this done now, as it would be a tragedy if we were beat by some other article. I placed a temporary TFA box above.... and I say temporary because I just cut and past the movie poster and the lead. It most likely needs to be changed. Any ideas or comments? --P-Chan 23:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me. To be honest I don't really know a whole lot about TFA, but yeah, we should definantly reserve that November spot. I guess if there is anything to be changed, someone at TFA or an admin will handle it. Nice work. Cvene64 08:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think that there needs to be something included about Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot to make it relevent to the November 5th date otherwise the connection between the two will be lost by most people, and the very reason for wanting this date would be negated. For all we know by the time November comes around some other Gunpowder Plot related article might become featured and want to be a Today's Featured Article also!

I would say that the introduction should tie in with its anniversary and then flush out information about the general theam of the movie: set in a dystopian Britain about an anarchist freedom fighter who uses terrorist tactics etc... Also even though it mentions the Wachowski brothers I would think that it should also mention The Matrix trilogy also! I don't think that we want a long list of names but we need to get at the heart of what this featured article is, the reason why its relevent to November 5th and why people should read it. -- UKPhoenix79 09:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should definantly keep the dystopian comments. But we should try and integrate all of what you mentioned..but we cant make it too long..so I suggest:

• Replace action-thriller film set in London in a not-too-distant future. with film.
• Merge Due to ongoing conflicts with the film industry, Alan Moore did not endorse the film. into first mention of Moore.
• Remove , but was delayed; the film opened on March 17, 2006, and has been generally well received by critics. Tie in of what remains to Gunpowder plot, though we still might mention it was released in March.

These are just suggestions though...Cvene64 09:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also if for some reason we cant get Nov. 5, we should get August 1 so its still relevent as its R1 DVD is released that day. Cvene64 09:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I didn't mean to get rid of them I ment that we need to expand on those ideas (since there key to V for Vendetta)... sorry I think I used the wrong phrase. And I would agree with what you say but I think that if we do get November the 5th the Gunpowder plot/Guy Fawkes themes etc should be made more predomant inside the article and if we dont get it August 1st should be our alternative! -- UKPhoenix79 10:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We certainly have a bit of time to think about this. (There seems to be a copyright issue on the Today's Feature Article page regarding this article's image).--P-Chan 03:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

For the 401st anniversary of the Gunpowder plot, we should have a V for Vendetta/Guy Fawkes theme. Also, were the images we had copyrighted? We have posted several different scenes on there and they keep disappearing. I think we should post an image of V fighting the Fingermen at the beginning and perhaps the destruction of Parliament at the end.- JustPhil 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about in the article? If so, that probably wont happen, as a reduction in images is one of the things that got it through the FAC. Cvene64 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shorter version

I edited this on the requests page before I saw the discussion here. This version reworks two fo the sentences and removes a few of the details which belong in the into, but not on the main page necessary, in my opinion. It really shouldn't be much longer than this, if past TFA's are any indication. Comments? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes to differences

This was recently added:

Characters and events are changed, switched or omitted. In the film, Lewis Prothero was a radical television personality that dealt outpersonal opinion on a racist scale on television, inciting people to be wary of foreigners. In the graphic novel, however, Mr. Prothero, the Voice of Fate was unseen on television, leading the public to believe that his was the voice of the computer Fate. Also in the graphic novel, Mr. Prothero was not killed in his home but was kidnapped by V and subjected to a reconstruction of Larkhill Detention facility and is driven mad by the destruction of his vast doll collection. In the film, no mention is made of his dolls, and he is killed in his home, however it is possible to see some of his dolls in the sequence in the shower. Near the end of the film, Creedy kills Sutler and his men then fire on V. In the novel the omitted character Rose Almond, kills the Leader (who is named Adam Susan in the novel) as he steps out of a car to speak to the public and Eric Finch mortally wounds V in a showdown in the underground.

