Talk:V for Vendetta (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 5, 2006.
Article Milestones Date Process Result April 30, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 8, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 23, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted January 27, 2007 Featured article review Kept Current Status: Featured 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 summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the V for Vendetta (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives /Archive 1: March 2006 /Archive 2: April 2006 /Archive 3: April 2006 /Archive 4: April 2006 - June 2006 /Archive 5: July 2006 - December 2006

	To-do list:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Feature Article Nomination A detailed description of the contents of the V for Vendetta: Special Edition DVD should be added to the article.

Contents 1 I'm looking for some lines from this film 2 Orphaned points 2.1 Novelization 3 An award! Congratulations! 4 The letter V and the number 5 4.1 Arbitrary OR section break 4.2 Line by Line 5 Great Timing! 6 Freedom Fighter 7 Vandelism 8 Ending 9 Vandalism 10 Terrorist or Freedom Fighter? 11 Split off "Differences between the film and graphic novel"? 12 Is it just me... 13 Discussion of imagery 14 Some concerns from feature article review 15 Differences between the film and graphic novel and The letter V and the number 5 (aka list vs. text) 16 Norsefire = NF = National Front 17 Portman only Non-British Cast member? 18 V for Vendetta as an anti-modernist film 19 Article at Featured Article Review 20 Michael Medved 21 Graphic Novel: Evey Prostitute Reference 22 Possible copyright problems 23 Someone removed some key references from the article 24 Comments on the Cast Section 25 Aliteration 26 Note on FAR 27 Moore's comments 28 Not with eyes. There were no eyes. 29 V = Valerie? 30 error? 31 Recent change to "The letter V and the number 5" section

[edit] I'm looking for some lines from this film

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

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

Gloster

Richard III

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

My first time on Wikipedia. Please be gentle.

[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]

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

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

[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.

[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] 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
• [1] in wikiquote
• The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus. by Christopher Marlowe

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

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

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

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

-Explicitly shown in the film

• See the Larkhill thing.

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

-In retrospect, this needed a reference. Sorry.

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

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

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

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

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

• In addition to that if you you can go to Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) and hear the 1st 4 notes or you can listen to this (listen (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)

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

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

[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 [2] It is likely also a representation of children playing "Ring Around the Rosy", a game which, according to popular belief, involves a rhyme derived from the symptoms and effects of the black death, although this has been proven to not be the true source of the rhyme."

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

This also has been removed:

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

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

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

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

[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)

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

[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)

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

[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)

[edit] Possible copyright problems

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

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

84.245.182.214 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Someone removed some key references from the article

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

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

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

[edit] Comments on the Cast Section

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

[edit] Aliteration

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

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

[edit] Note on FAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Moore's comments

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

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

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

[edit] Not with eyes. There were no eyes.

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

you didnt really understand the movie, did you?

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

[edit] V = Valerie?

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

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

[edit] error?

Shouldn't the following:

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

Read as the following:

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

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

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

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