|
Post by FredC on Mar 22, 2006 17:37:24 GMT -5
I've neither seen the movie, nor have I read the book. Which should I do first? I suggest seeing the movie first, then reading the book. And eliser_\/0, it's not a comic, it's a graphic novel ;D
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Mar 22, 2006 19:18:16 GMT -5
Man I did not like that at all.
Spoiler Alert The title character is basically a terrorist. But because the Government is run by religious conservatives, who persecute (often) homosexuals, we're suppose to root for the guy?
Not that I'm for persecution. But demonizing religious conservatives was cartoonsish and manipulative. The baddies are all broad, humorless fanatics. Which I guess is what comics do, give a broad swipe on bad vs good. But V seems to have loftier political aspirations. So the obvious propaganda felt like a shove in the back -
Portman's accent was terrible. Distracting.
|
|
|
Post by TarlCabot on Mar 23, 2006 14:40:42 GMT -5
The baddies weren't religious conservatives. That was their front.
They were fascists who wanted to gain control of the government by any means necissary.
Spoiler Alert To do this, they released a virus that killed thousands and blamed it on religious Muslim extremists. They used the population's fears to get themselves into power. Once they were in, they fed of the people's newfound xenophobia and got rid of everyone who wasn't "properly English": Muslims, foreigners, social activists, and homosexuals. All of which were threats to to the fascist government's ability to control the people.
They promised the people security. Security in the majority opinion. Religion just happened to be one part of it.
I still thought it was a good, if not a bit un-subtle, movie.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Mar 23, 2006 15:04:45 GMT -5
In the film he calls them Religeous Conservatives and it's pretty clear that this is who they are targetting. The thing with the Church leader and little girls, come on, couldn't you get more creative than that?
I dunno, maybe I read it (the movie that is) wrong. But it bothered me. The use of a distorted cross as the bad guys symbol disturbed me. I think the filmakers were taking a not so subtle shot at the religeous right.
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Mar 23, 2006 19:07:48 GMT -5
And eliser_\/0, it's not a comic, it's a graphic novel ;D Actually, that depends. Was it published as a whole initially? If so, I'd call it a graphic novel. Otherwise I'd call it a comic. I mean, Sandman could've been a graphic novel for some of its stories, but in general I still consider it a comic book because of the serialized nature at first.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Mar 23, 2006 19:54:58 GMT -5
I think the distorted cross is a real symbol. I remember seeing it on wikipedia, but I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment. It actually reminded me of the Super Smash Bros. logo. Yikes.
|
|
|
Post by FredC on Mar 24, 2006 11:41:24 GMT -5
And eliser_\/0, it's not a comic, it's a graphic novel ;D Actually, that depends. Was it published as a whole initially? If so, I'd call it a graphic novel. Otherwise I'd call it a comic. I mean, Sandman could've been a graphic novel for some of its stories, but in general I still consider it a comic book because of the serialized nature at first. Actually I was just quoting MST3K's "It's not a comic it's a graphic novel!" It was published in several parts in Europe sometime in the eighties (I'm not sure exactly when). It was later published in the states by DC comics as a graphic novel.
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Mar 24, 2006 12:44:32 GMT -5
I know, that's just always a line that's confounded me. Like saying "Lost In The Funhouse" is a Novel when it's actual just a well organized collection of short stories.
|
|