I remember that a lot of this info was removed in the past, as the section got really massive. Someone may want to re-write/edit some of it. Cvene64 08:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC and images

We can't have too many images for the plot? I just posted three new images. Please don't come down on me for this! They said that Lost wasn't good enough because there were no screenshots.- JustPhil 14:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phil, I'm sorry, but I removed the three new images, only because they come under fair-use, and the image situation on here was quite controversial, and thus, just the one image was decided upon for the plot, and subsequently, the rest of the images were allocated throughout the article,which all have fair-use rationales. The current images (one in plot etc) was one of the passing conditions at the FAC. Cvene64 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Strength through blah blah'

Isn't that more similar to The Wave than the 1984 slogans, as the article states?

Strength through discipline, strength through community, strength through action!

Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith.

What do you think? Joffeloff 20:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

They both are pretty similar. I'm not sure I can answer that, but when I saw the film, I immediately thought of 1984 with its slogans. The film draws more parallels to 1984 than I think to your book which I have never read; I'm not going to run out now to get the book just to see what you are talking about (no offense). One quick thing, the Norsefire slogan ultimately comes down to "Strength through Faith".- JustPhil 13:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of the film

I agree (I have no idea if there was another discussion) that 2020 cannot be the time of the film. In the novelization, Finch states that "he has been a party member for 27 years". Unless, they have an altered timeline of the past before 2006, this means it is not 2020.- JustPhil 13:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We discussed this before and thought it was closer to 2040. Unless we can verify 99%, we can't say the date.--P-Chan 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the Valerie Story on YouTube. She states that her first film was in 2015. Valerie and Ruth have a wonderful relation for three years. Then America's wars in the Middle East cause chaos in England. They unleash the bioweapon, hold the Reclamation for some time, and then there are, according to the novelization, 14 years of oppression. Yes, it is closer to or is 2040.- JustPhil 22:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with the 2040 timeline, but I'd also say that being DC Comics, it's probably set in an alternate universe and point out that it could thus be any given year, even in our time frame (i.e. it could be set in 2006) if it wasn't explicitly mentioned otherwise in the movie.. --Streaky 20:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political scene

Also, the novelization pretty much describes the political scene in beautiful detail. America begins a bunch of wars in the Middle East and China, tries to develop bioweapons to the point that lead to England pulling out of NATO before the government launches its own bioweapon.- JustPhil 15:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

heh - BF2 (yeah, sorry, totally irrelevent) --Streaky 20:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is V a superhero?

Should we include this article in the superhero films category?--P-Chan 15:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who (spoiler!) keeps moving after being shot as many time as he was is a superhero. :) To say nothing of his preternatural fighting abilities. RobertM525 06:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Under some definitions, yes. He's not supernatural, though, which some might consider a requirement. He just has skills, equipment, and a costume. But if Batman is included in that category, then V should be included. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is largely an artifact of the Wachowski interpretation. In the novel, V is certainly a skilled fighter, but not obviously to superheroic levels. More importantly, a superhero is someone of clear moral integrity, something V is explicitly made out not to be. Batman has his dark side, but in the end he's a Good Guy, and that's why he's one of the heroes. V is a Guy, but not necessarily Good; in fact, a large part of the point the novel makes is that his morality is in the eye of the reader. The movie is a less explicit about this; V is called a "monster" but there's nevertheless a clear distinction between good and bad, with V on the good side.

V for Vendetta may be considered a superhero movie, with a guy in a costume kicking the ass of the bad guys, but it's at least slightly misleading. Alan Moore would probably agree, though, but not in a positive way. :-) JRM · Talk 14:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] V recurring theme

It might just be my imagination, but doesn't V put some emphasis on the last syllable of Evey's name to empasize the "v" in it (e-VEY) in their first scene together? Is it worth to mention under the "v and 5" heading? 213.212.33.74 06:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Theme?

