OT Movie V for Vendetta
Herbert Cannon
truthful either.
Anyone else seen it?
felix isp iinet
: Strange movie. Expected better. I would say miss it -not very well done. Not
: truthful either.
It doesn't match the comic? In what ways?
: Anyone else seen it?
Not yet planning to.
--
Today is Boomtime, the 24th day of Discord in the YOLD 3172
Felixmeister - Touched by his Noodly Appendage
"I'm a f---ing starship I'm allowed to cheat"
"Vorlon t'vut'na chog!"
Gernot Hassenpflug
Watched a downloaded version a week back on the recommendation of some
blogger on planet Debian. Well, I would not pay for it either, to tell
the truth. But it's nice to hear one's fantasies out load
occasionally : 'Are you going to kill any more people?' 'Yes' :-)
The best part, and that money can't buy, is that I watched the German
version. for those that know the movie, you know what's so funny about
that! I bet the actors doing the voice-overs had a lark LOL
--
Gernot Hassenpflug (ger...@rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp) Tel: +81 774 38-3866
JSPS Fellow (Rm.403, RISH, Kyoto Uni.) Fax: +81 774 31-8463
www.rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp/radar-group/members/gernot Mob: +81 90 39493924
Rich
Herbert Cannon schreef:
> Strange movie. Expected better. I would say miss it -not very well done. Not
> truthful either.
> Anyone else seen it?
Definitely a strange movie, but I enjoyed it and would recommend it.
The fight scenes weren't particularly special, but the overall styling
was good and it was well-paced.
It was a pretty British film though, I can understand that some of the
context could be lost across cultures.
Cheers
Rich
Rich
felix isp iinet schreef:
> Herbert Cannon <hcan...@cox.net> wrote:
> : Strange movie. Expected better. I would say miss it -not very well done. Not
> : truthful either.
>
> It doesn't match the comic? In what ways?
The ending is different... But I'm guessing Herb's complaint is that
it's insufficiently pro-right wing.
:)
Rich
Herbert Cannon
>
> The ending is different... But I'm guessing Herb's complaint is that
> it's insufficiently pro-right wing.
Unless you are totally ignorant, which I doubt, you would know that it is a
rather clumsy propaganda attempt to give truth to lies.
All you have to do is recall recent events.
Herbert Cannon
>
> It doesn't match the comic? In what ways?
Dont know I simply do not read comics and am unfamiliar with them.
Herbert Cannon
>
> It was a pretty British film though, I can understand that some of the
> context could be lost across cultures.
If that is British culture today you are in much graver trouble than I
thought. You also have your heads buried in the sand.
Karim
Ah, if only guns were legal! Then we could shoot our heads out of the
sand, eh?
--
Karim <remove SPAMFREE: karimSrPaAsMhFaRdEE at gmail dot com>
Don Wagner
Yeah, but the graphic novel was much better.
--Don--
Chuck Norris puts the laughter in manslaughter.
Rich
Herbert Cannon schreef:
It was written over twenty years ago, Herb.
It's a total work of fiction - there hasn't really been a virus, and
the US is not plunged into civil war. And it was an allegory about the
control-freakery and increased public surveillance under the Thatcher
government. Maybe you don't mind increased government control.
Rich
Herbert Cannon
"Rich" <rlanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144413737....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Herbert Cannon schreef:
>
>> >
>> > The ending is different... But I'm guessing Herb's complaint is that
>> > it's insufficiently pro-right wing.
>>
>> Unless you are totally ignorant, which I doubt, you would know that it is
>> a
>> rather clumsy propaganda attempt to give truth to lies.
>> All you have to do is recall recent events.
>
> It was written over twenty years ago, Herb.
OK not being a comic book fan - I did not know that. Nevertheless - the
movie is recent and therefore qualifies as propanganda to great ignorant
unwashed masses ( of which we have too many here).
> It's a total work of fiction - there hasn't really been a virus,
But there is the threat now is there not ( avian flu). So it can easily play
to that.
and
> the US is not plunged into civil war.
