V for Vendetta

Apparently you are not understanding what the argument is. It is said on the movie poster "an uncompromising vision of the future from the wachowski."

Like the Tick previously pointed out, that is showing that Wachowski made the film. And, therefore, it is being marketed as the wachowski being the primary creative force behind the project.

If you want straw man, look in the mirror.

__________________

You misintrepret what I'm saying. It is said that it is a wachowski vision, that vision is part of what makes them auteurs. Also, being an auteur is not for YOU to decide, there is no hollywood criteria, if someone can make a case, then that case rests as a possible example.


Hello? What does it say on the movie poster? The wachowski are considered the auteur of the project. Regardless of how f*cked up it is.


Good for you, I do not care. The bottomline is that the wachowski are credited for the authorship of the film, either justly or unjustly, therefore something as this happening on the movie poster should not be ignored. Because Directors are considered the ultimate author of the project.


The auteur theory is a theory, and therefore I can support any director who made something to give to the public as an auteur. There is no "big list" of directors, and if one can prove the auteur theory. Then it stands, and, in the end, it becomes personal opinion.



What is the basis for this argument? That Moore's work (which I know about, stop being condescending) will be trivialized? Whatever the case, this movie is being marketed as by ownership of the Wachowski. And Cinema deems that appropriate or else it wouldn't be marketed it that way. Stanley Kubrick never really operated outside of source material, yet he is considered an auteur.


The director is the author of the project. I'm not saying that it is right, or justified, or even FAIR. But what I am saying is that the wachowskis have been credited with the auteur theory according to the poster. And that is acceptable in hollywood. That is what hollywood demands and respects. Regardless of whether or not it is fair is moot and unimportant. I, frankly, look forward to reading the graphic novel when I get it for x-mas, I think it will be good. But do not go off on this idea that a wachowski vision is plagiarism, it is Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork Orange, after all.



Yea, who determines what a director is, you? Well I've certainly got something to back myself up with, and that is the marketing of V for Vendetta as a Wachowski vision that you have pointed out incessantly. Where are we going with this? Are we to begin listing directors who are auteurs and who aren't? I hope not, because that's moot. What is not moot, however, is the topic at hand in which you bring into question the apparent Wachowski ownership as being plagiarised when it is commonly accepted in hollywood and accpeted by the marketers.

So, even if the wachowski do not direct, if that one small bit of verbage at the bottom is true. The Wachowski appear as to have claimed ownership of the vehicle. It is their vision, deemed by hollywood, disagree or agree. Will it be V for Vendetta frame by frame or original? Doesn't matter. Despite the fact that it is based on material, it does not signify ultimate authorship of the project when translated to film. The common accepted theory in hollywood is that directorial control assumes authorship of the project. I revert to Walter HIll's The Warriors, which nearly damnifies Sol Yurick's book in favor of his own movie. He was the author of the Warriors movie, just as the wachowski somewhat appear to be the author of the V for Vendetta vehicle.


Actually the term is denoted to mean authorship. It is used as a marketing tool, but only to generate revenue. It is not simply used for money, it is what is accepted as the what the author does. The author of the film is considered the director, sometimes unfairly, sometimes fairly, all that is moot. The source of this argument is you demanding the reason behind "a wachowski vision". The reason is because the Wachowski, in whatever role they assumed in the movie, became the authors of it. Do not tell me to disagree or agree with this choice, I haven't seen the book nor read the graphic novel. But I can only answer questions as to why this may be, and my answers were factual. Hollywood accepts directors as the auteurs, and since we can debate on directors all day, that point must be shoved aside. I answered fairly to your question, and you proceed to go off on tangents that are all completely opinionated. The only fact that I proclaim to state for certain is that your comment on not giving Moore credit is not out of bounds given what Hollywood does. Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock, they were source material extravaganza. But they were considered the authors of the project. The wachowski, though I do not have full information besides a small snippet of verbage at the bottom of the poster, appear to be taking credit for the film. And the only thing I want to tell you is that this is ok by Hollywood Standards, and, at least by marketing and personal opinion, they are the authors of the project.

