Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Interlink

Is the "Interlink" referred to several times in the film meant to be the Internet? The novel predates the Internet in its modern form (from 1983, according to Wikipedia's article). However, we never see any civilians online. Is this another reference to modern times, or have I misunderstood what the Interlink is intended to be? — Paul G 10:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My guess - and that's all it is at the moment - is that the 'Inter-link' is all that remains of the FATE super-computer from the original graphic novel. IIRC we only really see Finch and Dominic using it and then to check internal government records of agents and employees. By calling it 'Inter-link' it maybe a short-hand method on the part of the writers to get get across the 'idea' of an "Intranet" without having to explain why it's called FATE. (In the comic, FATE seems to be an analysis/command system; i.e. when the Parliament is blown up at the beginning of the comic (rather than at the film's conclusion) someone says, 'FATE says we should say it was a scheduled demolition'.)

Another possibility is it's supposed to be a version of the Internet but one which suggests that the world of V is an alternative/parallel world rather than our own future.

Demos99 11:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd guess that it's positing that there wouldn't be an internet as we know it now; well hey, you can hardly have a decently totalitarian system if the citizens have easy access to information, right? I'd suspect that the use of such electronic communication would be severely restriced---for the safety of the citizenry, naturally---and what remains would be limited more to official government uses. So it might be a rather different system itself. Combine that idea with the ghost of the idea of FATE and I think we've pretty much got what Interlink is. Phil Urich 06:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A government-run/controlled version of our Internet. Finch also checks newspapers regarding the St. Mary's' incident - maybe a huge, "inter-linked" archive? But still, the archives from Larkhill are missing?84.202.95.187 22:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Racism Example in the Film

The film synopsis currently states "It is still vaguely implied in the film that the Party is extremely racist, as when Creedy questions Finchs's loyalty based solely on the fact that Finch's mother was Irish, etc." Insulting the Irish heritage of a person in an English-centric culture was common in other eras in real world history, and the film seems to suggest a return to those days.

Another, more obvious example, is that though London is currently very multi-racial, (I believe) every face in the film was white, as if to emphasize that all other ethnicities or colors had been removed. This was made blaringly obvious in the final scene where the London citizens removed were wearing and then removed their masks: the actors all looked to be white.Agentrelaxed 05:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point Agentrelaxed. You don't see any other ethnicities in the 2020 London at all except for the gay-black man who was arrested... and the Muslim-Black Boogey man in the Storm Saxon show on the television. Both of these examples, of course, support what you're saying.--P-Chan 06:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There is also Storm Saxon. Elfan 01:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Party flag

The party flag—black with a red double Latin cross—seems familiar. Has a similar logo appeared elsewhere? I don't see any double Latin crosses on Gallery of flags by design. —Ben FrantzDale 18:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As the article says, it's a Cross of Lorraine. —Ben FrantzDale 00:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle used a Lorraine Cross as leader of the Free French, I believe.84.202.95.187 22:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nineteen eighty-four reference

Is it significant that the goverment department which censors material is called the "Ministry of Objectionable Materials"?See Nineteen Eighty-Four#Ministries of Oceania.

Are they the same in both films? That would be interesting.--P-Chan 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that is because that is the modern British way of naming things in government. i.e. Ministry of this, Ministry of that, headed by a Minister of this or a Minister of that. This is also probably why Orwell used that naming convention (He was from Britain.). Though it is notable that "Ministry of Objectionable Materials" actually describes what the Ministry is in charge of, unlike in 1984 where the name of the Ministry is usually the opposite of what it is in charge of. (i.e. Ministry of Love is in charge of torturing people.)72.153.6.137 01:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

symbolism and cultural references

Some of these are interesting, but others are unbelievably obvious POV:

• The government conducts "random audio sweeps", in an allusion to Bush's recently implemented phone-tapping legislation.

(removed)

Leaving aside the history of such phone-tapping NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy, the controversy broke six months *after* the film was finished (June 2005, above).

• The virus plot is reminiscent of some conspiracy theories about the September 11th attacks. Such as this quote. Finch: If our own government was responsible for the deaths of a hundred thousand people, would you really want to know?

