V for Vandetta...

[sirhcyennek81]

Saw it tonight. Great flick. Gave me alot to think about, like the nature of power and how it can corrupt, the power of media to influence opinion, and what happens when you blow stuff up. I will never look at a domino the same way...

:Broncos:

[Dagmar]

You mean "Vendetta" right??;D

Still haven't seen it, avoided the other thread since it contained spoilers...
I haven't heard a bad thing about it so far though.

[sirhcyennek81]

You mean "Vendetta" right??;D
.


8 beers ago, this might have concerned me.

:Broncos:

[Dagmar]

8 beers ago, this might have concerned me.

:Broncos:
Damn, I'm celebrating and I'm only 2 scotch's in.... I doff my hat to you sir. http://www.hatsinthebelfry.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/stingyderbynyh-375.jpgAnd I can't blame time-change!

[manchambo]

I just saw it tonight. Great movie. I think comparing it with the Matrix really insults V. Just a much smarter movie. Something I can't get out of my head is the part where they take the lesbian lady's girlfriend. My first thought was, if someone took my wife like that, I would probably go down and blow up the police station. That got me thinking that, if someone ever invaded America, I would probably fight any way I could. That got me thinking, if I was an Iraqi, I might well be out trying to blow up humvees. I'm not saying its all equivalent (I'll never understand how a person cold blow up a bunch of innocent people) but that terrorist definition can get pretty blurry.

[SoDak Bronco]

That got me thinking, if I was an Iraqi, I might well be out trying to blow up humvees. I'm not saying its all equivalent (I'll never understand how a person cold blow up a bunch of innocent people) but that terrorist definition can get pretty blurry.

Well, actually they are foreign Al-Qaeda fighters blowing up Iraqi people(as much as Humvee's). Not quite the same thing you are talking about, but I get your point. I wouldn't make comparisons though as they are not accurate.

This is a great movie and I loved it.

[DB-Freak]

I just saw it tonight. Great movie. I think comparing it with the Matrix really insults V. Just a much smarter movie. Something I can't get out of my head is the part where they take the lesbian lady's girlfriend. My first thought was, if someone took my wife like that, I would probably go down and blow up the police station. That got me thinking that, if someone ever invaded America, I would probably fight any way I could. That got me thinking, if I was an Iraqi, I might well be out trying to blow up humvees. I'm not saying its all equivalent (I'll never understand how a person cold blow up a bunch of innocent people) but that terrorist definition can get pretty blurry.
Do you know what Matrix was even based on?

[manchambo]

Do you know what Matrix was even based on?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking whether I know what comic books the Matrix was based on or what the premise was? I am aware that it was based on a comic books, but I've never read them. I thought the premise of the Matrix was clever, and it was a very exciting, well done movie.

[manchambo]

Well, actually they are foreign Al-Qaeda fighters blowing up Iraqi people(as much as Humvee's). Not quite the same thing you are talking about, but I get your point. I wouldn't make comparisons though as they are not accurate.

This is a great movie and I loved it.

I think saying all that is going on in Iraq is foreign fighters blowing up Iraqis is a great oversimplification. That is of course happening, but there also are people who view themselves as resisting occupation. I don't begin to understand why they so often blow up a lot of civilians instead of attacking soldiers.

[sirhcyennek81]

I just saw it tonight. Great movie. I think comparing it with the Matrix really insults V. Just a much smarter movie. Something I can't get out of my head is the part where they take the lesbian lady's girlfriend. My first thought was, if someone took my wife like that, I would probably go down and blow up the police station. That got me thinking that, if someone ever invaded America, I would probably fight any way I could. That got me thinking, if I was an Iraqi, I might well be out trying to blow up humvees. I'm not saying its all equivalent (I'll never understand how a person cold blow up a bunch of innocent people) but that terrorist definition can get pretty blurry.

Cried at that part, when they take her GF, then her. I don't cry in movies, but that hit me pretty hard. Makes me sound like a friggin pussy, but I dont give a ****.

:Broncos:

[DB-Freak]

I think comparing it with the Matrix really insults V. Just a much smarter movie.

It depends on your view.

Before we get into this deeper, I would like to know why you think V is a smarter movie than the matrix.

[SoDak Bronco]

Cried at that part, when they take her GF, then her. I don't cry in movies, but that hit me pretty hard. Makes me sound like a friggin p***Y, but I dont give a ****.

:Broncos:

Pusssy HAHA, look at the cry baby.... LOL

jk.

[sirhcyennek81]

I think saying all that is going on in Iraq is foreign fighters blowing up Iraqis is a great oversimplification. That is of course happening, but there also are people who view themselves as resisting occupation. I don't begin to understand why they so often blow up a lot of civilians instead of attacking soldiers.


I dont think its Iraqis killing Iraqis. Most attacks now are aimed at Iraqi military and police units. Foriegn casulaties are down.