Again, many tangents, but just focus on the topic at hand.




Have you seen the Warriors and read the book? Have you seen rear window and read the story?

However, as I"ve stated a milion times, that is all moot.

The only thing I'm trying to prove (anything else stated by me to the contrary gets negated) is that this is ok by Hollywood standards. That's it, that's my point, I'm done, and I'm in the right about it.

Also note that Moore will have to be credited with "based upon or "inspired from" in the credits unless he denoted otherwise. It still doesn't make him the author of the project according to Hollywood whims, however.

You're wrong. Wachowski brothers did make the film and it is your err in confusing that with them being the creative force behind the project. The two are not the same thing.

I'm sure you've watched the Oscars, ever notice how the director isn't always the person who accepts the award for Best Picture? It is the producers who get the award because it is the producers who make the film happen. The director makes the film what it is, but the film couldn't exist without the producers.

So yes, this film is from the Wachowski brothers. The poster/trailer isn't lying to you.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

Also, a final but separate note. The other point I made was that directors are considered the authors of the project unless otherwise denoted and/or proved.

Sedai had said that directors were not the authors, merely the directors. I will not dispute his claim, merely say that this is not the case for hollywood cinema at this time. Directors are considered the authors, and since the auteur theory applies to cinema in these days, him saying that directors weren't the authors was nothing more than a statement of personal opinion.

Furthermore, it has been indicated that the Wachowskis appeared to have made their own vision for the film. I cannot verify this and I operate under the assumption that that statement is in fact, factual.

Finally, I realize that even if the wachowski were not to be directing this picture. If I, under the moot point of operation of previously denoted point posted above, were to assume that they are directors is not the case. But merely that they are the authors operating under said previously indicated point.

In otherwords, The Wachowski, if by what implications arisen from this debate are true, are indeed responsible for the authorship of the film. I am not here to debate that point, merely point out that the auteur theory surrounds them (despite them not being directors) from my apparent percieved view of the situation at hand.

I'll try one more time, the wachowski are the authors of the project according to Hollywood. And Hollywood makes authors out of directors and cases can be made for that theory and against that theory in its entirety. In this instance, as it is marketed, the auteur theory would be correct in assumption that the author of the film is not of the source material, but, the auteur theory would not support that they are the authors of the project being that they are not set to direct.

Finally, I reiterate on my point that this is fraught with minor tangents. And that my goal here was not to question the authorship, merely denote Hollywood's views of cinema and that this is appropo by their standards, even if not by ours.

I would accept this argument had it been pertinent to our discussion at hand. Even so, I will bring up Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window and Stanley Kubrick's A ClockWork Orange.

Also, the auteur theory stands, disagree or agree with it, the oscars have no pertinence here. The bottomline is that my ONLY point is that the wachowskis, if it appears as it is to be so, have made their vision and it stands by weight of Hollywood. It could be something evil, or something great, but ultimately it is ok by hollywood and accepted by hollywood.

I do not expect to repeat myself numerous times, so, if no one makes an argument to what is pertinent I will not take the time to respond.

Then perhaps you should take a minute to read what I, or others, have actually said. Your entire statement is that The Wachowski brothers are the auteurs of this film, is it not? I specifically stated that they are not the creative force behind this film. Would you please care to explain how that is not pertinent to your argument?

So if they are not the creative force behind this film, how are they at all capable of being considered autuers? Let's take a step back:

If this is the entire basis of your argument, then you have no argument. Nowhere on the poster does it state they are the directors of the film, thus that entire prerequisite to being an auteur is gone. They've written the screenplay, yes, they've approved the decisions in the film, yes, but they are simply not capable of being considered auteurs when it comes to this film because they are not the director. Plain and simple.