I haven't watched the movie, but one of the categories lists this film as having an LGBT theme to it. Can anyone explain what this is? Thank you. Artemisboy 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The state oppresses homosexuals, "Voice of Britain" mentions this close the the beginning of the film. We find out later that Stephen Fry's character is a closeted homosexual who fears for his life. We also hear Valerie's tale; she and her girlfriend are executed by the state for their homosexuality. V and Evie are both sympathetic to Valerie and Fry's character's plight as, it would seem, are many of the people who protest against the state. --Oldak Quill 04:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I also read somewhere that the comic book was rejected, or downplayed, because comic-book publishers (DC?) were not interested in a gay terrorist. I think that this assertion can be found in the wikipedia comic book article.In other words there seems to have been a suggestion that V was gay in the original? He was definately hetro in the fim. Was Evey a terrorist in the original? In any event, being gay, or realising that one is gay and accepting it seems to be part of the freedom from bondage, dominance, idea of this film. It is not made entirely clear but when V tests Evey in his dungeon, it seems that she comes to realise that she is gay (a lesbian) too? Or not?--Timtak 01:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not for LGBT, it is for the freedom to choose. --69.67.234.220 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality is a minor theme throughout the movie. Valerie is both V's and Evey's inspiration and Gordon is a voice for good on the heavily state censored media. It's definitely important to the storyline but I think it was downplayed when the movie was released in the face of its political and religious criticism, nobody paid much attention to the LGBT stuff because so many major themes in it are already controversial.

[edit] Year of the events in the movie

The article says that it happens roughly 20 years from now. That's quite vague, since there are enough facts in the movie to determine the exact year. The lesbian woman who wrote the autobiography (kill me, I can't remember her name) says she met her last partner in 2015. She goes to say they had a "wonderfull three years together" before being taken by the police. That puts her arrest at 2018. Now, we know that V was imprisoned at the same time as her in Larkhill, and near the end of the movie, he says he's been "waiting for this day for 20 years". 2018 + 20 = 2038 (not even counting the time V spent at Larkhill, although that was probably short). That's about 32 years in the future , well off the "roughly 20 years" mark.

So if noone minds, I'm going to change the article accordingly. And it's not original research since it's in the movie. Anyone needing reference just needs to see it and pay close attention. xompanthy 01:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There are also plenty and plenty of dates in computer files. just wait a week for the dvd and then get pausing! Morwen - Talk 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Some anon changed it back to the '20-ies. Why don't they ever read the talk pages, or the HTML comment for that matter? xompanthy 20:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stuff that was put on the main page:

update reason - V says that the gunpowder thing happened OVER 400 years ago, and the gunpowder thing happened in 1663 (about) which would put the movie in at least that time frame. Plus, you add 20 years to the war date, and that sets you around 2088 -posted 22:18, August 8, 2006 70.17.91.87

update 2, wrong the Gunpowder plot took place in 1605, I also don't agree with 2020s; 2040s seems the best date--Gdo01 02:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should ignore some of the computer dates and files, if not all. My dad says that it is just "white noise" or something; stuff that is not meant to be read so they just write whatever they want. Lilliman's file says that he was at Larkhill in 2016 and Valerie’s first film was in 2015; she "had roses for three years" so presumably it would be 2018. When Finch searches for Lilliman, the search bar says that his first name is Anthony and later in the Larkhill staff file, I think I made it out to be "Peter". Also, the files for Percy, Keyes, and Rookwood (the guys who unleashed the bioweapon) say that Percy and Keyes died on 8/8/14. Also, they have a reporter talking about Sutler closing the tube stations, probably during the virus outbreak (or it was just one thing the administration tried to do before Sutler came). Of course, I was watching the dates by zooming in on my TV and when zoomed up, it doesn't have complete crystal resolution.- JustPhil 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Mary's Virus