Once was enough.
And it was an allegory about the
> control-freakery and increased public surveillance under the Thatcher
> government. Maybe you don't mind increased government control.
>
It seemed much more than that to me. I will agree you have much more govt
control than we do. It seems you have cameras everywhere now. I have not
noticed any your governments after Thatcher hell bent on less control.
Control is an agenda of all govts - liberal many times more so than
conservative govts. There are many things I would dispense with that were
supported by liberal democrats here ( one being airline security).
The only thing that govt is needed for is to provide protection where I
cannot protect myself. And those instances involve National Security,
Organized Crime, and White Collar crime mostly. Much of the rest ( ie street
crime) I can take care of myself - the problem is govts do not like
independent citizens and discourage self defense and rant about vigilantes
when you do so.
The one statement I agree in the movie was, " Govts should fear their
people not people their govts."
Rich
> "Rich" <rlanc...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > It's a total work of fiction - there hasn't really been a virus,
>
> But there is the threat now is there not ( avian flu). So it can easily play
> to that.
Granted, there was even a sly reference to it. Do you believe that no
governments use fear to increase control of the populace?
> And it was an allegory about the
> > control-freakery and increased public surveillance under the Thatcher
> > government. Maybe you don't mind increased government control.
> >
> It seemed much more than that to me. I will agree you have much more govt
> control than we do. It seems you have cameras everywhere now. I have not
> noticed any your governments after Thatcher hell bent on less control.
Apparently, the UK has the most CCTV cameras per head (or per square
mile, I forget) in Europe. Combined with the face recognition software
available, there are causes for concern...
And no government repeals laws beneficial to itself without
considerable public pressure. That's the ratchet effect, sadly.
> Control is an agenda of all govts - liberal many times more so than
> conservative govts.
I'd disagree from this side of the pond; certainly the current
government is control-freaky, but by far the most centralist,
pro-public control government in the UK since the war was the
Conservative government of the 80s. And that was in many ways a very
conservative Conservative government.
And here in Holland, the silliest immigration controls seem to come
from the conservative right wing of politics. The left wing have their
own sillinesses, of course.
> There are many things I would dispense with that were
> supported by liberal democrats here ( one being airline security).
> The only thing that govt is needed for is to provide protection where I
> cannot protect myself.
In which case - what better way to increase its powers than to inform
you of threats that do not exist, or greatly exaggerate the threats?
Put that way, it should be *expected*, shouldn't it?
> The one statement I agree in the movie was, " Govts should fear their
> people not people their govts."
I thought it was an interesting balance of main character between noble
idealist and immoral pragmatist.
Cheers
Rich
Rabid Weasel
The "Graphic Novel" was set in a fantasy world where the government was
oppressive and out of control. I wouldn't doubt that the producers of the
movie may have tried to draw some sort of parallels to extant governments
but that was not the main thrust of the original "Graphic Novel" series,
iirc.
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
Rabid Weasel
>> And it was an allegory about the
>> control-freakery and increased public surveillance under the Thatcher
>> government. Maybe you don't mind increased government control.
>>
> It seemed much more than that to me. I will agree you have much more govt
> control than we do. It seems you have cameras everywhere now.
I've noticed cameras popping up at every intersection in America.
Allegedly they're to stop light-runners but they seem to be more of a
money-making scam than anything else.
suds mcduff
> And here in Holland, the silliest immigration controls seem to come
> from the conservative right wing of politics. The left wing have their
> own sillinesses, of course.
----The conservative party in your country would probably be considered
left of center here in the US.
Rich
suds mcduff schreef:
Almost certainly; doesn't explain why they have they silliest policies.
Have a nice weekend,
Rich
Herbert Cannon
> Ah, if only guns were legal! Then we could shoot our heads out of the
> sand, eh?
Naw ya'll would probably miss and shoot yourselves in the foot heh heh.
Herbert Cannon
"Don Wagner" <dawa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:44365c2f....@news-server.optonline.net...
Novels usually are.
