Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Announcements

V For Vendetta Delayed until March 2006 302

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the on-hold dept.
datemenatalie writes "According to Sci Fi Wire, V for Vendetta, originally slated to open on Nov. 4, has been pushed back to next March. The film stars Natalie Portman and was written by Matrix creators Andy and Larry Wachowski. This delay comes as quite a blow not only to expectant fans, but also to the marketing campaign of the film, as the clever tagline tie-in 'Remember, remember the 5th of November' is decidedly weaker when you attempt to rhyme it with March 17th."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

V For Vendetta Delayed until March 2006

Comments Filter:
  • by chill (34294) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @06:49PM (#13351598) Journal
    And just pull it back 2 days for release.

      -Charles
    • by WIAKywbfatw (307557) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @07:04PM (#13351708) Journal
      The lead character in V for Vendetta, V, is basically Guy Fawkes, albeit in a contemporary dystopian setting. Now, you may not know it, but Guy Fawkes was one of the conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament, on November 5th, 1605.

      So, a November 5th release is very appropriate for V for Vendetta, especially as this year is the 400th anniversary of the plot. Releasing the film in March 2006 doesn't have quite the same marketing effect or poignancy.

      I've commented on V for Vendetta in its original comic book form on Slashdot many times. I won't bother to drudge up what I've written elsewhere but I will summarise it all here: V for Vendetta is one of if not the greatest comic ever written, and there is no way that any film adaptation will ever do it justice.

      My advice to anyone who will go to watch the film is read the original first and let that blow you away before you watch whatever butchery the story has to undergo to suit the media of film and the tastes of Hollywood execs.
      • by Txiasaeia (581598) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @07:17PM (#13351778)
        "V for Vendetta is one of if not the greatest comic ever written, and there is no way that any film adaptation will ever do it justice."

        I would have said the same thing about Sin City two years ago, and I would have been dead wrong.

        • by \\ (118555) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @07:33PM (#13351861) Homepage
          Frank Miller was 100% involved with the Sin City movie.

          Alan Moore has nothing to do with the V for Vendetta movie (his choice), Fate has been changed to be a shock jock, Evey isn't going to be caught selling herself to start the film, in the film there are a great many people dressed like V all being unhappy with the government together (which is always funny, anarchists being anarchists together). The list of ridiculous changes from the comic to the movie is somewhat long.

          If you have any love for the comic, you'll be most displeased with the movie.
        • by WIAKywbfatw (307557) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @07:39PM (#13351905) Journal
          Look at how V for Vendetta is set out. Look at the chapter styling, the poetry, etc. How do you translate those elements to film without losing 90 percent of your audience?

          The answer is you can't do it, so you don't even try to do it, and, consequently, much of the depth of the story is lost. V for Vendetta is perhaps the least superficial comic that you could ever hope to come across, yet film is perhaps our most superficial medium. It is inevitable that much of what makes V for Vendetta such an outstanding piece of work will be lost in translation.

          I'd even go as far as to suggest that certain parts of the story that involve action rather than worlds will be diluted to suit modern sensibilities. Hollywood's primary audience is and always will be US filmgoers, and it's hard to imagine that some aspects of the story (I won't elaborate further, as I wouldn't want to spoil anything for someone who hasn't read it yet) wouldn't be watered down or eliminated totally to fall more in-line with what is and isn't taboo in a society that still hasn't gotten over a 1 second flash of one of Janet Jackson's nipples more than 18 months ago.

          Suffice to say that, somewhere along the line, Alan Moore's beautiful nightmare will be so heavily diluted and edited that it will lose much of its raw power.

          Where you see a potential Sin City, I see a potential (and probable) Judge Dredd: ie, a Hollywood mockery of the original source material.
          • by pthisis (27352) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @08:11PM (#13352077) Homepage Journal
            yet film is perhaps our most superficial medium

            If you can say this with a straight face then your movie criticism is fairly worthless, IMO. The medium of film is no more superficial than the play, and substantially more complex than radio, photograph, etc. It's true that some real stinkers have been made, but you can walk into the local bookstore and see whole aisles full of superficial, boilerplate romance novels, mysteries, and self-improvement guides.

            Films like High and Low, the Last Flight, Requiem for a Dream, and so on have serious depth to them.

            I'd certainly put dozens of media ahead of film as far as shallowness (perhaps starting with the billboard and the pamphlet--both of which _can_ have some depth but on average rarely do).

