V for Vendetta (film)

[lovingboth]

Hmm, yes, this is good.

Never having read it, I've looked up some of the differences between it and the orginal, and I can see why some people don't like them, but as a standalone film, it Works with some fabulous performances.

Having said that, at a couple of points, you do need to not so much suspend disbelief as give it to some piggies with wings to take on a flight.

When you have something highly unlikely in your film, you have a few choices:

• Spend half the film dealing with it, and spoil the film - e.g. Inspector Gadget. In the cartoon series, he's just there, and we don't care where he came from or how he got his powers. The film spends half its time on an unbelievable creation story


• What do you expect, this is a 'so impossible, but true' film! The hero isn't mad, he really has been transported to another world.


• Ignore it - even the incredibly dire Thunderbirds film didn't bother to explain just how they created the Thunderbirds without anyone noticing


• Use it to advance the plot - Hitchcock did this all the time


• Make a joke of it - e.g. Halloween III, the villian is supposed to have stolen part of Stonehenge, and got it to California. Hmm, sounds difficult. What he says: "Oh, we had a time getting it here." Acknowledge the problem, don't give any unecessary details = we accept it


• Just claim to have done it - erm...

Here, we're expected to believe that someone on a one-man mission managed, without being detected, to re-open part of permanently closed tube system, and in particular, a tube line underneath what we've already had established is a seriously guarded Houses of Parliament.

I don't care that every Londoner knows the line shown goes nowhere near Parliament - LU don't let you film just anywhere - but come on...

Ditto the satirical TV programme. Ditto the mass courier delivery.

Comments

[purplerabbits.livejournal.com]

your lj-cut is bust...

[lovingboth]

Oops, so it is. Sorry. It'd help if LJ tags had a consistent grammar.

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

The satirical tv program is either a double, editing or cgi I assumed - the Lord Chancellor is noticeably much younger than he appears in the rest of the film.

As for the tube line, when the omic was written there was no Jubilee line, so it's an allowable guess at the future. As it stands this is an alternative 'present', so a slight re-arrange of past engineering decisions is fine by me.

[lovingboth]

It's not having someone double / triple for the Chancellor that I don't believe, it's that in a facist one party state with a secret police listening in to as many people as it can, where even top police think they're being bugged, they'd be able to make the programme (we already know it's not live) and get it all on air without anyone running off to tell Tim Piggot-Smith.

Now, if they had TP-S or even someone shot from behind saying 'Yes, I know. Let it go on air...'

Not going via Westminister, certainly. Does the original use a Circle / District line train or do it another way? As I say, I'm not objecting to them shooting it at Aldwych / Strand - virtually everyone does - but to the idea that he can reopen at least a mile of tube line. By himself. Without being noticed.

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

But it is supposed to have taken him twenty years.

[foibey.livejournal.com]

You should read the comic. It's good. With relatively little by way of plot-holes (beyond the sort of plot holes all stories with superheros have, and it doesn't even have that many of those). And a load of things about the graphic novel medium make it a bit more consistent (apparently).