V for Vendetta

That comic would be awesome as a movie but I would like M oore to be involved in the production.

__________________
"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." -Patton 1970

New trailer here.

the last hour is where all of the twist and turns happen man....rent it and watch it.

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.

The new trailer looks very well done. Visually it made it seem both believable and extrordinary. Yet I felt the trade had more of a simplistic nature to it than the look of this trailer.

It seems that the focused will be on action shots (Not suprising considering the Wachowski Brothers are writing the screenplay) which can be a good thing, but may take away from seeing the human side of V.

For example, one section in the trade is where V is talking to a statue of Lady Liberty if I recall. I felt that in this section of the Trade was the one where the reader truely knows what kind of character V is and why he is going against the government, not saying they should include this .

The scene in which he walks into the television studio and broadcasts his speech to London better be verbatim. That's some of the best writing you'll find in the novel.

I'm equally apprehensive about this film's direction. It looks like they're enthusiastic enough about the story, but I hope they don't put too much of it through the Wachowski filter. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I fear the Wachowskis are looking more at one aspect of the story, and less at all the others. It's a complex work with complex themes and meanings, and all should be represented. If they're not, then it isn't exactly V for Vendetta.

Directors are considered the author of the project. If you disagree, change your thoughts on the auteur theory and start including source material, script writers, cinematographers, editors, producers and everyone else when giving credit to a movie.

__________________

Do a little research before you say something:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/093...lance&n=283155

okay, what exactly is this movie about?

__________________

A totalitarian government is running England, and a mysterious vigilante called "Codename: V" starts working on bringing it down. He rescues Evey, a disheveled prostitute, and takes her in. That's the basic premise.

No they aren't, they are considered the director, hence the title of...director. Authors write, and most directors don't write at all. If you were simply stating YOU consider directors to be authors of the film they direct, that is fine. Well, it's wrong, but it's ok for you to believe that. So, why isn't the film's writer considered the "author" of the film? Seeing as how they, you know, wrote the film, wouldn't they be considered the author of the film? If films could have an author, that is, which they can't, because books have authors, and films have writers. The books that some films were adapted from, now they have authors. Like say, V for Vendetta, which was written by one Mr. Alan Moore, who was the author.

Oh, wait we were talking about directors....

Yeah, they aren't authors.

__________________

obiwan, u just got smacked down. and rightly so. the producer..produces the movie. The director directs the movie. The writer, writes the movie. Is this making sense yet?

thanks

Sorry to take the level of the conversation down a few notches ( can't help it, it's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it ) but how hot does Natalie Portman look as a skinhead?
Me likey!!!

__________________
Hey Pepe, would you say I have a plethora of presents?


Toga, toga, toga......


Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour?

I don't think it's all that attractive...

...but then, I know why her head gets shaved in the story, and it isn't pleasant.

Well I have done a little research, and that research was in taking a film studies class and doing a final paper using the auteur theory as guidelines.

I know very well that V for Vendetta exists as a graphic novel, but the director is considered the author of the project. In otherwords, he or she makes the film mean something, and that product is an ultimate result of his or her whim. Regardless of source material.

You do not have to agree with the auteur theory, I certainly don't. But the bottomline is that Cinema accepts the directors as the authors of the project, something that you need to accept as well. Thusly, when you see "an uncompromising vision of the future from the wachowski bros." you can understand that that is what cinema accepts as appropriate. Again, I'm not here to play sides, I'm merely showing you what is allowed. Now, perhaps, you yourself can do some research and change things.

Here is a quote from the text I used:
Definition of Auteur
-The conventional general conception in film studies of an auteur is the presumed or actual “author” of a film, usually identified as the director.

-In Hollywood productions, the claim of some directors as auteurs is an important marketing tool, and therefore this status lends to the business aspects of distributing movies and in turn the profit. So this examination in film studies called auteuris very important not only for film, but also for any kind of corporate marketing and even individuals marketing themselves in the professional world regardless of the job. The attraction to the idea of an auteur is very similar, in Hollywood terms, to that of stars and fame.

-Fame is not specific to the entertainment industry: Stephen Hawkings, John Nash, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, politicians, journalists, athletes. Any others non-entertainment famous people?

-When I use the term “Author” it is the same as Auteur.