            Hell, the sculpture is generally pretty damned shallow; for every Hand of God or Unfinished Slaves, there are hundreds of generic classical-styled garden decorations and huge crappy abstract installation pieces outside of corporate headquarters. Idem painting with all the pseudo-impressionist doctor's lobby pap, cute puppies/kids, etc.
            • In the words of Andy Dufresne, how can you be so obtuse?

              You misunderstand the point that I was trying to make, and deliberately so, it seems.

              Of all the entertainment media commonly associated with storytelling, film is probably the most superficial, with the possible exception of pop music (if you want to classify that as a storytelling medium too).

              A picture might tell a thousand words, but a film director only has so many such pictures that he can put in the can during a typical film. 24 pictures a second,
              • by pthisis (27352) on Friday August 19, 2005 @12:29AM (#13353200) Homepage Journal
                A character might pause for a second or two on screen before committing an act yet that pause can easily be strung out for pages and pages by even a half-decent author who can use it to describe everything from the character's immediate state of body and mind to his motivations, hopes, dreams and aspirations

                Of course, you're assuming that an actor cannot convey a huge range of emotion in a brief pause, and that directors never use lingering shots, pans, etc. And that vocal inflection, facial expression, etc do not convey huge subtleties.

                Hell, forget film: take V for Vendetta and write it as a novel without graphic art. It's a different experience, and it's not necessarily a less superficial one no matter how many words you use to describe the visuals, or how many deep emotional asides you insert.

                And, of course, you can flip back a page or two in a book and re-read it, but you can't do that with a movie being played to a packed theatre. Whereas an author can be excused losing his readers from time to time (because they can go back a few lines and find their way again) a movie director cannot (whatever message needs to be conveyed has to be conveyed in a clear, unambiguous fashion)

                Of course, timing is a key advantage of film (or live storytelling) over the written word. A pregnant pause or machine-gun monologue can mean a lot. Suspense can be built more easily, or pacing can be tied to emotion.

                Take a complex scene from any movie and try to express it in words. Now add ton and expand on that written description. With the written word, that's easily done, right?

                Sure. And it will _still_ lack much of the subtle artistry of the original. I mean, yes, obviously, the written word is going to be better at expressing something in words. That's pure tautology, though--words miss meaning. Often. Have you never seen a well-staged play after reading the script? Performances matter. Sets matter. Visuals matter. And they don't merely matter for flashy MTV quick-edit visual reasons, either; they often convey subtleties that are nearly impossible to put into words.

                But even leaving that aside, suppose we cede that the written word is somehow deeper than film, at least in novel format. That's _one_ medium, certainly the longest by word of any common one (epic poetry is all but extinct), and if you're going to equate verbosity with depth then it's clearly your runaway winner.

                So how is film more superficial than a play? Or television? Or radio?

                The typical script is longer (more words) than a short story or a typical poem.

                Hell, how is it more superficial than a comic book? A typical film has more words and more imagery, and if they're used intelligently there's a lot more opportunity for complexity in those images.

                Hollywood may make a lot of crappy films, but last time I was in the local newstand there sure were a lot of Archie comics in there too.

                The film medium is not the problem. Comparing Watchmen, V is for Vendetta, and Sandman to Pearl Harbor, XXX 2, and Deuce Bigalow isn't any more reasonable than comparing Amethyst and Archie to Brazil and Full Metal Jacket.
          • Hollywood's primary audience is and always will be US filmgoers,

            This is quickly changing. In fact, a good number of films are being designed for moderate American box office success with an aim to get in the black overseas. Put any Tom Cruise film in this category; he's a huge international star, eclipsing his fame domestically. Films like Collateral and American Samurai are examples of how the industry is acknowledging the sheer mass of the international market and catering accordingly.

            That said, I
        • If you think Sin City is one of the greatest comic books ever written, pass me a pipe of whatever you have.

          And the movie, while very good, is also flawed. In some cases, those flaws are a result of the slavish translation from comic to film.
          • My list of greatest comic books ever written include (in no particular order):

            -Moore's The Dark Knight Returns and The Watchmen (and of course V)
            -Ellis' Transmetropolitan (and perhaps Preacher by the same writer, though I'd like to see *that* put to film)
            -Spiegelman's Maus
            -Sin City

            Now, I don't know whether you prefer "classic" comic books, but I consider the above comics/series to be the best the industry's offered in the past couple of decades. You got any better ones?

