Comments on: V4 Vendetta http://www.spectrecollie.com/archives/2006/03/v4-vendetta/ Chuck Jordan's Personal Weblog Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:45:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Cory http://www.spectrecollie.com/archives/2006/03/v4-vendetta/#comment-483 Cory Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:21:37 +0000 http://spectrecollie.com/archives/2006/03/v4-vendetta/#comment-483 Speaking of V's Chuck.....Suikoden V is out tuesday. Do it. Speaking of V’s Chuck…..Suikoden V is out tuesday. Do it.

]]> By: Chuck http://www.spectrecollie.com/archives/2006/03/v4-vendetta/#comment-482 Chuck Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:18:07 +0000 http://spectrecollie.com/archives/2006/03/v4-vendetta/#comment-482 Well, I think the movie is unquestionably better than the book. (Or at least my memory of the book; it's been 15 years, like I said). I remember the book's being muddled, impossibly arch, and irrelevant. The only connection I had to Thatcher's England was that I read a lot of <i>Hellblazer</i> at the time. And Alan Moore's big strength — building up layers and layers of meaning on a story — only works when you have a coherent base to build layers on top of. I used to be a huge fan of Moore, and a lot of his stuff is undeniably brilliant, but it's also cold, distant, artificial, and with an air of "you're stupid if you don't get it." <i>The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen</i> is the only thing of his that I've read that I think works 100%, and it's brilliant. I totally agree with you that the movie is "relevant," and my point was that's both a strength and a weakness. It's a lot easier for us to see how it relates to America in 2006, but that also makes it a lot easier to dismiss. When I say I wish the movie had been more "timeless," I don't just mean in regards to how it's received 15 years from now, but how it's received today. Today, people can (and have been) dismiss the core points as nothing more than liberal anti-Bush propaganda. It's better when you don't just say, "this guy is Bush/Hitler," "this guy is Cheney," "this guy is Bill O'Reilley," but show how that <em>type</em> of person does what he does and gains power for himself. Well, I think the movie is unquestionably better than the book. (Or at least my memory of the book; it’s been 15 years, like I said). I remember the book’s being muddled, impossibly arch, and irrelevant. The only connection I had to Thatcher’s England was that I read a lot of Hellblazer at the time. And Alan Moore’s big strength — building up layers and layers of meaning on a story — only works when you have a coherent base to build layers on top of. I used to be a huge fan of Moore, and a lot of his stuff is undeniably brilliant, but it’s also cold, distant, artificial, and with an air of “you’re stupid if you don’t get it.” The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is the only thing of his that I’ve read that I think works 100%, and it’s brilliant.

I totally agree with you that the movie is “relevant,” and my point was that’s both a strength and a weakness. It’s a lot easier for us to see how it relates to America in 2006, but that also makes it a lot easier to dismiss. When I say I wish the movie had been more “timeless,” I don’t just mean in regards to how it’s received 15 years from now, but how it’s received today. Today, people can (and have been) dismiss the core points as nothing more than liberal anti-Bush propaganda. It’s better when you don’t just say, “this guy is Bush/Hitler,” “this guy is Cheney,” “this guy is Bill O’Reilley,” but show how that type of person does what he does and gains power for himself.

]]> By: hell of a what? http://www.spectrecollie.com/archives/2006/03/v4-vendetta/#comment-481 hell of a what? Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:08:33 +0000 http://spectrecollie.com/archives/2006/03/v4-vendetta/#comment-481 One of the things I loved about the movie was how blatantly *relevant* it all is, and now they didn't strive for a vague timelessness, but specifically addressed the issues of the day. Will the movie still feel relevant 10 years from now? I don't know - maybe not. But maybe it'll give people a sense of what it was like to live in the US in 2006 (strange, for something where the source is so intensely British). But I think the best word I've heard to describe the film is that it's "engaged" - and in that respect, I found it better than the source material. One of the things I loved about the movie was how blatantly *relevant* it all is, and now they didn’t strive for a vague timelessness, but specifically addressed the issues of the day. Will the movie still feel relevant 10 years from now? I don’t know - maybe not. But maybe it’ll give people a sense of what it was like to live in the US in 2006 (strange, for something where the source is so intensely British). But I think the best word I’ve heard to describe the film is that it’s “engaged” - and in that respect, I found it better than the source material.

]]>