Herbert Cannon
>
>> > It's a total work of fiction - there hasn't really been a virus,
>>
>> But there is the threat now is there not ( avian flu). So it can easily
>> play
>> to that.
>
> Granted, there was even a sly reference to it. Do you believe that no
> governments use fear to increase control of the populace?
If I did I would also believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny.
>
>> And it was an allegory about the
>> > control-freakery and increased public surveillance under the Thatcher
>> > government. Maybe you don't mind increased government control.
>> >
>> It seemed much more than that to me. I will agree you have much more govt
>> control than we do. It seems you have cameras everywhere now. I have not
>> noticed any your governments after Thatcher hell bent on less control.
>
> Apparently, the UK has the most CCTV cameras per head (or per square
> mile, I forget) in Europe. Combined with the face recognition software
> available, there are causes for concern...
Ah bring on the retinal scans. ( Wait until the Michigan Militia hears about
this).
>
> And no government repeals laws beneficial to itself without
> considerable public pressure. That's the ratchet effect, sadly.
Amen.
>> Control is an agenda of all govts - liberal many times more so than
>> conservative govts.
>
> I'd disagree from this side of the pond;
You may but look at who introduces all kinds of regulations on business and
attempts to disarm the populace. On your side of the pond there is also
France and its latest dumb ass protests. Bout time they went to work to cure
a moribund economy.
certainly the current
> government is control-freaky, but by far the most centralist,
> pro-public control government in the UK since the war was the
> Conservative government of the 80s. And that was in many ways a very
> conservative Conservative government.
Ok. Cant remember much about them thought they were supposed to be pro
business?
>
> And here in Holland, the silliest immigration controls seem to come
> from the conservative right wing of politics. The left wing have their
> own sillinesses, of course.
Holland? I thought you were in the UK?
>
>> There are many things I would dispense with that were
>> supported by liberal democrats here ( one being airline security).
>> The only thing that govt is needed for is to provide protection where I
>> cannot protect myself.
>
> In which case - what better way to increase its powers than to inform
> you of threats that do not exist, or greatly exaggerate the threats?
That is not a function of govt. Tell that to network news. If it bleads it
leads.
> Put that way, it should be *expected*, shouldn't it?
>
>> The one statement I agree in the movie was, " Govts should fear their
>> people not people their govts."
>
> I thought it was an interesting balance of main character between noble
> idealist and immoral pragmatist.
And a real good killer too. Notice his favorite film was Count of Monte
Cristo?
Herbert Cannon
other immigrants.
Herbert Cannon
> And here in Holland, the silliest immigration controls seem to come
> from the conservative right wing of politics. The left wing have their
> own sillinesses, of course.
I thought there were absolutely none in Holland for a long time.
felixmeister
wrote:
Yeah, kinda just like 1984.
So anything vaguely prophetic that has relevance to current events should
be discounted as clumsy propaganda and sticking ones head in the sand, the
story has f'all to do about left/right wing politics. It's about control
and
the destruction of the individual in pursuit of the state.
If it's pissed you off this much I would suggest it most likely provides a
commentry on issues that make you uncomfortable. (the commentry not the
issues)
Talk about ignorance and sticking you head in the sand.
felixmeister
felixmeister
wrote:
>
You should read some sometime then.
Cerebus is rather 'interesting', along with Give Me Liberty,
The Invisibles, Global Frequency and Transmetropolitan.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Mark Goldberg
I avoided it, somewhat like the clap, after I read debbie Schlussel's
review last month:
"V" for Propaganda
By Debbie Schlussel
"V for Vendetta."
It's an exciting, quality Bin Laden film.
But if you're like the rest of mainstream America--you support our
troops, believe in firmly responding to terrorists on our own shores,
and/or respect Christianity--then, don't waste your time at this piece
of garbage masquerading as a superhero movie. It is anything but.
If most other Hollywood films subtly whisper of an agenda, "V" clocks
you over the head with it with a still sizzling, iron frying pan of
extreme leftism. It doesn't arrive in theaters until March 17, but
already the mainstream (ie. liberal) movie critics and entertainment
media are raving about this egregious attack on our war on terror.
Based on the graphic novel series of the same name, "V" comes complete
with all the bogeymen the far left loves to hate: NSA spying and
wiretaps; government renditions and torture complete with Abu Ghraib
hood fashions; lecherous, elderly Christian clerics in collars raping
young girls; Islam, gay rights, and free speech under attack; and even a
Bill O'Reilly-esque evil cable talk show host/wicked pharmaceutical
billionaire/heinous military officer combo rolled into one character.
Oh, and by the way, the hero of the movie: He's a terrorist in a Guy
Fawkes mask, who blows up important government buildings. Sound
familiar? His mask might as well be a kefiyeh wrapped around his head in
a Nick Berg video.
The movie takes place in futuristic England, and there is only one
American star (Natalie Portman, who plays the terrorist's protege). But
it's quite clear to whom the "commentary" is directed: Joe and Jane
American. When this movie takes place, "the United States of America"
doesn't exist anymore. America is in the midst of a civil war.
And America and the war on Iraq are the enemies--along with Christians
and the right--in this movie. We are treated to newscasts about how
"America's War [on terror] spread to England." One character--a gay,
British Jay Leno type who hosts a latenight show--keeps a secret vault
of prohibited items, including a giant poster of "the Coalition of the
Willing," depicting the American and British flags surrounding a
swastika. Think about our troops fighting and dying in Iraq, before you
decide to give your dollars to this film. Do you really think they are
Nazis?
Also in the secret vault of sacred prohibited items: a Koran. Portman,
whose Evie is the "heroine" of "V," asks, why the Koran? "Are you a
Muslim?" she asks the late-night host. "No, but its [the Koran's] images
are beautiful." Then he comments about how he can be executed for
possessing the Koran. (Not a peep in this film about the thousands
who've been executed in the name of the Koran and "its beautiful images.")
Puh-leeze. If anything, both Britain and the U.S. have bent over
backwards not only for the Koran, but for its extremist Muslim
followers. Where Christian displays are absolutely forbidden in any
schools, despite so-called "freedom of speech"; where Ten Commandments
are removed from the Alabama Supreme Court, despite their being the
basis for our legal system; children are required to learn about Islam,
read from the Koran, and behave as Muslims in elementary schools, in the
name of "tolerance" and "education."
In "V", while Islam and the Koran are treasured but prohibited,
Christianity is pure evil. Nice juxtaposition, when in real life, the 19
hijackers, the '93 WTC, U.S. Embassy, U.S.S. Cole, and British subway
bombers were hardly Christians. Hmmm . . . what religion were they? We
don't recall Mohammed Taheri-Azar, saying on Friday in his post
attempted-murder 911 call, that he tried to use his jeep to kill
Americans in the name of Jesus. No, he mentioned someone else's name,
another religion . . . which are both nowhere blasphemed in "V."
We've already mentioned the high-ranking Christian priest, who regularly
rapes young girls procured for him through an "agency." Before the
priesthood, he was an evil military officer at a hospital where
politically dissident youth had experiments conducted on them for the
government (complete with Abu Ghraib-style hoods).
Then, there's the government. It's run by a religious Christian zealot.
But not just any Christian zealot.
No. Chancellor Sutler is the supreme evil Christian. In order to get
elected, he and the Bill O'Reilly-esque character (remember, before he
became a cable host, he was a pharmaceutical CEO and made billions)
arranged for hundreds of Brits to die from chemically poisoned water.
The government said that terrorists did it, a story which became
accepted fact and the conventional wisdom in media coverage. The fear
that ensued garnered Sutler the chance to rule England, along with the
martial law powers the English parliament gave him.
It's no coincidence that the symbol used for his government is some sort
of Cross-cum-Swastika combo. Not offended yet?
Under religious Christian zealot Sutler, gays are rounded up,
imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Ditto for any dissidents, any
left-wing activists, anyone who dares speak out against or flout the
Chancellor's actions. Tell that to the ACLU, which seems to be running
legal policy in our country, these days, and its partner in crime, the
Southern Poverty Law Center, the wealthiest "public interest" group in
the U.S., to the tune of hundreds of millions. We don't see any prospect
of them being rounded up by the government anytime soon, unfortunately.
Under the religious Christian Chancellor, "unjust" Gitmo-style military
tribunals and absurd NSA-style wiretapping is going on at every corner.
Throughout the movie, we are shown vans of law enforcement personnel
listening in to every home. As if that's what NSA wiretapping was about.
It isn't, but "V" drills it into you the way the ACLU wants you to see
it: every conversation in every kitchen, etc., secretly being listened
in on and laughed at by guys in sweaty, rumpled shirts and ties.
The evil government law enforcement chief, Creedy, runs a meticulously
ubiquitous surveillance program nationwide. If only our FBI's Robert
Mueller were so competent, we'd be safe. Instead, he's cavorting with
extremist Muslims and testified in depositions to ignorance of the most
basic newspaper facts about Al-Qaeda.
Overall, the most outrageous thing about "V" is the ending. Instead of
vanquishing terror, all of Britain sides with the terrorist hero of this
movie. They celebrate his murder of all the top officials in government,
his blowing up of the Houses of Parliament and other government buildings.
Terrorists and terrorism are the heroes, the government fighting them
and trying to keep us safe are the enemy.
This is the glorious revolution? Osama Bin Laden must be very proud.
Karim
> Cerebus is rather 'interesting'
*Great* up until about book 6-7. Then *shite*.
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
>On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:12:29 +0800, felixmeister wrote:
>> Cerebus is rather 'interesting'
>
>*Great* up until about book 6-7. Then *shite*.
It was pretty interesting to watch Dave Sim go clinically insane.
But you don't get the full effect of that from reading the collected
editions since they omit the letter columns and editorial content from
the original comic book.
--
Leif Kjønnøy, cunctator maximus. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
Karim
>>> Cerebus is rather 'interesting'
>>
>>*Great* up until about book 6-7. Then *shite*.
>
> It was pretty interesting to watch Dave Sim go clinically insane.
I personally think he just needed to get laid...
Don Wagner
> I avoided it, somewhat like the clap, after I read debbie Schlussel's
>review last month:
She took the whole thing out of context. Watch it when it comes out
on DVD.
Rich
> >> Control is an agenda of all govts - liberal many times more so than
> >> conservative govts.
> >
> > I'd disagree from this side of the pond;
>
> You may but look at who introduces all kinds of regulations on business and
> attempts to disarm the populace.
I'd disagree that a regulated economy necessarily entails any
impingement on personal political freedoms; I think they're two issues.
But as far as weapons goes, the conservatives (right wing) introduced
the strict gun ban motion following the Dunblane shootings.
> On your side of the pond there is also
> France and its latest dumb ass protests. Bout time they went to work to cure
> a moribund economy.
France has dumb-ass protests like the UK has hooligans and the US
obesity; they're not going to change the habits of hundreds of years :P
So when's the US economy going to pick up? ;)
> certainly the current
> > government is control-freaky, but by far the most centralist,
> > pro-public control government in the UK since the war was the
> > Conservative government of the 80s. And that was in many ways a very
> > conservative Conservative government.
>
> Ok. Cant remember much about them thought they were supposed to be pro
> business?
They were very pro-business, and also very centralising and more
concerned with political control than personal freedoms; the revisions
to riot laws and public gathering laws were incredible. This is a major
reason why I don't see the link between liberal economy and personal
freedom.
> > And here in Holland, the silliest immigration controls seem to come
> > from the conservative right wing of politics. The left wing have their
> > own sillinesses, of course.
>
> Holland? I thought you were in the UK?
I'm a Brit, but living in Holland for the last few years..
> >> There are many things I would dispense with that were
> >> supported by liberal democrats here ( one being airline security).
> >> The only thing that govt is needed for is to provide protection where I
> >> cannot protect myself.
> >
> > In which case - what better way to increase its powers than to inform
> > you of threats that do not exist, or greatly exaggerate the threats?