            As for the film being flawed:



            • Since you got several of the creator's wrong, you'll forgive me if I take your opinions with a grain of salt. And while those are good titles, if you think those (with the exception of "Maus") are the best offerings of the medium in the last two decades, your knowledge of comics is pretty shallow. Check out Craig Thompson's "Blankets", Chris Ware's "Jimmy Corrigan", Daniel Clowes' "Eightball" serials, Jason Lute's "Jar of Fools", Seth's "It's A Good Life, If You Don't Weaken", or anything done by the late
      • I shudder to think of what the Wachowskis' egos will do to this movie. Ever since Matrix Reloaded I can't stomach the thought of seeing any more of their creations. I wonder how many sequels they are planning.
      • My advice to anyone who will go to watch the film is read the original first and let that blow you away

        And my advice is to ignore that advice - see the movie first. Think it's cool. Enjoy, etc, etc. Then read the comic book. If it's truly all that, then you'll be blown away again. Do it the parent's way, and you'll probably be disappointed with the movie.
        • So you'd rather learn about the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci by first viewing sketchings of them made by an art student and then using your appreciation of that student's efforts, no matter how good or bad, to decide whether or not da Vinci's works are actually worth seeing? Gotcha.

          Sorry, but that really is ridiculous. However good or bad this movie turns out to be, the original comic book will always be a masterpiece. Appreciating the original artist's vision and then judging the interpretations of other
    • "The [anonymous] spokesperson ... denied that the delay had anything to do with the movie's subject matter or the current political climate."

      "It isn't just a teen slasher movie"

      Certain statements seem to scream that Truth resides in their exact opposite ...

  • Sign me up! (Score:5, Funny)

    by DirtyJ (576100) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @06:49PM (#13351602)
    ...stars Natalie Portman...
    ...comes as quite a blow...to expectant fans

    Uh... where can I get tickets?

  • My expectations for anything done by them are decidedly weaker anyways.
    • I liked all three Matrix movies. There was a lot of depth to all of them. I know the second and third one were not as popular, but there was a lot there, it was just a little harder to see.
      • I don't think that it was harder to see, I think that it was incoherent psychobabble as opposed to interesting and thought provoking philosophical questions.

        The Matrix got it right but the following two tried too hard to get it right and went way over the top and beyond the point of being a nonsensical sampling of way too wide a body of thought. The sequels tried to top the original by using the same old schtick, just in larger quantities. The original had magic and its sequels did not.
    • I put that down tot he sequel curse. All the non-sequel movies they've done so far (Bound and The Matrix)have been kickass. Sad news, a 90 ft Natalie Portman with a shaved head would have had me twicthing in my sleep for weeks.

      But As long as Serenity isn't delayed again I'm still flying high.

  • Natalie's going to keep the fuzzy look, so she says. Is this any kind of annaversary of Star Trek TMP? Let's mangle memories and metaphors.

    It was the third of september That day I'll always remember, yes I will 'cause that was the day that my daddy died... whoops, wrong lyric!"

  • by Coryoth (254751) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @06:52PM (#13351621) Homepage Journal
    March 17th [wikipedia.org] also has a little less historical significance [wikipedia.org] for vigilantes trying to overthrow the British government [wikipedia.org] than, say, November 5th.

    Jedidiah.
  • How about:

        Watch, Watch the 17th of March.

  • Clever Tagline (Score:5, Informative)

    by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Thursday August 18, 2005 @06:54PM (#13351639) Homepage Journal
    It's not just a tagline. It's a bit of terrorism related doggerel known to every British schoolkid.

    Remember remember the 5th of November
    Gunpowder, treason and plot
    I see no reason
    Why gunpowder treason
    Should ever be forgot.

    The V comic book was great -- this film will suck because the Wachowskis are hacks, living it large off one good film (albeit one with an obvious and portentious, pretentious dialofue carried by its special effects).
    • Actually, Bound [imdb.com] was a good flick too (although I'm sure they didn't get very rich off of that film).
    • > Remember remember the 5th of November
      > Gunpowder, treason and plot
      > I see no reason
      > Why gunpowder treason
      > Should ever be forgot.

      Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November,
      Natalie's turned into rock.
      That's all the reason,
      in Slashdotting season,
      to cover in grits that are hot!

      /I am so sorry...

    • Re:Clever Tagline (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Blakey Rat (99501) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @07:59PM (#13352015)
      I re-watched Dark City the other day and I realized that the plot and style of Dark City is a *lot* like The Matrix... only about 10 times better in every way.