But even if you want to extend the concept of the auteur theory to people beyond the director (which isn't the intention of the theory, but whatever) it still does not apply to the Wachowski's in this instance. To be an auteur, a person must have a filmography that has a very consistent creative streak throughout that is readily identifiable in said filmography. The first straw in calling them the auteurs of this film is that V for Vendetta shares no creative commons with their first film, Bound. That alone shatters the arguement. But to further deflate your argument - and I haven't seen the film in full - but creatively it looks to share nothing similar to the Matrix trilogy other than one shot of a similar bullet-time trick. The types of characters are different. The costuming is very different. The set design is very different. The language is very different. The cinematography (even the cinematographer) is different.

If all of the above is different, how is it consistent with their other films? And if there is no consistency, how can they possibly be considered auteurs?

But guess what? They're not the primary creative force behind the project. They're adapting a story to film, but like I've stated already, they'd have nothing if Alan Moore hadn't written that story. They've got 80% of the work already done for them.

And next time, you're going to refer to me by my username.

But it isn't their vision. They've taken the story, made it live-action, and now seem to be marketing it as their own. You don't take a drawing of a tree, copy it in clay, and then say it's your vision. You'd be lying.

Creative ownership decides who the author is. We have copyright laws, and copyright laws override "Hollywood criteria." If the Wachowskis claim that the creative vision behind V for Vendetta as their own without crediting Alan Moore, then they've broken copyright laws.

Of course it does. I'm saying it's wrong. I wasn't misinterpreting the poster OR your clarification. I'm arguing for the sake of being vocal that the Wachowskis are doing wrong, and that if Hollywood accepts it - then Hollywood is wrong. The Wachowskis - in every way that's important - are NOT the authors of this project.

Then why in God's name are you arguing? I don't care if the Wachowskis are credited by the studio or by Hollywood as the authors of this project; and frankly, I think the word "author" as it relates to film is a completely useless word. On the poster, it claims that this "uncompromising vision" belongs to the Wachowskis, and I'm calling them liars. They're making the film, releasing it, whatever. They didn't come up with it. They didn't write it. It doesn't belong to them. They should be lucky Alan Moore doesn't sue them for copyright infringement.

No. I don't know where you got that. My argument is this: that the Wachowskis are claiming they came up with something they didn't, and that legal copyright laws override what Hollywood deems appropriate to put on a movie poster.

I already understood that. I'm not a dullard. I didn't need you to tell me that. I'm arguing that "cinema" is wrong.

First, we've established that the Wachowskis aren't directing. So, by "auteur theory," they ain't the authors. Second, "author" is a stupid word to use for film. The Wachowskis may be putting together and presenting the film, but they didn't come up with it (which is the definition of "author"). Third, "auteur theory" does not override copyright laws. They can't claim they created something they didn't, no matter what Hollywood says.

Yes. I knew that before you even said anything.

Disagreed. It is MOST important. You can get sued for claiming authorship that doesn't belong to you.

Yes. Read it. Great book.

Read back over what I was replying to. You claimed that "cinema accepts directors as the authors," and that was a blanket statement. Irvin Kershner directed The Empire Strikes Back. Do you think cinema considers him the "author" of that film? I doubt it.

If Hollywood ran the world, we'd all be up a creek (Joel Silver actually lied about Alan Moore being enthusiastic about working on the film). As I've stated already, the laws dictate what ownership means, not Hollywood. And by law, Alan Moore owns the authorship to V for Vendetta, not the Wachowskis.

You just made that up. Show me where I demanded a reason. I don't need a reason. I don't care why they put that line on there. It's wrong, plain and simple.

I never asked any question. I made arguments that are supported by the copyright laws of this country. You seem to be arguing only that which is evident (that the studio is considering the Wachowskis the creators), and that's no argument at all.

But A Clockwork Orange never used the line "from the mind of Stanley Kubrick" or any alternative. They didn't try to make people believe that he created it. He just directed the damn thing. He gets more press because he was such a high profile director, and everyone associates the story with him. But that does NOT, and will NEVER mean that he is the author. It doesn't matter what Hollywood says. It doesn't matter what your Uncle Frank says. By law, Stanley Kubrick was the director, and nothing more.

Did either of those ever market the films as if they were created by the directors? I doubt it.

Who cares about Hollywood standards? Again, when we're talking about creative ownership, Hollywood standards don't matter.