:Broncos:

[sirhcyennek81]

Pusssy HAHA, look at the cry baby.... LOL

jk.


I am in touch with myself. Sometimes 3 or 4 times a day, in fact.

:Broncos:

[manchambo]

It depends on your view.

Before we get into this deeper, I would like to know why you think V is a smarter movie than the matrix.


I just don't think Matrix gets much past clever. It is a very clever premise, but ultimately I don't find much deeper meaning in that story.

Vendetta is more complex and ultimately has meanings that go far beyond the story itself.

I liked the first Matrix a lot, but I don't think there's a lot of thinking to do about it.

[sirhcyennek81]

I just don't think Matrix gets much past clever. It is a very clever premise, but ultimately I don't find much deeper meaning in that story.

Vendetta is more complex and ultimately has meanings that go far beyond the story itself.

I liked the first Matrix a lot, but I don't think there's a lot of thinking to do about it.

Matrix pissed me off. It ends in a tie. No winners. Bull****.

:Broncos:

[SoDak Bronco]

I just don't think Matrix gets much past clever. It is a very clever premise, but ultimately I don't find much deeper meaning in that story.

Vendetta is more complex and ultimately has meanings that go far beyond the story itself.

I liked the first Matrix a lot, but I don't think there's a lot of thinking to do about it.

To me this is one of those things where it is fresh in your mind, and the "wow" factor of Matrix has worn off. But if you were to see V 4 years ago, and Matrix tonight. People would be saying the Matrix is much more clever. But I think the Matrix is much more clever and deep. V is semi-clever and real deep.

[DB-Freak]

I just don't think Matrix gets much past clever. It is a very clever premise, but ultimately I don't find much deeper meaning in that story.

Vendetta is more complex and ultimately has meanings that go far beyond the story itself.

I liked the first Matrix a lot, but I don't think there's a lot of thinking to do about it.
Well to be fair, it's all a matter of perspective on which one is smarter and crap, but...

I think you give the matrix far too little credit when it comes to being "smart".

[sirhcyennek81]

Well to be fair, it's all a matter of perspective on which one is smarter and crap, but...

I think you give the matrix far too little credit when it comes to being "smart".

See one group of hi tech rebels in leather, you've seen em all.

:Broncos:

[DB-Freak]

Two most notable things Matrix based on in terms of philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_allegory_of_the_cave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy

I didn't like the Matrix much, but due to the special effects and action in movie, it was easy to miss how much depth the movie matrix had.

[sirhcyennek81]

Two most notable things Matrix based on in terms of philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_allegory_of_the_cave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy

I didn't like the Matrix much, but due to the special effects and action in movie, it was easy to miss how much depth the movie matrix had.

Best gun fight sequence is in the first one, in the lobby when they go and rescue Morpheus. That first movie was ground breaking. Other two...ehh. Not so much.

:Broncos:

[Taco John]

I didn't like the Matrix much, but due to the special effects and action in movie, it was easy to miss how much depth the movie matrix had.


No it wasn't. What are you talking about? The only way they could have made it more obvious is if they handed out Cliffs Notes at the theatre.

[sirhcyennek81]

Matrix lost all credibility when they brought in a French Jesus and the Magdeline. Call them what you want.

:Broncos:

[phisig150]

Anarchy in the USA. But like Jello said with the Kennedys who would pave the streets or fix the sewers. Anarchy for Sale. libertarians like myself are anarchists with commonsense and a highschool diploma.

[Taco John]

Anarchy in the USA. But like Jello said with the Kennedys who would pave the streets or fix the sewers. Anarchy for Sale. libertarians like myself are anarchists with commonsense and a highschool diploma.


Except that Libertarians aren't for anarchy. "libertarians like yourself" aren't libertarians.

[sirhcyennek81]

Except that Libertarians aren't for anarchy. "libertarians like yourself" aren't libertarians.

That mushroom cloud you see is the coming argument of political affiliation...

:Broncos:

[Taco John]

That mushroom cloud you see is the coming argument of political affiliation...

:Broncos:


Nah. It's fasionable to say you're a libertarian since Bush took office. What's not fasionable is actually knowing what a libertarian is and reading from that perspective to better understand what it is you're claiming to be... which I do constantly.

Anyone claiming Anarchy is not a libertarian. It's an abhorent word in the libertarian world. That's not the message that real libertarians want out because it paints the party and the philosophy in a chaotic light that doesn't reflect true libertarian values.

Libertarianism isn't about anarchy at all. The thought of a lawless society is anathema to libertarianism.

But let the kids have their fun. I liken it to a kid calling himself a hunter because he finally gets taken to the shooting range. Have your fun. Shoot the gun. Keep practicing, and maybe one day you'll become a real hunter.