      If you enjoyed the Matrix, you owe it to yourself to go see Dark City as soon as you can. It's from the director of The Crow.
      • Re:Clever Tagline (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Formica (775485)
        If you liked Dark City, you might like Metropolis [imdb.com], where many of those ideas came from. A review [suntimes.com].
        • I know, that's one of my favorite movies. I have the really good Kino Video version on DVD. However, both Matrix and Dark City have the "reality isn't real" angle that Metropolis lacks... that's why I didn't mention Metropolis.
        • I always like how they have different names in that. Robot or android aren't used.
          It would be interesting, well not for anybody who likes the original, to see a remake. It would probably just have much effects though, similar to The Matrix.
          I did have an odd dream about that movie once. It sounds like it could be from the various movies mentioned in this story.
      • I have to say, I find Dark City to be quite silly and altogether lame. Besides the fact that both have somilar clothes and start with the fact that things aren't as they seem, they don't have much at all in common. While the sequels weren't very good, give me the Matrix over Dark City any day.
        • I have to say, I find Dark City to be quite silly and altogether lame. Besides the fact that both have somilar clothes and start with the fact that things aren't as they seem, they don't have much at all in common.

          Another thing they have in common, Matrix was shot on a lot of the same sets, in Sydney.

      • I coincidentally watched Dark City on video a couple of weeks before The Matrix was released. I don't remember either of them very well any more, but I do remember thinking, as I was watching it, that the Matrix seemed like a rip-off of Dark City in many ways. It was probably just coincidence in hindsight.

        Of course, as others have also pointed out, Dark City itself was preceeded by Metropolis.

        • actually, matrix reused some of the sets from Dark City, see here [wikipedia.org] (scroll down to Cinematics). so there's a reason parts of the film liiks the same, just check out that staircase were Neo sees the deja vu!
    • > The V comic book was great -- this film will suck because the Wachowskis are hacks, living it large off one good film (albeit one
      > with an obvious and portentious, pretentious dialofue carried by its special effects).

      I don't remember many special effects in Bound? It is definately their best film. Jennifer Tilly, Gina Gershon, yumm.

      jfs
    • The twits behind Matrix 2 and Matrix 3 are writing the screenplay?

      Damn, I never saw a movie go from "Intersting" to "Avoid at all costs" so damn fast. I'd almost rather watch another Star Wars from Lucas.

      Almost.
  • by CGP314 (672613) <CGPNO@SPAMColinGregoryPalmer.net> on Thursday August 18, 2005 @06:54PM (#13351640) Homepage
    The spokesperson, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, denied that the delay had anything to do with the movie's subject matter or the current political climate.

    I'm not buying it that a movie about terrorism in London just happens to get delayed at this time.

    -Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
    • Usually "to accomodate post production" means "while we try and fix the uncomprehensible mess the director has shown us." Given the provenance, that's far more likely (have you tried to watch Matrix Revolutions without laughing?)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18, 2005 @08:01PM (#13352026)
      I'm not buying it that a movie about terrorism in London just happens to get delayed at this time.

      .
      Incidentally, here's what producer Joel Silver had to say about it [warnerbros.com] at the San Diego Comic-Con:

      Question 13: In the post 9/11 sort of climate, where Britain and America seem to be getting closer and closer to the world of this movie, what made you decide to make it now, and how do you think it's going be received?

      Joel Silver: I think it's a really great time for this movie. I mean, it's a controversial film, and we're in a controversial time. There're some really bold and impressive ideas in the original story, which was written in the late 80s, and it's the perfect place for us to show the film now. What happened is that when the boys finished the Matrix movies, they were kind of burnt out, but they had written a script for me for this before they made the Matrix movies. They said that they were very happy with working with James McTeigue, who had been our first assistant director on the Matrix films, and they wanted James to have a shot to direct a picture. They said, "We were thinking about going back, rewriting V -- we'll produce it with you," which I was happy to have them do, "And we'd like James to direct it." And they said, "We think the time is right for it." So that's why we're doing it, and I think it's going to impress a lot of people and make a lot of people think, which I think is important for movies like this today."


      .
      And here's the original comic's artist, David Lloyd's thoughts on the subject:

      "Question 16: David Lloyd, as a creator of the original story, and the rest of you making it, what are your feelings about the London bombing, and also present-day London with video cameras all over the place... which is kind of how the story of V FOR VENDETTA was.