I'm looking forward to this one. After the letdown of The Island and Aeon Flux, I hope this hits the mark. And I hope Portman can erase the bad taste of her performance in Sith from my mouth.

__________________
My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.

Toche'...sort of. You are the one parroting all sort of auteur theory about the place. What did all that have to do with the poster?

I tire of the verbal barbed wire. Or, perhaps I am just in a really bad mood today...

__________________

Which is what I was responding to, so no, no straw man for me, it's all you. Also, what does this have to do with the poster, if that is all we are supposed to be talking about?

Someone out there still things the Wachowski's are directing the film. Anyways, with all the ramblings that've been going on it's kind of hard for me to quote. Also I'm rather lazy so I'll just get right down to it.

Firstly, I believe, and when I say I believe I hope as well, that the Wachowski Brothers will be smart enough to credit Alan Moore for his origional work. Again I say that I'm sure when the Constantine film was made that they credited Alan Moore for the origional character idea of John Constantine. This has motivated me to check the movie to see if this is true.

Secondly, unless Alan Moore has signed some sort of contract with DC inabling him to take legal action, more than likely he'll sue. Hopefully it won't come to that.

Other than that...ObiWanShinobi, you say you know of Alan Moore's material yet you haven't read the Graphic Novel yet...?

They will certainly be giving a 'based on characters created by' credit to Alan Moore. Hell, it is already listed on the imdb. They lose nothing from putting that credit in the film and if they didn't, I gurantee they'd lose a ton of dough in a legal settlement to the creator(s).

You can't market Alan Moore's name, but you can market the Wachowski's/The Matrix - this is the sole purpose behind the uncomprimising line, it has nothing to do with whether the Wachowski's think this is their original creation or whether they'll credit Moore, it is the marketing department's fiscal decision. It also isn't that big of a deal, as this happens ALL the time with films. Just look at any of the posters for Hostel; Tarantino's name is bigger than the title AND that of the director's.

That doesn't mean anything. On IMDB, they credit what people post, but it won't reflect the final credits until the film is released.

Actually, Joel Silver and the Wachowskis wanted Moore on the project to generate fan interest, and when he said no, they still told everyone that he was "enthusiastic" about working on the project. They flat-out lied just to get everyone excited.

My argument is that the line deliberately suggests to the general public that the story was created by the Wachowskis for the purpose of generating interest, and that doing so violates copyright protection laws.

But the difference is, on the Hostel posters, the tagline reads, "Quentin Tarantino presents." It tells you exactly what he's doing, and on the same poster, it also reads, "written and directed by Eli Roth."

On the early V for Vendetta posters, the tagline reads, "An Uncompromising Vision of the Future From the Creators of The Matrix Trilogy," and that (to me) suggests that the Wachowskis are the creators of the story. Further, those early posters included no mention of Alan Moore or the Vertigo graphic novel from which the story is adapted. Now, I'm looking at newer posters for the film, and I'm only seeing the line, "based upon characters appearing in magazines published by VERTIGO." That looks like a blatant avoidance of mentioning Alan Moore or his graphic novel by name.

Screw the Wachowskis, and screw this movie. I'm not seeing it.

So, are they doing this out of spite of Alan Moore for not signing on to the project and to further Market their film. Are the Wachowski Brothers truely evil?!

The more you say this, the more I don't believe you. Come on, you'll see it. Alan Moore will forgive you...

I never said they were doing this out of spite. They would have marketed this way regardless. And no, I don't think they're evil. They're decent filmmakers (the Matrix sequels notwithstanding), and it seems to me that they make films based on: a) what they think is cool; and b) what might make bank. That's the nature of Hollywood. All I'm saying is, marketing or not, it's low to suggest that you created something you really didn't.

The only other explanation I can think of is that Alan Moore doesn't want his name on the project, and that's why the Wachowskis left it off. But I don't think that's likely. For one, he doesn't have a say (VERTIGO owns the rights), although Alan Moore was credited for both From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. For another, Joel Silver and crew had already lied about Alan Moore's involvement to generate interest, which tells me that the production team is more than a little enthusiastic about ticket sales (enough to be dishonest, at least). That doesn't set a very good precedent.