[manchambo]

Two most notable things Matrix based on in terms of philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_allegory_of_the_cave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy

I didn't like the Matrix much, but due to the special effects and action in movie, it was easy to miss how much depth the movie matrix had.


That's not depth, in my view, because it doesn't go anywhere. Obviously the authors were familiar with those ideas, but sticking them in a movie, along with a hodge-podge of other symbolism, doesn't make the movie deep. It certainly elevates the movie above the usual sci fi tripe, but it doesn't make it meaningful or important. I always had the feeling with that movie that the symbolism was just a put-on. Of course I could have missed something.

I thought the same thing about that HBO show, Carnivale. I think it's fairly common to pile on a bunch of seeming symbolism to give an illusion of depth. It's something any hack with an English degree can do (trust me, I have the English degree). It's hard to dig through all of it to figure out there's nothing undereath. And, conveniently for the author, you can always claim it's there but the reader just isn't getting it.

[sirhcyennek81]

Nah. It's fasionable to say you're a libertarian since Bush took office. What's not fasionable is actually knowing what a libertarian is and reading from that perspective to better understand what it is you're claiming to be... which I do constantly.

Anyone claiming Anarchy is not a libertarian. It's an abhorent word in the libertarian world. That's not the message that real libertarians want out because it paints the party and the philosophy in a chaotic light that doesn't reflect true libertarian values.

Libertarianism isn't about anarchy at all. The thought of a lawless society is anathema to libertarianism.


I might be a purist, but if you say you are an anarchist...how would it make you libertarian? Don't words mean what they used to?

:Broncos:

[phisig150]

Libertarians are for a sensible limited govt. Once one grows out of the teen angst and naive anarchy stance one with that type of mindset gravitates to the libetarian party. The party Ayn Rand and other free thinking intellectuals would endorse. The closest political figure at least mainstream that comes even remotely close to the party's ideals is John McCain. But to recap yes I realize the difference between junior high anarchy and grown up thinking Libertarian ideals.

[Taco John]

I might be a purist, but if you say you are an anarchist...how would it make you libertarian? Don't words mean what they used to?

:Broncos:



I have no idea what you just asked me. It seems disjointed. One of us is seriously missing something here...

[sirhcyennek81]

I have no idea what you just asked me. It seems disjointed. One of us is seriously missing something here...

sorry. 10 beers...i am happy i can see the screen. If you say you are a libertarian, but hold to the tenets of anarchism, wouldnt that make you an anarchist, and not a libertarian?

:Broncos:

[sirhcyennek81]

Libertarians are for a sensible limited govt. Once one grows out of the teen angst and naive anarchy stance one with that type of mindset gravitates to the libetarian party. The party Ayn Rand and other free thinking intellectuals would endorse. The closest political figure at least mainstream that comes even remotely close to the party's ideals is John McCain. But to recap yes I realize the difference between junior high anarchy and grown up thinking Libertarian ideals.


so...what your really saying is...

:Broncos:

[manchambo]

Libertarians are for a sensible limited govt. Once one grows out of the teen angst and naive anarchy stance one with that type of mindset gravitates to the libetarian party. The party Ayn Rand and other free thinking intellectuals would endorse. The closest political figure at least mainstream that comes even remotely close to the party's ideals is John McCain. But to recap yes I realize the difference between junior high anarchy and grown up thinking Libertarian ideals.

The problem, as I see it, is that what constitutes anarchy and what constitutes personal freedom is open for debate. People in Afghanistan think it should be illegal to convert to christianity. We argue about whether drugs or prostitution should be legal. Which consitutes inallienable rights and which constitutes lawlesness depends on point of view.

[Taco John]

The closest political figure at least mainstream that comes even remotely close to the party's ideals is John McCain.


Hilarious!

I rest my case.

[phisig150]

My point was that a lot of people have an anti-authoritarian **** the govt. stance at first but once you realize that the govt. with all it faults is a necessary evil you realize what we really is not no govt. at all but checks on govt. that makes it limited in a lot of aspects thus you become a libertarian. The two party system is a sham. We become more and more like Mexico and their one party every year. That's why I voted for Nader a couple years back at least he was a fresh voice. Until we have a true third party the US won't be a true democracy really a true republic since we don't actually live a democracy but that's really splitting hairs and is debate for another time.

[phisig150]

One drugs almost across the board and prostitution should be legal.
Two McCain at least doesn't always cowtow to partylines. I'm not saying he is a libertarian. Far from it but at least not a big of a pussy as the rest to actually speak his mind.

[Taco John]

sorry. 10 beers...i am happy i can see the screen. If you say you are a libertarian, but hold to the tenets of anarchism, wouldnt that make you an anarchist, and not a libertarian?

:Broncos:


Indeed. Libertarians are not in favor of lawless society. They are in favor of Constitutional freedom. Anarchy would contend that there should be no leaders, nor government, and that they should all be abolished. Libertarianism finds that concept ridiculous, and recognize that the government has very legitimate functions that it is bound to execute by the Constitution. Libertarianism, however, demands that government conduct itself within the bounds of its constitutional mandate, as where Democrats and Republicans are ok with bending the constitution and the government to fit their own ideological agendas.