•Brief history of the Auteur theory

-Individuals and institutions affect history, but so do ideas!

-One of the most influential ideas in cinema history is the belief that a director is most responsible for a film’s form, style and meaning.

-Side note: Film form and Style?

-What is Form? The story and the narrative structure (discussed first third of this semester)

- What are some examples of the Stylistic System? Technical elements in a film such as editing, sound, cinematography, acting, props, etc. (discussed second third of this semester)

-Together they form the total mode of a film, and in turn what we see and hear in a theater or TV

-Since the mid-1940s, French Directors, screenwriters and critics quarreled over who is considered the author of a film. Major film production has been around since 1900s, so why specifically did this argument occur during the late 1940s?

-The devastation during WWI & WWII paused the growth in academic scholarship

-Sound film started to develop since mid-1920s

-The film industry just started to distribute sync-sound cinema

-Eventually, the “talkies” depended heavily on a solid script with extensive dialogue in order to exploit the gimmick of sync-sound



-Controversies in the idea and issues of Authorship in film production

-During the 1950s the French monthly magazine Cahiers Du Cinema (cinema notebook) began pushing the auteur approach.

-The magazine’s writers, especially a critic (and later filmmaker) named Francois Truffaut argued that genuine auteurs should compose or at least control their scripts

-During late 50s and 60s, the Cahiers critics went further and argued that some “great” directors in Hollywood had managed to express their vision in film without having any say in the screenplay

-These arguments created controversies in film scholarship, but this policy of treating any director with a personal style or a distinct worldview as an auteur was quickly taken up internationally

-In early 1960s, American critic Andrew Sarris began formulating what he called the “auteur theory” as a way of understanding U.S. film history



•Methodologies of the Auteur theory

-Generally, auteur criticism promotes an examination of the stylistic system

-distinguishing each filmmaker by emphasizing on how he/she constructs a film

-i.e. editing, cinematography, other production techniques, etc.



•Counterpoints to the Auteur theory

-Construction of a feature film is tied to modes of production in the society as a whole.

-Because of the technological requisites of production, cinema began in the most highly industrialized societies such as US, Germany, France, England, and Russia.

-In these countries filmmaking quickly became a business for both rich individuals and corporations.

-Studio film production tends to occur when countries have achieved division of labor in other manufacturing industries.

-In US and Europe, separation of production planning, such as specialized labor & division of labor, had been accomplished by 1900, and the same separation emerged in the film industry in the subsequent decade.

-This modeling of film production from economic practice leads to the roles of a film crew: Director, Writer (sometimes the director also writes the script) Editor, Cinematogrpaher, Producer, Film music composer.

-There are also many technicians that carry out orders from the director and D.P.

-Gaffer, who is responsible for rigging lights.

-Grip: responsible for laying down tracks, sets, etc,.

-Boom operator: holds the pole that has a microphone attached to it.

-Assistant Director, Production Assistant, Producer’s Assistant, etc



-So who really is the author: the director or screenwriter?

-If authorship is defined by control and decision making in the studio production environment who is the author?

-The writer? In Hollywood, the writer’s scripts may be completely transformed in filming, so is this a situation of collective authorship because a writer inevitably works with the director?

-No, since studio division of labor denies film workers common goals and shared decision making.

-if we take into consideration that authorship is also defined by personal style, then the matter of defining the author becomes even more complicated due to that division of labor.

-For example, cinematographers leave recognizable traces.

-Swen Nykfist’s unfailing use of tripod and door framing

-editors also have a lot of control of the finished film, because that’s where the series of shots are connected to complete the film

-Masy Hoi has edited for some big names in Independent cinema such as Robert Altman. She was the editor for major Hollywood films such as What Dreams May have Come. She has been in situations where the director and producer were not present during most of the editing sessions.


I think it is pretty obvious I couldn't make this up.

(Btw I've just owned Sedai, Equillibrium, and the Tick)

Actually, know you haven't. You have just wasted a bunch of time not making sense.

Are all films auteur projects? Is the film we are talking about an autuer project? is the director of V for Vendetta being touted as "the primary creative force" behind the film? No, he isn't. He isn't an auteur, and that argument has no relevance to V for Vendetta.

Captain straw man strikes again... Your argument about auteur theory is rock solid, but we were talking about V for Vendetta.

