Please don't watch "V for Vendetta"

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LordMaul

Lifer
Nov 16, 2000
15,168
1
0
OP: :thumbsup:

Nice job. I'll see the movie anyway out of couriosity, but I'll watch for the things you pointed out. Sounds like what I expected, more bullsh!t from Hollywood - nothing new, really. But don't worry, I won't be seeing it in theaters. The Wachowskis can forget about getting my $8.50+.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
Originally posted by: LordMaul
OP: :thumbsup:

Nice job. I'll see the movie anyway out of couriosity, but I'll watch for the things you pointed out. Sounds like what I expected, more bullsh!t from Hollywood - nothing new, really. But don't worry, I won't be seeing it in theaters. The Wachowskis can forget about getting my $8.50+.
You right wingers need to take a break, it's a movie based of a comic book. If you are trying to pull politics out of a comic book movie... well no wonder you elected the king of "Peeance Freeance".
 

coomar

Banned
Apr 4, 2005
2,431
0
0
I just read the comic book and then wikipedia article about the differences between the two and I don't see what the argument is

you should be able to tell there isn't a huge difference in what some people define as terrorism and what others see as revolutionary

Calling V a terrorist means calling the founding fathers of the US terrorists

the difference is in the motivation, it isn't terrorism when your motivation is the freedom and liberty

the terrorists acts against the US & UK were tyranical, striving to reduce freedom and liberty (and succeding)
 

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: edro
Originally posted by: notfred
Your post made me want to watch it more.

BTW, most of us here are adult enough to make up our own minds about the information presented to us, without having our movies/books/games/etc be pre-screened for content by you or anyone else.
Zactly. It's a movie... for entertainment. It's not made to brainwash us.

Sorry, but I disagree. Most of Hollywood is liberal. I believe that Hollywood has an agenda. Brokeback Mountain anyone?


Brokeback Mountain was about making money. Hollywood is about making money. Brokeback Mountain was about getting a buzz going for a movie that only cost $15 million to make. They knew that conservatives would be clenching their teeth and giving it all the free pub that it would need to make everyone involved in the production rich. Ban the film in some God fearing places - whatever. All it meant was that every daily major newspaper carried a story about how the movie got banned. Conservatives are their own worse enemy sometimes.
 

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: BDawg

You mean unlike the current conservative movement that tried to get its base out by offering anti-homosexual laws and faith based initiatives for the Christians?

Just another conservative trying to appear as the oppressed. Nothing to see here, move along.

Before, I wanted to see the movie because I thought it would be fun. Now I want to see it because it will piss people off.

Bravo and good catch. Just another conservative trying to play up victim status. Follow the OP's comments - they are filled with the typical conservative hypocrisy.

Knowing that this movie pisses of conservatives is reason enough for me to go see it.
 

ManSnake

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
4,749
1
0
I should have read this post earlier. The movie sucked. I hated how he never showed his face!!! All I wanted was to see his face!!! :|
 

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez


I'm behind you Ichinisan in regards to the POV of the movie (if what you say is true, haven't seen it yet). I consider myself a tolerant conservative as well. **the following isn't meant to be a chauvinistic remark, so if that's how you take it, you have your "freedom of belief** Liberals remind me of women, they try to set double standards for themselves. Women expect men to be chivilrous, yet expect to be treated equally in the work place. Liberals demand all this free speech, same way liberals cry that our government isn't giving the liberties and siding with the radical islamists who want to murder people for defaming mohammad in a cartoon, yet say that the pi** Christ is freedom of speech.

Explain to me exactly what a tolerant conservative is. Live and let live - is that the ticket? Then you would be a Libertarian. Nothing wrong with that - Libertarians have some principles that they won't sell down the road for anybody.

And also show me a liberal that sides with the radical muslim wackos who were rioting over a cartoon. And Piss Christ is free speech, just like whatever venom Colter regurgitates is free speech. And you're damn right that I ( a liberal) want free speech, and would die if necessary to protect both mine and your right of free speech. If you don't like it a piece of art or a movie or a book, don't look at it, watch it or read it, as apropriate. And whether you like it or not, if a American citizen just happens to be muslim, that citizen is entitled to all the rights that any American citizen is entitled to. That my friend is the Bill of Rights and the other subsequent amendments to the Constitution. If you have a problem with that - I suggest you take it up with the authors - James Madison, et al.
 