[phisig150]

Except that Libertarians aren't for anarchy. "libertarians like yourself" aren't libertarians.

Don't know if you got it but the anarchy part was sarcastic. Anarchy is just blind dumb idealism. When most speak of anarchy they really mean Libertarian. Anarchy would be some type of feudal warlord system which is 100 times worse than the somewhat stable system we have now.

[sirhcyennek81]

My point was that a lot of people have an anti-authoritarian **** the govt. stance at first but once you realize that the govt. with all it faults is a necessary evil you realize what we really is not no govt. at all but checks on govt. that makes it limited in a lot of aspects thus you become a libertarian. The two party system is a sham. We become more and more like Mexico and their one party every year. That's why I voted for Nader a couple years back at least he was a fresh voice. Until we have a true third party the US won't be a true democracy really a true republic since we don't actually live a democracy but that's really splitting hairs and is debate for another time.


Government elected by the people is restricted by that fact. We put them in power. Reading your posts, I dont think you really know what you politically believe in. You are all over the map. You want to use the system, but consider it a sham...then go on to say its a false republic because we dont have a third party...make up your mind.

:Broncos:

[phisig150]

Indeed. Libertarians are not in favor of lawless society. They are in favor of Constitutional freedom. Anarchy would contend that there should be no leaders, nor government, and that they should all be abolished. Libertarianism finds that concept ridiculous, and recognize that the government has very legitimate functions that it is bound to execute by the Constitution. Libertarianism, however, demands that government conduct itself within the bounds of its constitutional mandate, as where Democrats and Republicans are ok with bending the constitution and the government to fit their own ideological agendas.

You sir sound like a free thinking individual ( libertarian ) and I respect that now it's just a matter of getting the rest of society to agree with us. The truth is that any ideology works in a vaccum in perfect circumstances even Marxism but in reality everyday world only imo Libertarianism really makes sense, it's what the founding fathers at the end of the day believed in.

[sirhcyennek81]

The truth is that any ideology works in a vaccum in perfect circumstances even Marxism but in reality everyday world only imo Libertarianism really makes sense, it's what the founding fathers at the end of the day believed in.


Founding fathers believed thus: Any government chosen by the people, at the end of the day is responsible TO the people. That is what they believed in. The only thing any of them agreed on.

:Broncos:

[phisig150]

Government elected by the people is restricted by that fact. We put them in power. Reading your posts, I dont think you really know what you politically believe in. You are all over the map. You want to use the system, but consider it a sham...then go on to say its a false republic because we dont have a third party...make up your mind.

:Broncos:

I'm not over the map. A republic which isn't a bad thing is what we live. We elect officials to rep us. A triue democracy we would vote for every issue. I believe in a govt that fills the necessary needs but stays out of our personal lives and globally intervenes when necessary, either to combat direct threats or protect natural resources we need. I don't see what's confusing about that.

[sirhcyennek81]

I'm not over the map. A republic which isn't a bad thing is what we live. We elect officials to rep us. A triue democracy we would vote for every issue. I believe in a govt that fills the necessary needs but stays out of our personal lives and globally intervenes when necessary, either to combat direct threats or protect natural resources we need. I don't see what's confusing about that.


We are not a democracy. That would not be possible in a country of 280 million people. We are a representative federal republic. Our system of government encourages a dual party system. More then that makes us france. and who wants that?

:Broncos:

[phisig150]

Founding fathers believed thus: Any government chosen by the people, at the end of the day is responsible TO the people. That is what they believed in. The only thing any of them agreed on.

:Broncos:

Give me LIBERTY or death. Cut and dry. It changes a bit over the years to include more groups of people bur essentially it's the same message. Let me live my life the way I want unless I'm hurting or stopping someone from living their's.

[phisig150]

Just curious but what are you registered as . As you can see I'm obviously a libertarian

[DB-Freak]

That's not depth, in my view, because it doesn't go anywhere. Obviously the authors were familiar with those ideas, but sticking them in a movie, along with a hodge-podge of other symbolism, doesn't make the movie deep. It certainly elevates the movie above the usual sci fi tripe, but it doesn't make it meaningful or important. I always had the feeling with that movie that the symbolism was just a put-on. Of course I could have missed something.

How would V be any different then?

Those idea weren't symbolism at all in the movie. They were the backbone of the movie itself.

[phisig150]

We are not a democracy. That would not be possible in a country of 280 million people. We are a representative federal republic. Our system of government encourages a dual party system. More then that makes us france. and who wants that?