Is it mentioned that the St. Mary's Virus is an allusion to something? I know we are not allowed to have "original research", but I think it is clear that the bioweapon is an allusion to the Reichstag fire. After the fire, Hitler blamed the Communists and assumed complete control of Germany. After the virus, Sutler blames Islamic extremists and assumes complete control of England.- JustPhil 14:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha not it isn't. The whole movie is anti-Bush; the virus is alluding to 9/11 conspiracy theories. And oh, what a rhetorical device it is! If this fictional government attacked its own people, the United States did too. I love how the author of the original series said this movie was a joke. Haizum 02:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not all anti-Bush. There are still allusions to the Nazis in there.- JustPhil 11:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the inception of this film predate 9/11 conspiracy theories?--Timtak 01:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The radical left loves to try to make Bush=Hitler parallels, so naturally there'd be allusions to the Nazis in an anti-Bush film. Blainetologist 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But the comic which the movie is based on was made well before President Bush. So if the Virus was an allusion it makes alot of sense to be with relation to Hitler Persept 06:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if its anti-bush, its a great movie! I love George W, and I love this movie. --66.218.11.146 08:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As I state in one of posts below, the St Mary's monument is very similar to a famous one in Stalingrad. --MacRusgail 19:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

p.s. To say it is purely anti-Bush is a bit disingenous. There are references to Tony Blair and various other people in there. It's not solely about the USA all the time.

[edit] Banned?

Has the movie been banned or edited in Germany because of the swastika in the "Coalition of the Willing" flag?- JustPhil 14:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It is absolutely legal to show swastikas in movies because movies are considerd art in Germany. This makes it legal. --84.172.232.245 12:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Der Untergang and Aimee und Jaguar both contain swastikas, but are popular (critical) German films, which have been shown on terrestial TV. --MacRusgail 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Purefoy

This article says James Purefoy quit the role because of problems with wearing the mask, but the article on Purefoy says he was "discarded" from the film when Hugo Weaving became available. Does anyone know which account is correct?

[edit] Critical Recepetion

An anonymous IP editor keeps changing this section to say that the film received "mixed" reviews. I contend that a 75% is a positive reaction, anything higher than that is amazing by Rottentomatoes standards. Please, whoever you are, stop reverting it back to say that it was mixed unless you can provide reasons beyond your own POV. Konman72 22:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I thought that this film was, as a film (but not as a thesis or something), pretty rotten but it is true that the RottenTomatoes rates it as 75% good i.e. well, and RT is the most objective 'review of review' AFAIK. So, while I would rate V as rotten, I think that it deserves to be said to be 'well recieved' or similar. I suggest therefore, in spite of myself, that "Due to the politically sensitive content of the film, V for Vendetta has been the target of both criticism and praise from political groups." should be changed to "Due to the politically sensitive content of the film, V for Vendetta has been the target of both criticism and praise from political groups, while being well recieved by critics in general"

[edit] British totalitarian party?

Guys, help me on this. Mention is made of the "British totalitarian party" but I haven't found a single reference on Google to such a political party. If it never existed, why is it treated as a factual trivia point? Jtpaladin 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Its talking about the movie. See here: Norsefire Gdo01 00:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank for the response but the link you gave me says that the comparison is made with the "British Union of Fascists". There is no mention of the "British Totalitarian Party". Additionally, the trivia tries to make a connection to a real-world issue by saying,

"The symbol of the British totalitarian party is an ancient heraldic symbol called the "Croix de Lorraine". It was adopted as the official symbol of General Charles de Gaulle's Free French Forces between 1940 and 1944. It was later used for various Gaullist political parties in France, notably the RPR (Rally for the Republic)."

So what I'm saying is that the wrong name is being used in the historical comparison to the film and then goes on to discuss Charles De Gaulle as part of a real-world person. In other words, they are mixing fact and reality and doing incorrectly at that. Does this make sense? Jtpaladin 01:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Norsefire in the movie uses a sideways Cross of Lorraine. The Cross of Lorraine is associated with nationalist movements most notably the Free France movement. The Wachowski brothers or someone involved with this movie combined the realistic Cross of Lorraine with Nazi colors in order to create the Norsefire flag.