Yes, in some cases of auteur film, the director could be considered the author of the film (but again, not the concepts originally drawn in the source material), so you make a valid point about the term author being used when speaking about a director, but that just doesn't apply to most directors.

It also doesn't apply to V for Vendetta


Not looking to own anyone, Obi. Just wanted one of my favorite writers to get the credit he deserves.

No. In this particular case, the director is considered the director of the project. In "auteur" theory, the director is considered the author when the vision is his, and when his creative control spans the majority of the project (David Lynch and M. Night Shyamalan could be considered "auteur" directors). The director of V for Vendetta is James McTeigue, not the Wachowskis. The Wachowskis have penned the screenplay, but it is an adapted screenplay. Alan Moore wrote the original novel, which means the Wachowskis wouldn't be making this film had he never created and published the story. The "uncompromising vision of the future" belongs to Alan Moore, not the Wachowskis.

No. They wouldn't have a product, nor a film that meant something, if the source material wasn't there. They can show their own interpretations, of course, but they can't pass it off as if they came up with the story.

I agree with it so long as it applies. More and more directors are taking charge of their films. In old Hollywood, we'd be talking about Merian Cooper and Cecil B. DeMille. But the Wachowskis seem to enjoy notoriety, and I believe they've insinuated to the general public that this story is their vision, which it most certainly is not. I'm wondering if they'll even credit Alan Moore and the graphic novel in the opening credits. If they don't, I'm walking right out of the theater.

Cinema accepts some directors, and you need to understand that. Stop making generalizations to build your argument.

Cinema does not deem what is appropriate when the author of a work is concerned. That's why this is just a theory, and why it is only applied when appropriate. Make no mistake, this project is not an original one. It is adapted by a graphic novel that was published twenty-two years ago. If there were suitable grounds for a lawsuit for copyright infringement, who do you think would be setting the standards? Not Hollywood. The courts get to decide.

Author of the "film," it says. The film. Which means the film is not above the source material, as you previously claimed. "An uncompromising vision of the future," in my opinion, refers to the story - and the story does NOT belong to the Wachowskis.



Remember what I said about "auteur" theory applying to some directors? Gee, look at that.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi

and therefore this status lends to the business aspects of distributing movies and in turn the profit.

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi

So this examination in film studies called auteur

The term, it seems, has nothing to do with creative license, either. The "autuer" theory applies to marketing (so that a studio can use the phrase "a film by M. Night Shyamalan" to attract more viewers and make more money).

This is all good stuff, but none of it applies. The Wachowskis didn't write V for Vendetta. Alan Moore did. The argument of authorship ends there. The Wachowskis wrote the film, obviously, but it is NOT their "vision." It is the adapted vision of Alan Moore, the man who wrote the story from scratch. If he never wrote the novel, then they would never have written the film.

I'm pretty sure they would credit the origional writing material. When the Constantine film was made I think Alan Moore was credited for creating the origional character.

But let's just leave that possibility open that they don't credit Alan Moore, I don't think I would walk right out of the theatre (after paying 10$ for it and getting my friends together). I would do a series of things, including posting on this forums about it, writing an email or several to the production company or wait hoping that the error was fixed.

Anyways, I just thought the discussion was getting a little off topic.

Strange how the characters creator never penned a single issue.

1. Jamie Delano (#1-#40)
2. Grant Morrison (#25-#26)
3. Neil Gaiman (#27)
4. Garth Ennis (#41-83)
5. Eddie Campbell (#85-88)
6. Paul Jenkins (#89-128)
7. Warren Ellis (#134-143)
8. Darko Macan (#144-145)
9. Brian Azzarello (#146-174)
10. Mike Carey (#175 to date)

Nice run of writers though...

I was thinking that walking out of the theater for that might be a little rash, but after thinking a little more, I'd probably still do it. I'm a writer, and I know the importance of being credited for my own work. Not crediting Moore would denote a complete lack of respect for the author (AND for the original material) on the part of the Wachowskis, and I don't think I could sit through the charade. In fact, I would feel obligated - as someone who supports creator's rights very strongly - to boycott it altogether.

But, this is all supposition anyway. I'm not expecting the Wachowskis to include OR omit the credit to Alan Moore, so we'll see.