:Broncos:

The problem arises when the dual party system is more and more alike each other that become almost indistingishable from each other except superficially like the "two party" system you have in mexico

[DB-Freak]

The problem, as I see it, is that what constitutes anarchy and what constitutes personal freedom is open for debate. People in Afghanistan think it should be illegal to convert to christianity. We argue about whether drugs or prostitution should be legal. Which consitutes inallienable rights and which constitutes lawlesness depends on point of view.
Good statement.

[phisig150]

Everything should be legal unless you are directly hurting someoneelse or inhinging on their freedoms.

[Taco John]

One drugs almost across the board and prostitution should be legal.

Libertarians consider this to be a states rights issue. Many will argue in favor of legalizing all of it, but when push comes to shove, the Libertarian party considers this an issue for the states.

Two McCain at least doesn't always cowtow to partylines. I'm not saying he is a libertarian. Far from it but at least not a big of a p***Y as the rest to actually speak his mind.



McCain is a Libertarian like I'm a Raider fan.

Look, if you (or anyone else) is really interested in becoming a Libertarian, or learning more about the party, its values, and etc., I welcome you to explore the following web sites...


LewRockwell.com
One of the top bookmarks in any Libertarian's list is LewRockwell.com. It's basically the Libertarian version of the Huffington Post, only the articles are worth reading.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/


The Ludwig von Mises Institute
www.mises.org (http://www.mises.org)

Mises (pronounced like "pieces") site is chock full of Libertarian principles as they apply to economics. They have multimedia options like podcasts and course classes by radio, as well as excellent articles. Hosted at the site is a section called "The Libertarian Forum" which is a Libertarian newsletter that went out from 1969 to 1984. It's an amazing resource: http://www.mises.org/journals/libertarianforum.asp


The Libertarian Party Homepage
www.lp.org (http://www.lp.org)

Great resource for what the party is currently thinking.


The Hammer of Truth
http://hammeroftruth.com/

This is the best Libertarian blog on the internet. Great commentary. Great libertarians.

[DB-Freak]

Everything should be legal unless you are directly hurting someoneelse or inhinging on their freedoms.

The problem is where do you draw the line of hurting someone and infringing upon others freedom?

Everyone has a different view and standards on that.

Who are you to say this is fine and this is not?

[Taco John]

The problem, as I see it, is that what constitutes anarchy and what constitutes personal freedom is open for debate.


I can't handle this thread this late at night. Nobody is making any sense.

[phisig150]

Libertarians consider this to be a states rights issue. Many will argue in favor of legalizing all of it, but when push comes to shove, the Libertarian party considers this an issue for the states.





McCain is a Libertarian like I'm a Raider fan.

Look, if you (or anyone else) is really interested in becoming a Libertarian, or learning more about the party, its values, and etc., I welcome you to explore the following web sites...


LewRockwell.com
One of the top bookmarks in any Libertarian's list is LewRockwell.com. It's basically the Libertarian version of the Huffington Post, only the articles are worth reading.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/


The Ludwig von Mises Institute
www.mises.org (http://www.mises.org)

Mises (pronounced like "pieces") site is chock full of Libertarian principles as they apply to economics. They have multimedia options like podcasts and course classes by radio, as well as excellent articles. Hosted at the site is a section called "The Libertarian Forum" which is a Libertarian newsletter that went out from 1969 to 1984. It's an amazing resource: http://www.mises.org/journals/libertarianforum.asp


The Libertarian Party Homepage
www.lp.org (http://www.lp.org)

Great resource for what the party is currently thinking.


The Hammer of Truth
http://hammeroftruth.com/

This is the best Libertarian blog on the internet. Great commentary. Great libertarians.


That's why I said he was far from being a true libertarian but at least he doesn't always follow party lines and his campaign refinance reform is sort of encouraging to third paries but in the end McCain is republican but all things considered he is sadly the closest to a libertarian that mainstream politics has to offer unless you can think of someelse i'm forgetting. Thanks for the links I've been to some of them but will be sure to check the rest out. I don't thinlk McCain is the Raiders more like the Dolphins. Kerry is the Raiders and Bush is the Chiefs.

[extralife]

I hated this movie so much. Full of loathsome characters, insidious pandering, and a general feeling of moral bankruptcy completely unbouyed by reason or message. No one in this movie commits a single action that can be described as noble, and not one person behind the production of the film can be said to have done this in an effort to say something noble. There is nothing here, and when you're dealing with characters and circumstances of this nature, that's as damning as it can get.

[phisig150]

I hated this movie so much. Full of loathsome characters, insidious pandering, and a general feeling of moral bankruptcy completely unbouyed by reason or message. No one in this movie commits a single action that can be described as noble, and not one person behind the production of the film can be said to have done this in an effort to say something noble. There is nothing here, and when you're dealing with characters and circumstances of this nature, that's as damning as it can get.