The closest real life example of a party similar to Norsefire is the British National Party which embraces the use of the English flag (a red cross on a white background)Gdo01 01:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way I changed the trivia point. It now says Norsefire instead of British totalitarian party.Gdo01 01:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done on changing that trivia point. The Cross of Lorraine actually has various designs, so you may or may not want to consider adding that info as well. http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/lorraine.html As for the British National Party, it's not the closest real life example to Norsefire since, for one thing, the BNP is not pro-free market. That is the bedrock of any conservative political party. Consider:

The BNP is generally not regarded as economically right-wing, i.e., as having a strong belief in laissez-faire economics. Rather, the description of them as 'far-right' relates to their authoritarian policies, and beliefs concerning racial segregation [27]. The Thatcherite former Conservative Party Chairman Lord Tebbit has said on the BNP’s position on the political spectrum that having “carefully re-read” the BNP’s 2005 general election manifesto that he is “unable to find evidence of right-wing tendencies” believing it to be “pretty left-wing” in his opinion [28].

If you want a party that is closer to Norsefire, check out:

• Alliance for Green Socialism
• Alliance for Workers Liberty
• Communist Party of Britain
• Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
• Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
• Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)
• Independent Working Class Association
• International Socialist Group
• New Communist Party of Britain
• Peace and Progress Party
• People's Party (Furness), a socialist party in the Furness district
• Red Party
• Revolutionary Communist Group
• Socialist Appeal
• Socialist Equality Party
• Socialist Labour Party
• Socialist Party of England and Wales
• Socialist Party of Great Britain
• Socialist Workers Party
• Spartacist League
• Workers Power
• Workers' Revolutionary Party

Of course not all of these parties would make an exact fit to Norsefire, but the left-wing parties are far closer to the kind of tyranny that was associated with Norsefire. The communist parties are certainly far closer to Norsefire, including the racism aspect which is not usually stated in their Party platform, however in practice, as in the former Soviet Union, there was not only anti-Semitism but White Russians always were placed first in all societal aspects. While this is a discussion best fit in a political spectrum forum, authoritarianism is merely a looser form of totalitarianism, where some private ownership is allowed. Both are left-wing idealogies. As for the film itself, I found it so laughable (especially the Koran issues) that I can't believe it received such a high rating in IMDB. Nevertheless, I appreciate your time and effort in correcting the trivia issue. Thank you. Jtpaladin 17:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

While we're quite sure you would like to believe this, the facts actually point to right-wing ideology; the fascist corporatism and Nazi symbology combined with the name (many neo-Nazi groups have some version of pro-Germanic psychopathology) 'Norsefire'.

Considerigg that Tebbit was always on the extreme right of the Conservative party, even at the height of Thatcherism, he is hardly a suitable arbiter of whether the BNP is right-wing or not. Nick Cooper 19:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Socialist Workers Party the same as Norsefire? Please, obvious troll!!! While these parties have totalitarian tendencies, all of these are lefty parties, which are homophile and multicultural, and not into Aryan mythology like Storm Saxon. Such groups bend over backwards to appease Muslims, even if it means contradicting some of their own stances when dealing with extremer ones. Hardly anti-Koran. --MacRusgail 16:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

p.s. None of you has picked up on the bleeding obvious. Norsefire = NF = National Front, a far better fit than even the BNP, even if it is defunct.

[edit] Trivia

If any of the following is verifiable and important, it should be worked into the article in the appropriate section. A bulleted list of "trivia" is not "Brilliant Prose", which we expect from a featured article. 19:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• The symbol of the Norsefire party is an ancient heraldic symbol called the "Croix de Lorraine". It was adopted as the official symbol of General Charles de Gaulle's Free French Forces between 1940 and 1944. It was later used for various Gaullist political parties in France, notably the RPR (Rally for the Republic). It is also the symbol of the American Lung Association.

• John Hurt, who played Winston Smith in the second film version of George Orwell's 1984, is cast as Adam Sutler who is essentially "Big Brother" in the world of V for Vendetta.

• The scenes that take place in an abandoned London Underground station were actually filmed at Aldwych tube station, a branch from the Piccadilly line that was closed in 1994. The closed branch still contained tracks and current rails, allowing an operational train to be used.