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: BMdoobieW
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
usa todays review just said it wasn't a good movie, no matter what "discussion" its supposed to start. i'll wait for dvd. the fact that the bastards left a bad taste in my mouth with matrix 2-3 doesn't help either, i don't trust em.

yeah, matrix reloaded and matrix re-whatever sucked. Okay, the soundtrack was decent.
Sheesh, 2 & 3 weren't THAT bad!


They were pretty bad, especially in comparison to the first.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,390
9,961
136
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Again, you need to read up on fascism. Completely fictional? Read up on Germany's National Socialist Worker's Party circa 1933-1945.
Fascism is a leftist movement. A collectivist movement by definition.
OK, ripped straight from Wikipedia:

Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"[1]. The American Heritage Dictionary instead describes it as "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."[2].

Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He said in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:

"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State." [3]

Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

Stanley Payne's Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980) uses a lengthy itemized list of characteristics to identify fascism, including the creation of an authoritarian state; a regulated, state-integrated economic sector; fascist symbolism; anti-liberalism; anti-communism [4]. A similar strategy was employed by semiotician Umberto Eco in his popular essay Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt[5]. More recently, an emphasis has been placed upon the aspect of populist fascist rhetoric that argues for a "re-birth" of a conflated nation and ethnic people[6].

Many scholars hold that fascism as a social movement employs elements from the political left, but eventually allies with the political right, especially after attaining state power. See: Fascism and ideology.

Dude, Wiki is written by people, not "unbiased" scholars. Liberalism is all about taking individual rights away; it transfers power from the individual to the government, which they dub "people" to make it sound like they're noble. Capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. This is threatened when the "working class" (i.e. lazy people who just want an easy job or mooch off government) gets together and overthrows the individual. First they get rid of religion (personal freedom is a God given right) then they start confiscating private assets and make them state owned. That's communism. An alternative is to jack up tax rates so the government ends up taking anything anyways. This is called "socialism."

People forget corporations are owned by a group of individuals. Blaming corporations is essentially blaming people. Socialism and communism are most close to facism than a democratic capitalism.
Standard conservative argument is to attack the source. Nevermind that the wiki I quoted is from MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY and MUSSOLINI HIMSELF, THE ONLY GUY TO LEAD A TRUE FASCIST GOVERNMENT!!!

 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,390
9,961
136
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Again, you need to read up on fascism. Completely fictional? Read up on Germany's National Socialist Worker's Party circa 1933-1945.
Fascism is a leftist movement. A collectivist movement by definition.
OK, ripped straight from Wikipedia:

Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"[1]. The American Heritage Dictionary instead describes it as "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."[2].

Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He said in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:

"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State." [3]

Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

Stanley Payne's Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980) uses a lengthy itemized list of characteristics to identify fascism, including the creation of an authoritarian state; a regulated, state-integrated economic sector; fascist symbolism; anti-liberalism; anti-communism [4]. A similar strategy was employed by semiotician Umberto Eco in his popular essay Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt[5]. More recently, an emphasis has been placed upon the aspect of populist fascist rhetoric that argues for a "re-birth" of a conflated nation and ethnic people[6].

Many scholars hold that fascism as a social movement employs elements from the political left, but eventually allies with the political right, especially after attaining state power. See: Fascism and ideology.
What part about collectivist do you not understand? Your versions of "left" and "right" only work if one assumes that collectivist ideologies are all that exist.

Fascism, as created by Mussolini, was corporatist socialism.

Fascism, as practiced by Hitler, was nationalist socialism.

Liberalism != communism (or socialism). The word "liberal" comes from liberty, and accurately describes the libertarian ideals of Locke, Jefferson, etc. NOT the pseudo-socialist bullsh!t that people think is liberalism today. Liberalism is an individualist ideology, meaning it places the needs of individuals above those of the state. It does not allow the ends to justify the means, as means are ends unto themselves.

My advice to AT'ers this week has been to believe what you see, not see what you believe. Try it sometime.
Because fascism isn't a collectivist movement at all, not in the traditional sense at least. Fascism is about "might makes right" and "superior people/races/states get the spoils". That is fundamentally opposite to what socialism and communism (i.e. 'leftist' ideologies) preach.

 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
OP:


From what I have rad, your post reeks of fear: fear of misinterpretation, fear of generalization, and fear of marginalization.

I see this from both sides of the political arena. They both nip at all our fears until they find a juicy one to cling to.

Politics has the potential to be good, but from posts like yours, all I see is an attempt to restrict out of fear.
 

Wags1974

Member
Feb 6, 2005
197
0
0
Awful lot of drama over a hollywood remake of a 20 yr old comic book. Guess, ill go find them in my collection might finally be worth something.

 

Shiizu

Member
Feb 17, 2006
141
0
0
Originally posted by: Ichinisan
Originally posted by: Eeezee
The movie was well-done. The main character, V, did not have as much development as I would have liked, but the movie served its purpose very well; entertainment.

Honestly, what about this movie was bad? The effects were great. The story was great (it's difficult to screw up a successful comic book series). The acting was great. The camera work was great. The beginning and ending were excellent (the most important parts to any movie).

You can't really compare the movie to anything going on in politics right now. I'm surprised that a conservative of all people went through the trouble of making such a relation. It's obvious that our government has very little in common with the government in this movie. It's true that our government has some similarities with fascism. You're in absolute ignorance if you're going to waste time denying that. However, claiming that the movie was a bash against the US government because of these few similarities is really just grasping at straws.

If you dislike this movie, then why aren't you being critical of 1984 or the original novels? Yes, I know, you claim that they have drastically altered the original storyline. Did you actually read the original comics? Your outright denial of the similarities is proof that you didn't read the comics at all (or that you weren't paying any attention as you read them).

The movie was based on the comics. Go send angry letters to the authors or something. Telling people to not see this movie because you have a skewed political viewpoint is an unhealthy attitude. This is ATOT, most of us are smart enough to make our own decisions even though this movie really doesn't say anything about American conservatives.

Did you realize when you posted that people with go watch the movie and their jaw will drop when they see what you have said?

Every moment where a character has an epiphany or develops a conviction, the audience hears dramatic music and doesn't know what the hell is going on. That is absolutely terrible movie-making. The ending of the movie:

I didn't see any reason to believe that the fascist government propaganda system did not adequately defame the terrorist enough to sway public opinion? They attributed viral diseases and explosions to him and the people had no reason to believe otherwise. The viewer is expected to believe that all the people who have been brainwashed into believing that the terrorist is responsible for so many deaths. Then then, the final clichéd scene shows not a single soul that does not support the "terrorist". If the public was so completely supportive, why was it that NONE of the guards and officials had changed their mind? Oh. Their not people. They're evil because they work for the evil "conservative" government.

This movie blatantly said that the US was responsible for the state of their goverment and the rest of the world. If you missed that, you need to watch the movie again. I'm sorry I don't have clips for you, but you'll want to revise your statement the next time you watch the movie or look extremely silly.

[edit]
Almost forgot to quote Eeezee. Sorry, Ephemeral.
[/edit]

The audience when I saw it did not seem to have a problem. Even my 13 year old niece understood what was happening. And the fact that there was wild applause at the end
makes me suspect you are speaking only for yourself and a few, shall we say, wackjobs ;)
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
Originally posted by: Tab
Your posts makes me want to see the movie, thanks. I'll make up my own damn mind.

Ooohhh.....Mr. Opposite!

OK then- Go see the movie! It's great! You'll love it! (Let's see if that works :) )
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
Originally posted by: ManSnake
I should have read this post earlier. The movie sucked. I hated how he never showed his face!!! All I wanted was to see his face!!! :|
Yah, cause revealing the face has NEVER been done before!!!
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
I think I'll see it next week...friends gave it good reviews last night.

"Fresh" rating at rottentomatoes.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: Tab
Your posts makes me want to see the movie, thanks. I'll make up my own damn mind.

Ooohhh.....Mr. Opposite!

OK then- Go see the movie! It's great! You'll love it! (Let's see if that works :) )

I'll see the movie, but I'll still make up my own mind. I wanted to see but they had to delay it due to the damn london bombings... so lame...
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Despite the examinings of the potential satirical pseudo-political message that may or may be present in an attempt to subtly undermine the collective conscious of the American people and subvert them away from the conservative party, we've yet to propose the most pressing question at hand (or, if we have, I've yet to see it among the pages of diatribe)...

Portman boobage or not?
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Despite the examinings of the potential satirical pseudo-political message that may or may be present in an attempt to subtly undermine the collective conscious of the American people and subvert them away from the conservative party, we've yet to propose the most pressing question at hand (or, if we have, I've yet to see it among the pages of diatribe)...

Portman boobage or not?

It was asked...and answered. No Portman boobage, just nipplage poking out at her shirt in one scene. Lots of nasty rotting corpse boobage in one scene though.