I thought it was pretty subversive. In this current political landscape it's daring for a movie to glamorize terrorism. I thought the acting was solid the directing tight and overall the movie had a vibe of 1984 which I enjoyed. Plus it fairly close to Alan Moore's masterpiece. I think this is the only Moore adaptation the stuck close enough to the source material.

[Taco John]

I hated this movie so much. Full of loathsome characters, insidious pandering, and a general feeling of moral bankruptcy completely unbouyed by reason or message. No one in this movie commits a single action that can be described as noble, and not one person behind the production of the film can be said to have done this in an effort to say something noble. There is nothing here, and when you're dealing with characters and circumstances of this nature, that's as damning as it can get.


Preventing a rape without killing anyone isn't noble?

[extralife]

Yawn. How often is that done in film? Hey, how about this--Evey is put in stupid and terrible situations time and time again by the directors for no real reason. Her end reaction to all of this is to simply give in. She's a terrible character.

[phisig150]

Please do yourself a favor read the comic V and then read the Watchmen then read Swampthing issues rhat Moore worked on. Also please please read League of Extordinary Gentlemen.

[Taco John]

Yawn. How often is that done in film? Hey, how about this--Evey is put in stupid and terrible situations time and time again by the directors for no real reason. Her end reaction to all of this is to simply give in. She's a terrible character.


Actually, she's put in every situation for a reason, which the movie makes very clear, not to mention the comic book that it was based on.

It sounds like it flew over your head and you have no interest in catching it.

V to Evey on their encounter: "It means that I, like God, do not play with dice, and do not believe in coincidence."

[extralife]

I think I'd rather not.

[Taco John]

Yawn. How often is that done in film?


Also... not very often. But maybe we're watching different movies.

[extralife]

Actually, she's put in every situation for a reason, which the movie makes very clear, not to mention the comic book that it was based on.

It sounds like it flew over your head and you have no interest in catching it.

V to Evey on their encounter: "It means that I, like God, do not play with dice, and do not believe in coincidence."

That quote is Einstein and has nothing to do with anything.

I'm sorry, but the film loses any hope of my caring about it's leads when one of them decides he needs to make the other learn something by locking her up, beating her, starving her, etc, etc, and her end response is to say "thank you." How loving. How easy. Yes, you can try to say 'it had to happen' or 'he was only helping her' or whatever. You could say she was wise to understand that. Or, you could wake up and realize how big a dramatic crutch that is. There is no relationship between the two, so Moore/Matrix kids/whoever decides to create one out of extremes. That's poor writing. Add to it the fact that V's morals and rational are so entirely out of whack they move beyond glorifiying terrorism--that would at least be interesting. This takes the idea, and makes you wonder if he even has a reason. He has no plan, no goal, has destroyed the only person that ever bothered to look at him, and is doing it all for personal reasons. His motives are hollow.

The man goes so far as to call himself an artist for what he did to Evey. That...that is just--no. What farce. His "goal," I guess, is freedom, but he is every bit as wont to use manipulation, coercion and misplaced force to cull the herds to his cause as those he'd topple. The girl, of course, is his "opus," a terriffied and humiliated little tart apt to latch on to his ideas in lieu of her own. It's just...blah. I can't gather my thoughts.

[phisig150]

The Evey training if you will is one of the main reasons I loved the film. Terrorists are like cults in a way in its singlemindness focus. Terrorists need to believe (no matter if you believe in their cause or not) that nothing in life is more important than the ultimate cause. What's so trippy about this film is that they're not trying to establish a muslim state but rather a democratic one. Do the ends justify the means even though they resort to the same tactics as Islamic fundamentalists? Isn't this country founded on terrorism? Why do we crucify terrorists today if we are guilty of the same (maybe niot to the same extreme) acts that are commited against us now.

[Taco John]

That quote is Einstein and has nothing to do with anything.


No duh it's from Einstein, and it absolutely has something to do with everything..


I'm sorry, but the film loses any hope of my caring about it's leads when one of them decides he needs to make the other learn something by locking her up, beating her, starving her, etc, etc, and her end response is to say "thank you." How loving. How easy. Yes, you can try to say 'it had to happen' or 'he was only helping her' or whatever. You could say she was wise to understand that. Or, you could wake up and realize how big a dramatic crutch that is. There is no relationship between the two, so Moore/Matrix kids/whoever decides to create one out of extremes. That's poor writing. Add to it the fact that V's morals and rational are so entirely out of whack they move beyond glorifiying terrorism--that would at least be interesting. This takes the idea, and makes you wonder if he even has a reason. He has no plan, no goal, has destroyed the only person that ever bothered to look at him, and is doing it all for personal reasons. His motives are hollow.

The man goes so far as to call himself an artist for what he did to Evey. That...that is just--no. What farce. His "goal," I guess, is freedom, but he is every bit as wont to use manipulation, coercion and misplaced force to cull the herds to his cause as those he'd topple. The girl, of course, is his "opus," a terriffied and humiliated little tart apt to latch on to his ideas in lieu of her own. It's just...blah. I can't gather my thoughts.