• The final scene was extremely difficult to film due to restrictions placed by the Metropolitan Police Service. The cast and crew were only allowed to shoot in the area near the British Parliament and Big Ben from midnight to 4:30 am. Furthermore, they were only allowed to stop traffic for four minutes at a time.

• During the final scene when the soldiers and the protesters have a confrontation outside The Houses of Parliament the helmets that the soldiers wear are JT brand paintball masks.

• Natalie Portman, who is an Israeli-American, had to work with dialectologist Barbara Berkery in order to perfect her English accent. Berkery has worked with many other famous celebrities, including Gwyneth Paltrow.

• Although Guy Fawkes planned to destroy the Houses of Parliament in 1605, V and Evey destroyed a newer building. The original Parliament buildings were destroyed in a fire in 1834. The current buildings, which are on the same site, took 30 years to build and were finished in 1870.

Wow! I never knew! Thanks.

• Among the features in the special edition's second disk there is an easter egg that is selected on the second page. It is a Saturday Night Live short involving Natalie Portman.

• When V enters the television station, the audience is given a view of his black boots. He then opens his coat dramatically to reveal a vest of explosives. This pays homage to The Matrix, in which Neo enters a government controlled office building in a similar manner.

• In the scenes depicting the story of Valerie, even though the year was 2015, the signs of protest showed the words "Bush is a.." cutting off the final word. These scenes were obviously actual filmed protests of the war in Iraq.

• Among the items in the Shadow Gallery are: several butterfly collections, Buddhist statues, a William Shakespeare bust, Titian's painting Bacchus and Ariadne, Andrea Mantegna's painting Saint Sebastion, a promotional poster for Titanic, and, of course, a Guy Fawkes statue.

• Evey tells V she played Viola from Twelfth Night when she was twelve. Natalie Portman actually did play the role when she was twelve.

[edit] Removal of Trivia section

A recent edit [2] removed the Trivia section, believing it to be unsuitable for a featured article. Personally, I think there's some interesting stuff in there. Is there a guideline in WP:MOS where it specifically states that Trivia sections are not encouraged? --Oscarthecat 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I replaced the Trivia section and i cleaned it up a little. It should be fine now. dposse 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It really isn't fine. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article? for the standards that these articles are held to. If there is non-trivial material that can be properly referenced, work it into the prose, but don't just dump bulleted-list fragments of random facts back into the article. Jkelly 21:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly, see Debbie Downer. --Haizum 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly, that's bullsh*t. Trivia adds to the article, it doesn't take anything away. Please discuss it before removing it again. dposse 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can't bring yourself to type a word without asterisking out a vowel, it probably doesn't belong on a Wikipedia talk page. Regardless, did you read Wikipedia:What is a featured article? This article was vetted as part of the FA process, and there is no consensus that a completely unreferenced bullet list of trivia is an improvement. Please take more care in updating featured articles. Jkelly 22:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This article was promoted as a FA w/o a trivia section. Debbie Downer isn't a FA. I say either merge it into other parts of the article, or get rid of it. - Mailer Diablo 22:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections are perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia articles, and anyone who's edited Wikipedia for more than twenty minutes should be aware of the precedent for it. wikipediatrix 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is precedent for "See also" sections that contain every link already in the article, external link farms, barely comprehensible prose, one sentence WP:LEADs and all sorts of other things. Precedent doesn't equal our "best work". That said, if there is general agreement that people don't want this article to be governed by those requirements, we can bring it to WP:FAR. Jkelly 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So there isn't a specific guideline saying a Trivia section is not encouraged. Also, I'm heartened to see that today's featured article Illmatic contains a Trivia section! --Oscarthecat 03:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I see no need to escalate matters over something Trivial (pun not intended), I've boldly merged the material into other associated articles and removed the duplicates (mentioned at other parts of the article). - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So it looks like someone we know is wrong. Haizum 14:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The information in the triva sections may be encyclepedic, part presenting it in such as fashion is not FA worthy, this has been agreed on numerous times. If its valuable, write about, do not compromise the quality of this article with silly trivia sections. Soapyrules 10:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] refs 23 and 26

are blank. What's up with that? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coalition of the Willing Flag

The coalition of the willing flag is inaccurate. The swastika in the movie is not turned at an angle like the one picutred, i.e. it doesn't look like the Nazi swastika. Can someone verify this?