(removed)

It's already called a Reichstag fire-plot above. Invoking the 9/11==Reichstag fire conspiracy theory is gratuitious. (I would call it "ridiculous", too, but that would not be NPOV, I imagine.)

jdb ❋ (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree and think that section should be reorganized to deter anything like that from happening again in the future. It's to my opinion that the makers of the film included modern day references simply to give it a sense of real-world familiarity, rather than condemn the current administration. (It would be lame, afterall, to use the same old 1984ish imagery again and again.)

The two concepts that you mentioned above (Government spying & the Reichstag scenario) are really two major totalitarian cliches that span across many films & modern day references. In the case of government spying, there's the Nazi's, 1984, modern wiretapping, and pretty much every police state fiction or otherwise. With the Government attacking it's own people and blaming others there's the Nazi's, 1984, 9/11 conspiracies, etc.

I think that the only things that should be in the US section should be something that makes a clear reference to the US or has a lot of commentators preceiving it like that. Anything else should be talked about in a more general fashion. It should be noted that (interestingly enough) it has been the right-wing sites and news sources that have been declaring that V for Vendetta is an attack on the US Administraion (Frontpage, New Republic, etc), rather than a modern story of the fight against totalitarianism everywhere, which in opinion is more to the heart of the story. That's my 2 cents.

--P-Chan 06:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In his secret room, Gordon had a poster of the "Coalition of the Willing" whose icon was a Nazi Swastika I found this part very confusing when combined with the fact that he secretly kept a copy of the Koran as well.--tequendamia 01:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

References reworking

The references appear to need some work (the {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} tags).

• sometimes use cite_web instead of cite news - if it's a newspaper or periodical it should use cite_news
• uses the work= parameter where it should be using title=

Good example of how they should be used is the recent "featured article" Captain Marvel (DC Comics). I've started fixing some of the more obvious ones. Also removed repeated wikilinks, as per WP:MOS. --Oscarthecat 07:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know any of the other banned pieces of work in V's Shadow Gallery?

I can only identify 2 of them. Jan Van Eyck's and the cover from that Crash Test Dummies album.  :) --P-Chan 10:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but i think i saw a piece by British graffiti artist "Banksy" in the gallery. [1] Anybody else see it? - Silent 3 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was at least one of the seaport paintings by Claude Lorrain (currently in the National Gallery on Trafalgar Square, I believe). Scrutchfield 03:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

If no one has any objections, I might submit the article to Peer Review, to get other ideas on how to improve it Cvene64 06:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How about we sort out the long+rambling "Differences from graphic novel" section first? --Oscarthecat 09:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't mind a few days myself, in order to tie up lose-ends in the article. Not entirely sure how a Peer Review works, is this a process that can be delayed or stopped once it's already started? Does anyone know? I agree with Oscarthecat comments on the "Differences from graphic novel section", as I believe people will be distracted by it and just keep hitting on that section, as they are already doing so (See next section).

If the review can't be stopped, that's ok too. As we can probably get this done before too many people comment on it. I'll try to reorganize it now. Even though I haven't read the graphic novel, I think there is enough material here and on other sites to make something coherant. --P-Chan 09:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. We can send it through again later, it won't do any harm. I just want to know what else can be improved Cvene64 16:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And has turned out to be a very good idea.--P-Chan 04:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• The peer review seems to have disappeared from the list, which is bad.--P-Chan 07:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC) However, it seems as though Sarge has fixed it, which is good.--P-Chan 07:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me

How a story written in the early 80's relates to the War on Terror, the Iraq War, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006 etc..?

Ah! You need only to read certain parts of the V for Vendetta article to find the answer to your question. Basically, 1) Alan Moore based his original story the politics of his time, and references to the modern US administration were only present for the film. Alan Moore himself upon reading the screenplay didn't like this (amoung other things) and said that it turned his story into one about US Liberals Vs Neocons... rather than his original concept of Anarchists against Fascism. So, the 80's version of the story has nothing to do with it, other than the fact that it contains general totalitatian themes. It is the film version that does. 2) The addition of material relating to the US administration was noticable enough so that a variety of news sources, commentators and otherwise picked up on this. This was especially true in the US press around the openning of the film. Interestingly enough, there seemed to be more right-wing news sources citing these similarities, than ones on the left.

BTW, did you find this article through the peer review? And did I answer your question?

Cheers! --P-Chan 09:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Major Change to the Original Graphic Novel

I trimmed down this section so that it is in a more use friendly format. (From what I've observed, the section used to be at one point a substitution for the "synopsis" a while back, thus there was a lot of detailed film synopsis stuff that crept in there.) I organized all the differences between the film and novel into bullets, and cut everything that was not of too much value. Bullets may not be the most user friendly format, but they allow one to make comparisons easily and are better for review.

So... the new section is half the size of the old because:

• The old version dedicated significant amounts of space to describing the plot of the Film (especially the Norsefire Conspiracy), since that's the synopsis's job, I deleated any synopsis material that was not linked to one of the points.
• There was a lot of repitition of information in the old version. Evey's appearance and some Norsefire facts repeat themselves over multiple times
• There was some speculation, weasel words and original research that may not have fit from the old

What it looks like now is far from perfect, but now we can get down to doing some more detailed work on it.

--P-Chan 12:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V_for_Vendetta_%28film%29&oldid=46429142

Here is the old version btw. Plus, once the facts have been checked, the bullets in the new one can be removed of course.--P-Chan 12:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Diffs

I think P Chan has done a good job tidying up the article. However, these two points were removed from the differences section. First one seems quite a big difference. Any thoughts?

• Inspector Finch: is much more brooding and introspective, rather than the obsessive legalist he is depicted as in the graphic novel. Instead of killing V as he does in the original work, Finch allows Evey to send V's body on its way to blow up Parliament.
• The Leader of the "Party" has a different name, Sutler, which has the connotation of a tradesman working for the Army, though the name in the novel is Susan. Sutler is also a combination of the original name and Hitler.

--Oscarthecat 09:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason that those two points were removed was due to added focus to the article. The fact that two characters 1) are not discussed in detail in other parts of article and 2) are not as major as V and Evey, would classify them as secondary.

Based on the 1) peer review, 2) other comments on this page, as well as other 3) highly rated articles serving as a baseline... I believe that the film itself should serve as a reference point for the content, and thus some of the Differences from Graphic Novel material should be shortened. That's my 2 cents. --P-Chan 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Evey's Time Spent With V, First Time Around

I was watching the film through a second time and I noticed something. On the broadcast where it talks about the death of the "voice of London" (the newscaster who was formerly a military man, I forget his name), the date in the bottom right corner of the screen is read as December 1. So, by that, we know that Evey was with V in his Shadow Gallery from at least November 5 - December 1.

--Ihmhi 14:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dot points

Basically the second half of the article (Symbolism/references, trvia and differences) is all dot points. Is there any way to try and avoid this, without making the article harder to read/adding too many subsections? As I have looked at many FAC nominations from time to time, apart from references, the biggest thing people seem to pick on is how much of the article is in dot points...it is kind of frowned upon...what can we make into paragraphs here?? Cvene64 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cvene, yeah I agree... in the end state (when we show this to the FAC or whoever) there should a solid paragraph format. But in the meantime I think that the points, subsections, etc help in the editing process by allowing people to see how the ideas are flowing together.

Did you notice that when the "Difference Between Graphic Novel" section were in one big chunk that the information kept on repeating itself over and over again?? Neither did I!!  :) That's why until we have a good solid understanding of content and theme, we keep some of the sections in a point form format. One step at a time man! We're getting there! --P-Chan 05:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah man I know what you mean. Sounds good, we'll do all that later on then. :) Cvene64 05:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

Another thing: The amount of images needs to be discussed. People will bitch about that as well, as only a certain number can be considered fair use...

• • The one of the Leicester Square theatre and the other London theatre are both in the Creative Commons, so there is no worry with them.

• • The three images throughout the plot summary seem to be ok, I cannot see any problems with them.

• • The two images in the Cast section could be removed, as they really just serve as a decoration. (Iam working on getting a replacement for that section, but I don know when I can get it yet...)

• • The red poster in the marketing section is also kind of decorative at the moment, since its not even next to the text that talks about it. (Again, I may be able to get a CC image of this that could replace it, don't know when..)

• • Adam Susan image seems pretty good, as does the GN cover, they could easily be claimed as fair-use

• • The two images in the symbolism section, the Norsefire and the Beethoven one are kind of random/decorative, even though the Beethoven one is PD, it kind of distorts the text...

Anyway...just thought I'd throw that out there... Cvene64 03:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A few comments. The Norsefire picture, I think should remain in that section. Just looking at how that section is forming, it seems as though the theme there is going to surround totalitarianism. It's the only picture out there, that really gives you a the full blown Nazi-1984 look and matchings 80% of the comments in the section. (I think the Beethoven could be replaced or removed ok).

Also, wouldn't it be great if we could replace the background pictures with filming or development pictures?!? I mean things like storyboards, the filming process, Hugo without a mask etc... anything to fit that background theme. I think that stuff would look awesome and would really kick this article up a notch! But I have no idea where we can find the rights to stuff like that. Does anyone know? --P-Chan 07:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the following due to the fact that it was just unsourced pov editorializing. If a proper source (possibly from an anarchist group?) could be found then add it back in. Otherwise it just reads like debatable pov:

However, this view fails to appreciate that this "great savior" actually represents ideas of revolution and of free minds. It is explicitly stated that V is a manifestation of an idea, and at the end, Evey reveals that his "identity" is that he is every citizen. Indeed, defenders of the film point out that V could have single-handedly taken down the fascist government as a "great savior", but he choses not to: what V wants is to motivate the common people to rise up against the government. In the film, V could have used his subway train bomb to blow up Parliament right at the beginning of the story, all by himself. Instead, V took over the state-run airwaves to plead with the general populace to rise up with him on the next November 5th in a show of solidarity when Parliament is destroyed. Also, V sent out "hundreds of thousands" of spare Guy Fawkes costumes, so anyone in London could become a revolutionary like him. 207.216.170.38 04:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not really pov, I added it back in. Edit it if you want to, but do not delete mass amounts of text. Cvene64 05:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Replacement of the Susan/Sutler picture

Greetings, I belive that the picture of the comic should be different. From the perspective of the film, Sutler is admittedly not much more than a Authoritarian Talking Head. He isn't developed as much as he was in the novel, and is generally just seen yelling Cliches at people (besides, people might be unfamiliar with the name Susan). With that... if we can only have ONE picture from the comic, then I highly recommend that it depict some major differences of a major film character (like V.)

I think people who have seen only the film would find it shocking to see V as someone who is not the Che Guevara he is this film. So if there is a comic picture somewhere where V does something immoral, questionable, or down right evil... then I think that is the picture we should use. Again, this comment is from the perspective of an article based on the film.--P-Chan 06:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In seeing the discussion they are having in the Vendetta Novel article and in reviewing the overall superstructure of this article again, I'm wondering if an picture is even needed. Any ideas guys and girls? --P-Chan 08:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's contextually important to have images for comparison within this article. But you're right, since we shouldn't really have more than a couple images, Susan/Sutler isn't really the best choice. On the other hand, I'm not sure there's really a single frame that clearly captures V's dark side, or does so with V visually appearing in the panel. I suppose there's this, but that might be hard to see on the page, and just using the right frame would be confusing. It's also confusing because he's stopped in his dialogue (since it's actually a tape recording). Basically I had selected the Susan image simply because it made a point very clearly, not because he was an ideal subject. Sarge Baldy 16:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What about all the references to the Soviet Union and Communism throughout Eastern Europe?

For example, the "accidental" outbreak of the virus which conveniently allowed the government to institute new measures of repression mirrors Stalin's artificial famine and repression against "wreckers of the State" (later to be repeated in other Communist regimes). Or, how about the state-owned central broadcast channel? And the fact the news is censored and even produced by the government? Or, the mysterious disappearance of certain State records? And the omnipresent listening devices?

While certainly the links mentioned in the main article to Nazi Germany are relevant as well, this movie would seem to be a broader representation of totalitarianism, taking elements from Nazi Germany, Communist countries, and an extrapolation of some current trends in society.

That's a good point. A lot of the points in that section are general totalitarian themes, and that should be mentioned. --P-Chan 06:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

<Poor guy's comments got deleted for some reason... Is the page getting too big? (Will create an archive shortly) Reinserted comments--P-Chan 06:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)>

Theatre image

Why did that get deleted(from wikipedia)? Did someone move it to the commons?Cvene64

It was deleted because it was classified "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs", and Wikipedia no longer accepts images that can't be used for commercial purposes. Sarge Baldy 16:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What? Are you serious...Wheres the page that explains all that, do you know who deleted it? Why wasnt I given a notice...?Cvene64 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no page, I looked at the revision history of the image. It was deleted by User:Jacoplane. Sarge Baldy 02:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That really messed up my grand plan for this page in terms of images, having a few that I was about to add. hmmm, will see what I can do now...thanks for the help though Cvene64 12:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Eggy in a basket

Does Eggy in a basket actually exist? Moore says no.

Moore loses the bet. Mrtea (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia next time. They've got a short bit on the food. [2] --AWF

Actually, Moore wins the bet. He didn't say "egg in a basket" doesn't exist; he said it's not a British dish, but the Wachowski's tried to make it British by calling it "eggy" rather than "egg". WikiFew 18:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Timing of release with relation to ID cards bill

The film was delayed, pushing the release date to 17th March 06 The bill to introduce Id cards was introduced to the house of commons on 13th March Was this an intentionally timed release?

Changed intro to the Original Novel Section

I removed the loads of commentary from the intro of that section. It just seemed like we were just quoting people without saying much of anything. In my opinion, all it just boiled down to was "People were afraid that it would be unfaithful, and Moore said it was. But Lloyd said it was faithful, and so did the director and Natalie. The Brothers were also fans of the comic".

Comments like these may fit in better in different parts of the article. But I believe that the intro to the section should just state the facts. "It's generally faithful, but it is not the same as the novel". That way it's more neutral, and doesn't open up any cans of worms.--P-Chan 05:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. That was the chunk of text I had the most issues with. Lloyd's support is already noted, in a condensed, but probably sufficient way. I don't know that Natalie Portman's opinion is quite as relevant, since it's unlikely someone taking the lead role of a film would think to criticize it along those lines (although it may be relevant just to note that she did, in fact, read the work.) Sarge Baldy 06:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a big deal as the claim Lloyd felt it was a faithful adaptation is not in the article, but for the record, he did not call it faithful. He just said it was a good script/screenplay.

Symbols and Cultural references section

I believe this reference will be almost impossible to find references for. Delete?--P-Chan 09:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• The memorial to the St. Mary's disaster shows children dancing in a circle. This is reminiscent of a famous memorial showing dancing girls in Stalingrad, which was one of the few structures left standing after the Nazi attack on the city [1] It is likely also a reference to children playing "Ring Around the Rosy", a game which involves a rhyme often (but incorrectly) believed to derive from the symptoms and effects of the black death.

Maybe delete the second sentence eventually, but I would leave it for now & give it a chance. Argyrios 11:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Somebody just added this statement. To me this won't survive any review as it's too speculative. Delete? --P-Chan 18:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

*During the meeting of the various government officials after the bombing of the Old Bailey, Sutler instructs them to have the music that played on the P.A. system, the 1812 Overture, placed on 'the banned list' and not heard again, reminiscent of the controversy that emerged regarding a list of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Discussion - Shadow Forum

Not sure this recently-added forum is notable, to be honest, with only 37 registered users. Any thoughts? --Oscarthecat 19:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa!! Now this is a suprise. http://com3.runboard.com/btheladiesoftheshadowgallery.fpolitics.t3 --P-Chan 23:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone here vouche for the validity of the picture in the link? Did this really come from the film?--P-Chan 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it surprsing? Not to mention, I agree that the forum doesn't really seem notable enough for inclusion here. Fightindaman 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Suprising? Because it's an explicit hit at the current administration, rather than just indirect use of imagery. In regards to the forum, it is kinda small, but at the same time it's done in good taste. I say give it some time.--P-Chan 19:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

They wanted stock footage of political turmoil. I don't think it's really surprising that they used modern footage which is bound to have stuff like that in it. Fightindaman 20:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm deleting per WP:EL ("Links to normally avoid"). We should have one link to a major fansite dedicated to V for Vendetta (the film) or a link to DMOZ (per WP:NOT). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam for more info. Mrtea (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Detailed Feedback from Peer Reviewer

Very detailed advice has been provided by one of the peer reviewer AgentSoo. (Thank you, AgentSoo.)

His original comments can be found here., and are listed below:

---

• The whole article still needs a thorough copyedit and I remain willing to do that, once it has settled down in other respects - there's no point refining prose which is about to get rewritten anyway.
• The plot synopsis is far, far too long. I've dealt with this exact issue before on the Perfect Dark article: compare the old version and the new. The idea of a synopsis is to draw out the most major themes and storylines - if the reader wants to know the full story then they should see the film! I realise that deleting a large amount of text, especially if you've written it yourself, is quite painful but here it's very much necessary for the good of the artile.
• The cast list section is quite nice, although the FA crew are sometimes a bit touchy about tables. We'll see how that goes; it's easy to rework as a list if necessary.
• The "citation needed" labels need to be replaced with, well, citations! But I guess you know that already.
• The filming section is good but you need to be careful with phrases like "X is said to have Y". The main text needs to mention who made this claim. There's a citation here so that should be no problem to fix.
• The marketing and release section is very under-sourced. There are lots of places that need citations in addition to those that have been marked.
• The summary of the novelization is rather short to have a section to itself; this is presumably a result of the article itself being rather short. If there's not enough material for a separate article then I suggest merging the novelization's article back into the film article.
• A lot of the "Symbolism and cultural references" section still smacks of original research. It is this section that needs the most work. It's difficult for me to give specific ideas because the problems with it are quite deep-rooted. I might have a go at this section myself as that's probably easier than articulating my issues with it.
• The "Critical" section has the unfortunate air of an article trying a bit too hard to be balanced. I think at least one more negative review is needed here, as the section seems very imbalanced overall. I realise this is tough in this case because the critical review has indeed been overwhelming positive, but you can mention that external bias without including it yourself. This is tricky to do right!
• The "Political" section again has citation and original research issues. It's quite a short section but it does need significant work.
• The "Trivia" section still needs to be merged in elsewhere. I think it was mentioned in the peer review that if facts are not important enough to be incorporated smoothly into the article then it's best just to leave them out. Again tough editorial decisions need to be made here.

---

Basically, if I could sum up AgentSoo's words. The two most critical areas would be 1)the lack of citations and the original research in area some (Background, Symbols, Reception). 2) The synopsis should be shortened as it has too much detail.

--P-Chan 01:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added some examples (with citations, but they need to be formatted properly) of the negative reviews that the film received in the UK to the "Critical" section. I've included short quotes from The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph and Time Out to give a flavour of the trashing the film received, as well as a longer quote from Jonathan Ross (who is incidentally a huge fan of both comics and Alan Moore in particular). In interests of balance, I've also mentioned that Mark Kermode and Zadie Smith both gave VFV very positive reviews in the UK press. Personally I greatly enjoyed the film but I think it's fair to say that in the UK the critical reviews were very far from being "overwhelming positive". Anyway, I hope it's useful. Demos99 23:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you think is the common theme in the British reviews? Is there one? When I read the articals, aside from the usual negative view stuff, I get the feeling that the film's central concepts (fear of fascism, etc) are out of date in today's Britan, and thus they don't work. As well, I believe there is the general feeling that this is an American film, set in Britian... in terms of the dialogue, ideas and bad accents. --P-Chan 03:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the fear of American imperialism is very much still alive in Britain, and the film plays up to that. I have to say, I thought the dialogue was a little wooden, but the accents were quite convincing - especially Natalie Portman's. Soo 10:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

There's been some fan sites added recently to the article, which I reverted, as they didn't appear to be notable (e.g. only 30 registered users). WP:EL suggests that if necessary, fan sites should be restricted to a single link. Any thoughts on if such a fan site exists, and whether it's suitable for inclusion in the article? --Oscarthecat 15:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I say keep them out. It would be unfair to include one and not another. Also, i keep removing AforAnarchy! Whoever is responsible, please stop it, it is used in a reference, and is not an important exernal link! Cvene64 16:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Should we seperate Notes and References apart?

Does anyone want to change the current referencing system we have here? Should we have a seperate Notes and Reference section? (Not entirely sure what the exact difference except from the fact that references are non-specific, while footnotes are placed directly into the text.)

Excerpt from Citing_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources The system of presenting references in a Wikipedia article may change over time; it is more important to have clarity and consistency in an article than to adhere to any particular system.

Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below.

Any comments?--P-Chan 19:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this comment accurate?

All this despite that the original comic is an critical exposure of Thatcherism, that is economically libertarian.

I'm no expert on this, but I have this feeling that user is getting a few things mixed. It seems as though the economic system described in the graphic novel is form of state capitalism (with it's strong government-corporate collusion). I don't think that's the libertarianism (with it's support for free market economics) that LewRockwell seems to support. Any comments?--P-Chan 05:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The year of the action

I edited the synopsis for a present day of around 2039, rather than 2019. 2019 simply cannot be the "present day" of the story. In the Valerie flashback, she filmed "The Salt Flats" and met Ruth in 2015. They were together for 3 years, meaning that she came to Larkhill in 2018. Assuming that she and V were probably imprisoned for about a year or so (minimum), and that V claims to have been waiting "20 years for this day"--the day he blows up Parliament, the earliest year the film could take place is 2039. AlexKnapp 07:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Just verified what Alex said, and I agree that the while we don't know the exact date, 2039 is far more accurate than 2020. I suggest we keep it 2039 from now on. Oddly enough most sources say that the date the film is set in is 2020. But this simply cannot be true based on the evidence. Good job Alex! --P-Chan 03:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just about to post something about this, most sources say 2019-20, so we need confirmation from a decent source on this. Also it needs to be written in a more formal tone. Cvene64 08:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta Trailer 2, timestamp 1:12. The screenshot is a little confusing, but it says that Evey was reclaimed in 2015, when her parents were arrested. Plus Valerie stared in the Saltflats in 2015. Now, I don't know if it's 2039, but it certainly isn't 2020. 2020 is too soon. --P-Chan 02:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If the year is contested, it might be best just to leave it out. Isopropyl 02:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Until we get some better information. It should be left out. --P-Chan 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As I was watching today, I was curious as to when it was taking place. So I paid special attention when there was a computer screen (or possibly TV screen?) that showed the date, and it was listed as 2039 - Durden

I have removed the speculation of the year, until some sort of consensus can be reached. Discussions about the time can be held here and not on the article itself. Isopropyl 02:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis images

The first image, is that actually in the right place, I am probably wrong, but I thought that the image might be from the latter fight scenes...? Cvene64 08:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it was. Looks like it's from the fight scene between Creedy and V.--P-Chan 21:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Notice two new external links

• The Script, I think, is the original script from the Brothers before they did their second round of revisions. I can't be 100% sure though. I wonder if we can verify this somehow.
• The synopsis link, contains a very detailed synopsis. We may need this here, once the synopsis here is toned down.

(Which raises the issue, if we do want to tone down the synopsis in this article or not).--P-Chan 18:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This looks interesting

http://www.ww4report.com/node/1848 --P-Chan 06:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the event didn't turn out that big.--P-Chan 04:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Cast and casting section

I think we should combine the cast and casting section, to make the article more compact.

What do you think? I think this is generally a more user friendly format, than just having "Cast" with the table & pictures... and then have the casting section as a seperate section. --P-Chan 21:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The table and prose are both useful, and hard to combine, except that they can be put in the same section or adjacent ones.--Patrick 22:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's try that.--P-Chan 23:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)