Ah... So the truth comes out. Your problem seems to be that the movie made you think *too* much. Most of your discussion points are exactly what the writer of the story is trying to pull out. I'm guessing that you're just angry that it challenged you so much.

[sirhcyennek81]

The idea V puts forward is...that thinking is supposed to be dangerous. You are supposed to wonder about what the media and your government are telling you. If you did not get that freedom of thought is the cornerstone of this movie, then you missed the point.

:Broncos:

[extralife]

No, I'm sorry. I'm a smart guy. I don't need a boring film to challenge my brain, and I don't need evil characters maybe fighting for something good to make me go "whoa I never understood there were shades of grey in the real world oh my god WOW!"

My point is the lead wasn't even close to good, the heroine was feeble, wooden and unrealistic, and in shooting for a "contraversial" middle ground, the writers and company merely stumbled upon a sophistic run around of abject, unredemable moral bankrupcty galvinized by group rhetoric.

The line in the movie that means something to me on a real level was "an artist uses lies to tell the truth," but V ran with it by turning his lies into reality while leaving the truth out to waffle amongst the hoards he had gathered to represent his unintended hypocrisy.

You cannot simply put a big idea on paper and claim your work to be meaningful. It has to work. Its actions must take flight within the boundaries of your ideal. V for Vendetta pretends it has something to say, but it ends up burning the wings of its ideas. It is a work of pretention and pomp that crashes well before it manages to find anything. That happens all the time. This particular peice just happened to be playing with fire in the first place.

I mean, if you want a real meditation on dystopia, go read 1984. Alan Moore certainly did, if you know what I mean.

[extralife]

The idea V puts forward is...that thinking is supposed to be dangerous. You are supposed to wonder about what the media and your government are telling you. If you did not get that freedom of thought is the cornerstone of this movie, then you missed the point.

That's the hypocrisy. "Freedom of thought" is a lofty goal, and this movie offers no such thing. Anyone in the world can put forth the message "big evil totalitarian governments are bad, mmmkay?" We all learned that in first grade. You can't merely slap that idea on a sheet of paper and call it profound.

[Rausch]

When was the comic written?

Who wrote it?

Why do you think it's being made into a movie now?

This isn't a Marvel/DC produced film about some metrosexual in tights pushed out there because they suspect another weak summer movie season and special effects are enough to put arses in seats...

[DownRiver Bronco Fan]

it's an OK movie, not great. I can understand (but not agree with) the revenge parts a little, alright, kill the people directly responsible for the suffering that they caused you, but blowing up buildings? (and killing innocent people) the guy was just another terrorist, no matter how the movie makers romanticized it.

[Rausch]

it's an OK movie, not great. I can understand (but not agree with) the revenge parts a little, alright, kill the people directly responsible for the suffering that they caused you, but blowing up buildings? (and killing innocent people) the guy was just another terrorist, no matter how the movie makers romanticized it.

The main character looked like a french mime.

I rest my case...

[Taco John]

it's an OK movie, not great. I can understand (but not agree with) the revenge parts a little, alright, kill the people directly responsible for the suffering that they caused you, but blowing up buildings? (and killing innocent people) the guy was just another terrorist, no matter how the movie makers romanticized it.


What many people don't seem to understand is that the comic (which I've now read) and the movie make no judgements one way or the other. They weren't romanticizing it. They were presenting the story and letting the viewer decide for themselves.

[Taco John]

No, I'm sorry. I'm a smart guy. I don't need a boring film to challenge my brain, and I don't need evil characters maybe fighting for something good to make me go "whoa I never understood there were shades of grey in the real world oh my god WOW!"

My point is the lead wasn't even close to good, the heroine was feeble, wooden and unrealistic, and in shooting for a "contraversial" middle ground, the writers and company merely stumbled upon a sophistic run around of abject, unredemable moral bankrupcty galvinized by group rhetoric.

The line in the movie that means something to me on a real level was "an artist uses lies to tell the truth," but V ran with it by turning his lies into reality while leaving the truth out to waffle amongst the hoards he had gathered to represent his unintended hypocrisy.

You cannot simply put a big idea on paper and claim your work to be meaningful. It has to work. Its actions must take flight within the boundaries of your ideal. V for Vendetta pretends it has something to say, but it ends up burning the wings of its ideas. It is a work of pretention and pomp that crashes well before it manages to find anything. That happens all the time. This particular peice just happened to be playing with fire in the first place.

I mean, if you want a real meditation on dystopia, go read 1984. Alan Moore certainly did, if you know what I mean.



Pretty much, every point of weight you've made was addressed in the film.

[Atlas]

Well, actually they are foreign Al-Qaeda fighters blowing up Iraqi people(as much as Humvee's).