The real nazi flag has the swastika turned at an angle, so I assume the coalition of the willing flag in the movie also does. If it doesn't then the Wachowski brothers didn't do their homework since the non turned swastika is a sacred Hindu and Buddhist symbol. Gdo01 23:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a screen capture here: http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?image=flagvw9.jpg

I guess you were right. I still wonder why the Wachowski brothers did that. A right-facing flat swastika represents strength and intelligence in Buddhism and represents evil in Hinduism. Maybe this could be it:"an upright black swastika outlined by thin white and black lines on a white disc (e.g., Hitler's personal flag, in which a gold wreath encircles the swastika; the Schutzstaffel; and the Reichsdienstflagge, in which a black circle encircles the swastika)"
Like I said, I don't know why they used that swastika considering the fact that most Nazi party flags use the 45 degree angle right facing swastika.Gdo01 23:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind it either, but it stood out to me the first time I watched the movie which is why I was suprised seeing it at an angle here, and went back to check. I don't do much editing here, so I'm not aware of copyright rules etc., but is it ok if I go ahead and change the flag picture with that screen capture?

The images says that the author created the image. The author on Wikipedia commons [[3]] is "Rabid Fish." Unfortunately, s/he has no Wikipedia account and was last active on Wikipedia Commons on June 20.[[4]] You could make the modifications and I'm pretty sure the original author won't mind since they just used elements of existing flags. You could do the same and call it your own work.Gdo01 00:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I was a bit unclear. I meant to use the picture I had linked to, which is a capture from the DVD.

Well, I don't have an account so I can't upload the picture. If anyone could upload the picture I linked to that would be great. I'm going to go ahead and remove the innacurate flag for now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.64.237 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Sex Pistols references?

Should it be noted that there are two Sex Pistols references in the movie? 1) The "God Save the Queen" painting in Deitrich's collection 2) The robber in the covenience store shouting "Anarchy in The U.K." after taking the money.

[edit] Trivia

Can people please not start trivia sections. This has been talked about, and it really has no place in an encyclepedic article, let alone one with FA status...Soapyrules 10:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken references

Someone has likely deleted information that used an original reference, and as such, the subsequent references to that source are now broken. It is sources 23 and 26. Someone will have to dig through older revisions of the article to get the original source back...Soapyrules 10:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD ==features"

I thought it curious that the single disc edition has a menu item for "features" but when you click on it you only get one "feature", a short video on the making of of the movie. "Features" suggests there is more than one feature, if you get what I am saying JayKeaton 16:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] breakfast

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.

i saw the movie last night and i distinctly remember evey being made breakfast by V, she even mentions it at the gay-tv show guy's house when he makes her the same thing.Qrc2006 02:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In that sentence, they are talking about the graphic novel, in which V does not cook breakfast for her.- JustPhil 11:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1812 Overture

It was foolish of me to ask which part of the overture plays when the Old Bailey explodes. You can't play the crescendo without fireworks or blowing something up (usually). However, the soundtrack music at the opening credits (during the logo part) and part of V's TV speech appears to be the very beginning of the overture.- JustPhil 11:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

People please dont make the plot too long. Its an encyclepedia, not a fan site, its not appropriate to make it so long. Please try to keep it as short as it is now. Sunrise50 08:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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

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”^[1]. 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^[2]. 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)

[edit] 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."^{[citation needed]} 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)

[edit] 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
• [5] 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 (help·info)). 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 (help·info)) 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.

• 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."

• 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Is it just me...

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

[edit] 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 [6] 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[7]) --MacRusgail 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)