I don't know why they aren't crediting Alan Moore, or why they're quoting stuff (the tag line, the VERTIGO credit) in so blatantly strategic ways. I just know I don't like it. It rubs me the wrong way.

I've refrained from seeing plenty of films for various reasons. Despite my appreciation for the story, I think I'm more than comfortable with going back and reading the book. I don't need to see the film.

(If I do see the film, though, it'll be because I'm willing to give the film a chance. I'm not saying good product overrides cheap marketing, but they better make the film right. I think they owe it to Alan Moore, for one.)

Maybe, but I wouldn't forgive myself. Alan Moore stated pretty clearly that he didn't like the direction of this film; and you know, that's good enough for me.

Well, I hope everyone had and has a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, a Carefree Kwanza and a most Rambunctious Ramadan! Mine Christmas was really good, lots of Turkey .

Absolutly, and It was a joke I don't actually think the Wachowski's are evil *eye shifts*. Anyways, I'm sure you didn't think the Wachowski's were doing it out of spite it just came across that way I think. I'm just figuring that of the Wachowski's were truely passionate about the project they would credit the original source material.

Perhaps Alan Moore doesn't want his name on the project for the unsuccessful debut of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Either that just saying "based on the characters created by VERTIGO" would generate enough interest for people to buy the Graphic Novel.

Well, you did say that was what Hollywood was like. As for what Joel Silver said, could you perhaps send a link or something where he says Alan Moore was involved.


The way I look at it is this: Any comic book movie (with the exception of Electra) I'm going to see no matter how bad it looks if I'm a fan of the origional character or source material. That's just the way I am. I'll still be upset if they don't credit the source material or change something in the film that's not in the source material, but that's just the way adaptations work.

Well, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was an alright film. C/C+ overall. But yes, compared to the trade(s) they do owe Alan Moore for one. I don't know if that's exactly where you stand.


Has he said anything about the screenplay the Wachowski's wrote?

No he hasn't. What he objected to was the studio saying that he was happy with the film, which he'd never seen, nor was he involved with the making of. Alan Moore doesn't like the idea of his comics being made into films, and has no interest, unlike Frank Miller, in pursuing film work. He's stated this many times. thing is, he doesn't own a lot of his work, so he has no say. I am betting 10 to 1 he wanted to keep his name off the posters, hense the "Based on Characters created by VERTIGO," so that people will not ask him about the film which he had no control over. (I mean look at the rather horrid films based on his creator owned works, From Hell and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I am sure he wishes his name never appeared in the credits of those.)

V for Vendetta could turn out to be a brilliant piece of cinema for all we know, but Alan Moore will never see it, nor will he ever want to. He's that stubborn. lol.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Right here:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/co...g&article=2153

I'm the same way, only I like seeing the original author get credited for the story. Good movie or not, I don't like seeing someone else take the credit.

What I meant by that wasn't that he deserves a good film after two bad ones. League and From Hell were not the Wachowskis fault. But if they're going to adapt a story, it is their responsibility to do it right (and I'm talking about leaving the overall message of the story intact in the translation, which is the most important thing).

Actually, he has. He read a shooting draft, and criticized it. You can read some of his thoughts in the link posted above.

Well, after reading this article it seems to me he doesn't want his name to be mentioned on the project. You've probably already stated this but if not it's what I got from it.

Absolutly, I agree. It also seems that they arn't doing a good job adapting the story because Alan Moore has stated there many plot holes in the screenplay.

From the January 2006 issue of Rolling Stone:

Well, that's good enough for me. Unless he's been misquoted, it seems clear that Alan Moore requested his name be removed from the film's credits. That makes me feel better. I stand corrected, and I'll be happy to see the film.

(On an unrelated note, this segment comes from an article about the current unknown whereabouts of Larry Wachowski. Apparently, he has delved into the BDSM community, left his wife for a porn star, changed his name to "Laurenca" - and possibly more than that - and has since retreated from the public eye. Bizarre.)