      David Lloyd: Yeah, that's very interesting about the CCTV cameras, because when we did that in the '80s, there weren't that many around. I mean, society has actually become a lot more like the one that we actually painted. The question about London and terrorism, and what's happened there -- I think it's important that we try and understand terrorists. I think there should be lots of movies made about terrorists, and politics generally, and one of the reasons I'm so happy about this film is that it does have a very strong and uncompromising political message, and there aren't many films made like that now. So, in terms of what's happening in London over the last week, I think it's going to be healthy to try and understand what leads a person to terrorism. There's that old cliché, isn't there - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter - and if we try and understand that, then maybe we might be able to solve the problems that cause terrorism more easily."


  • New Tagline (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18, 2005 @06:55PM (#13351642)
    "Hey all you /.'s, hot grits have starch, come and see Natalie this 17th of March!"
  • Hmmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TJ_Phazerhacki (520002) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @06:55PM (#13351648) Journal
    Wonder if this has anything to do with assumed emotional stress concerning the films bombings?

    Although - If they are doing this to maintain the integrity of the film, so as to not remove any of those scenes - more power to them.

  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @07:06PM (#13351721)
    "We have moved the release date of V For Vendetta to March 17, 2006, to accommodate the movie's post-production schedule."

    Bullshit. Post-production is "scheduled" to the day. It has to be. You don't suddenly go "whups, let's take another 4 or more months".

    The spokesperson, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, denied that the delay had anything to do with the movie's subject matter or the current political climate.

    Are we really as stupid as we look? What the fuck is with an "anonymous spokesperson"? If you can't quote them, don't print the story. Oh wait, it's not a story, it's a clever press release.

    V for Vendetta has come under scrutiny for the coincidence of its subject matter and the recent terrorist bombings in London.

    It has? Could have fooled me. Most everyone in the (US) theaters I've seen the preview have murmered "looks good" etc. Since a few hours after the train bombings, a lot of Londoners were saying "look, could you all get over it? We have." Especially given the typical audience for this film, I doubt any of the said audience will give a crap.

    "It's that horrible word: intellectual. I mean, you have to think about the movie"

    What? They laid out the entire plot in the trailers (or so we're led to believe). Facist, authoritarian government. Agents of whom attempt to rape Portman. "Good" guy rescues/befriends her. He's doing the whole "government is evil, I'm gonna blow it up, yo" and she's doing the "I'll die for you, yo. I am stretched on your grave, I'll lie here forever, yo." The government is all "Your ass is ours, yo."

    What part of that requires any "thought"? The fact that it's blatantly playing off how fascist US/UK government has become?

    Appropriate quote: "Ah, MIND taxing time again, now is it?"

    The whole thing reminds me of Gilbert Godfried's joke at Hugh Heffner's roast, a couple says after the WTC attacks. "I'm kinda concerned, my flight has a layover at the Empire State building". Most everyone laughed. One or two people yelled "too soon, too soon." So he told the Aristocrats joke, and boy did those two people wish they had kept their mouths shut :-)

    • "It's that horrible word: intellectual. I mean, you have to think about the movie"

      What? They laid out the entire plot in the trailers (or so we're led to believe). Facist, authoritarian government. Agents of whom attempt to rape Portman. "Good" guy rescues/befriends her. He's doing the whole "government is evil, I'm gonna blow it up, yo" and she's doing the "I'll die for you, yo. I am stretched on your grave, I'll lie here forever, yo." The government is all "Your ass is ours, yo."

      What part of that require

    • I think Moore's dialogue in some spots was definitely better. From the trailer, Portman's dialogue seems to be:

      Evey: [bumping into Agent] I'm sorry.
      Finger Agent: Not yet, you're not.

      The original dialogue from the comic (or at least what I have from memory) was

      Evey: I'll do whatever you want, just don't kill me.
      Finger Agent: No, you don't get it. We're going to do whatever we want... and then we're going to kill you.

      Definitely spookier.

      --grendel drago
    • That was the best comment I've read on slashdot in a looong time:) Thanks!:)
    • Yet it at times runs over.

      Just because something is all scheduled out doesn't mean it can't run over schedule.

      Ask Terry Gilliam.
  • larry wachowski? (Score:4, Informative)

    by XO (250276) <blade@eric.gmail@com> on Thursday August 18, 2005 @07:07PM (#13351728) Homepage Journal
    isn't it Linda Wachowski now?
    • I saw that movie! wasn't it VI Wachowski though?
    • 5 informative? I'd figure a 5 Funny, or a -1 Troll.. sheesh.