There are both Sunni and Shiite death squads in Iraq.... along with foreign Arab fighters.

Definately not a place you want to take the wife and kids.

[Atlas]

I hated this movie so much. Full of loathsome characters, insidious pandering, and a general feeling of moral bankruptcy completely unbouyed by reason or message. No one in this movie commits a single action that can be described as noble, and not one person behind the production of the film can be said to have done this in an effort to say something noble. There is nothing here, and when you're dealing with characters and circumstances of this nature, that's as damning as it can get.

Gee welcome to the real world!!

[extralife]

I thought I was watching a movie, myself.

[Tombstone RJ]

Two most notable things Matrix based on in terms of philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_allegory_of_the_cave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy

I didn't like the Matrix much, but due to the special effects and action in movie, it was easy to miss how much depth the movie matrix had.

Ah yes, Philosophy. I took just enough of it in college to screw me up for the rest of my life. Thanks!

[DB-Freak]

Ah yes, Philosophy. I took just enough of it in college to screw me up for the rest of my life. Thanks!
"Whoever makes two blades of grass grow where only one grew before deserves better of mankind than any speculative philosopher or metaphysical system builder."

It's a pretty practical statement and can be interpreted into an advice.

[sirhcyennek81]

That's the hypocrisy. "Freedom of thought" is a lofty goal, and this movie offers no such thing. Anyone in the world can put forth the message "big evil totalitarian governments are bad, mmmkay?" We all learned that in first grade. You can't merely slap that idea on a sheet of paper and call it profound.


Freedom of thought is hardly a "lofty" goal. The fact it seems so basic, and that no one outside of V even considers it is what makes it profound. Everyone else streamlines what they think and what they say. Fricken motto of the chancellor is Unity in Thought, for Chrissake. Also...its just a movie, gramma. Chill out and stop pretending you know what you are talking about. mmmkay? :thumbs:

:Broncos:

[phisig150]

When was the comic written?

Who wrote it?

Why do you think it's being made into a movie now?

This isn't a Marvel/DC produced film about some metrosexual in tights pushed out there because they suspect another weak summer movie season and special effects are enough to put arses in seats...

Alan Moore wrote it.

It's a Verigo comic which is an adult comic line DC owns

It's being made now because it's relevant to what going on in the world today or at the Wachowski Brothers think so.

[anthonypacino]

Alan Moore wrote it.

It's a Verigo comic which is an adult comic line DC owns

It's being made now because it's relevant to what going on in the world today or at the Wachowski Brothers think so.
I also thought that Moore started writing it in the early 80's but the series was never finished, later DC picked it up and started it over. At the time it was written I (or anybody) can't really be sure of Moore's intentions or maybe I was to young to see example in the real world. I thought it was just a comic about a alternate future, it reminded me of more of a Nazi world, a dictatorship. Can't a movie just be a movie anymore why do people overanalyze things so much now? I do know that some movies are topical and made to reflect modern society and the world but does EVERY movie have to be about Bush, or "how bad America is". It was written WWAAAYY before any of those things took place. It is a universal theme, not about the Bush White House or about out brave soliders.

[manchambo]

That quote is Einstein and has nothing to do with anything.

I'm sorry, but the film loses any hope of my caring about it's leads when one of them decides he needs to make the other learn something by locking her up, beating her, starving her, etc, etc, and her end response is to say "thank you." How loving. How easy. Yes, you can try to say 'it had to happen' or 'he was only helping her' or whatever. You could say she was wise to understand that. Or, you could wake up and realize how big a dramatic crutch that is. There is no relationship between the two, so Moore/Matrix kids/whoever decides to create one out of extremes. That's poor writing. Add to it the fact that V's morals and rational are so entirely out of whack they move beyond glorifiying terrorism--that would at least be interesting. This takes the idea, and makes you wonder if he even has a reason. He has no plan, no goal, has destroyed the only person that ever bothered to look at him, and is doing it all for personal reasons. His motives are hollow.

The man goes so far as to call himself an artist for what he did to Evey. That...that is just--no. What farce. His "goal," I guess, is freedom, but he is every bit as wont to use manipulation, coercion and misplaced force to cull the herds to his cause as those he'd topple. The girl, of course, is his "opus," a terriffied and humiliated little tart apt to latch on to his ideas in lieu of her own. It's just...blah. I can't gather my thoughts.

I'll never undestand the demand a large percentage of our society exhibits for a type of after shool special morality in all films. Of course he is an immoral (or at least amoral) character. Why can there not be stories about that? Especially when they resonate so with the actual world. Has there ever been any movement or revolotion for good or ill that does not manipulate?

[baja]

I touch with myself. Sometimes 3 or 4 times a day, in fact.

:Broncos:

Fixed your post for ya ;D

[sirhcyennek81]

Fixed your post for ya ;D


I liked it the way it was before, dammit.

:Broncos: