Originally Posted by Sleezy
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..
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.
Originally Posted by Sleezy
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...
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.
Originally Posted by Sleezy
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....
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.
Originally Posted by Sleezy
Cinema accepts some directors, and you need to understand that. Stop making generalizations to build your argument.....
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.
Originally Posted by Sleezy
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..
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.
Originally Posted by Sleezy
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...
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.
Originally Posted by Sleezy
Remember what I said about "auteur" theory applying to some directors? Gee, look at that....
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.
Originally Posted by Sleezy
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).
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.
Originally Posted by Sleezy
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.
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.