      Better stop calling them the Wachowski brothers. We hear "Matrix" co-creator Larry Wachowski is ready for the sex-change operation that will finalize his conversion to a woman named Linda.

      Last May, he wore women's earrings at "The Matrix Reloaded" premiere. At the time, the estranged husband of an alleged Los Angeles dominatrix told newspapers that Wachowski was a client of his wife. The source said he had seen Larry "in her bondage room...lying
  • by tgibbs (83782) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @07:10PM (#13351745)
    It's somehow hard to imagine that this will be a faithful version of a story in which the protagonist is essentially a terrorist.
  • by Cerv (711134) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @07:25PM (#13351816)
    V for Vendetta was written by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. The Wachowski siblings adapted it for the screen.
    • Right. That's why it says The film [...] was written by [...]" in the summary... not a word about the graphic novel up there. And as far as I know, Alan Moore didn't/doesn't have sh*t to do with the movie.
      • There's a distinction between writing a film and adapting a screenplay. Hollywood recognises the difference, even at Oscar time if I remember correctly, as does the grandparent poster.

        "Alan Moore didn't/doesn't have sh*t to do with the movie."? Well, apart from writing the original story...

        By that rationale Leonardo da Vinci "didn't/doesn't have sh*t to do with" postcards of the Mona Lisa because, after all, he didn't take the photograph or print them, he was just the original artist...
  • Affects my portfolio (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Aeron65432 (805385)
    Interestingly enough, this news has tanked the stock of V for Vendetta on the popular movie stock exchange, HSX [hsx.com]

    In the last two days, the stock has dropped from 70 to 50, with no bottom in sight. Sadly, I'm invested 50,000 shares in it, so it's hurt me/the market quite a bit.

    For those of you who wonder why it hurts the stock, V for Vendetta first was scheduled for November, which is a good month for movies. March is typically much weaker. Secondly, people don't want to hold onto it for 7 months as oppos

  • Somehow... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MsGeek (162936) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @08:05PM (#13352043) Homepage Journal
    ...I don't think that a holiday that is not celebrated in the United States (IE Guy Fawkes Day) is going to make any difference as far as the majority of V For Vendetta's potential take. What I think might be going on with this film, however, is Warner Bros. losing their collective nerve over a movie that has as its hero a person whose actions can be interpreted as being "terrorist."

    The only time Guy Fawkes Day has figured in a work of art aimed at an American audience is in the "Depth Takes A Holiday" episode of the MTV animated series "Daria." Guy Fawkes Day is portrayed as a surly British punk rocker who looks like Sid Vicious and sings like Johnny Rotten. Since British obscenities barely register in American English, he gets to swear like a British sailor. Of course, when the show aired on English MTV it had to be edited something fierce. Note to the Brits: you didn't miss much. One of the least enjoyable "Daria" episodes, one of the two from the series that almost sent it hurling over the shark tank. Almost doesn't count, though.
  • No so parallel... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PhotoBoy (684898) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @08:05PM (#13352044)
    From TFA: "V for Vendetta ... is set in an alternate universe in which the United Kingdom has a fascistic government"

    In this universe Tony Blair has banned protesting within 1000m of the Houses of Parliament, he is trying to introduce trials without jury for many crimes, he now strongly influences what the BBC broadcasts, he is trying to ban criticism of any religion and he is forcing a mandatory ID card scheme on the public and that isn't a facist government??!?
    • What are the terms of this protest ban? I was there last Saturday and saw protesters [argentdata.com] that looked to be a whole lot less than 1 km away.
      • Re:No so parallel... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by isorox (205688)
        The ban was brought in to get rid of the protester [wikipedia.org] in your picture, who's been there for over 4 years (June 2001). It failed miserably, a judicial review a few days earlier found that, due to a technicality, Mr Haw was exempt from the new law.

        The law [wikipedia.org] (amongst other things) bans all protests within 1km (about 2/3 of a mile) of parliament, unless you get permission from the police. Like in North Korea, you can apply to the police to have a march celebrating your leader and they'll probably allow it, although
  • This delay comes as quite a blow not only to expectant fans, but also to the marketing campaign of the film, as the clever tagline tie-in 'Remember, remember the 5th of November' is decidedly weaker when you attempt to rhyme it with March 17th."

    Well... "if they used Beware the Ides of March" with an onimous fadeout to black they would get everyone to the theater and in their seats only two days early.
  • originally slated to open on Nov. 4 ... 'Remember, remember the 5th of November' Uh... am I missing something here?

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Working...