>
> That is not a function of govt. Tell that to network news. If it bleads it
> leads.
It's not a function of government, it's a side effect that needs to be
monitored.
Cheers
Rich
Fraser Johnston
"Karim" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:49pet8F...@individual.net...
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:12:29 +0800, felixmeister wrote:
>> Cerebus is rather 'interesting'
>
> *Great* up until about book 6-7. Then *shite*.
If you are talking about Cerebus the Aardvark that was definitely one series
that disappeared up it's own arse.
Fraser
Herbert Cannon
>>
>> You may but look at who introduces all kinds of regulations on business
>> and
>> attempts to disarm the populace.
>
> I'd disagree that a regulated economy necessarily entails any
> impingement on personal political freedoms;
Economies to a certain extent have to be regulated; however govts,
inevitably go overboard on regulation ( for intsance we do not need 1.5 gal
flush toilets - they are worse than the 3 gal standard and you have to flush
them more - a stellar example of dumbass govt regulation). Talk to
businessmen about this - they get fed up fast with regs. To grow you have to
have a business friendly environment.
I think they're two issues.
> But as far as weapons goes, the conservatives (right wing) introduced
> the strict gun ban motion following the Dunblane shootings.
That would be the left over here. Bu then your right looks kind of like our
left.
>
>> On your side of the pond there is also
>> France and its latest dumb ass protests. Bout time they went to work to
>> cure
>> a moribund economy.
>
> France has dumb-ass protests like the UK has hooligans and the US
> obesity; they're not going to change the habits of hundreds of years :P
> So when's the US economy going to pick up? ;)
Doesnt need to pick up it is doing fine. We have 20 million Mexicans who
want to stay here very badly. Does that sound like a depression to you?
>
>> certainly the current
>> > government is control-freaky, but by far the most centralist,
>> > pro-public control government in the UK since the war was the
>> > Conservative government of the 80s. And that was in many ways a very
>> > conservative Conservative government.
>>
>> Ok. Cant remember much about them thought they were supposed to be pro
>> business?
>
> They were very pro-business, and also very centralising and more
> concerned with political control than personal freedoms;
Cant be both. That does not make sense.
the revisions
> to riot laws and public gathering laws were incredible.
Riot laws. Are you advocating that riots should be legal? There is a large
difference between peaceful gatherings and riots.
This is a major
> reason why I don't see the link between liberal economy and personal
> freedom.
I do. You cannot have one without the other.
>> > And here in Holland, the silliest immigration controls seem to come
>> > from the conservative right wing of politics. The left wing have their
>> > own sillinesses, of course.
>>
>> Holland? I thought you were in the UK?
>
> I'm a Brit, but living in Holland for the last few years..
Interesting What I have read about Holland is they have a real bad
immigration problem caused by too much silly liberalism. I just finished a
recent book entitled " While Europe Slept - How Radical Islam is Taking
Over the West from Within." The writer spend a lot of time in Holland.
>
>> >> There are many things I would dispense with that were
>> >> supported by liberal democrats here ( one being airline security).
>> >> The only thing that govt is needed for is to provide protection where
>> >> I
>> >> cannot protect myself.
>> >
>> > In which case - what better way to increase its powers than to inform
>> > you of threats that do not exist, or greatly exaggerate the threats?
>>
>> That is not a function of govt. Tell that to network news. If it bleads
>> it
>> leads.
>
> It's not a function of government, it's a side effect that needs to be
> monitored.
Its side effect is to increase govt supported by the dumbass liberal chicken
littles on net work news who are trying to breed any self reliance out of
people and make them totally dependent on govt.
>
Karim
>> *Great* up until about book 6-7. Then *shite*.
>
> If you are talking about Cerebus the Aardvark that was definitely one
> series that disappeared up it's own arse.
Yep. I think I gave up at the point where Cerebus sits in the same bar
talking bollocks for, like, 200 pages... Started really well though!
Herbert Cannon
>>
> Yeah, kinda just like 1984.
> So anything vaguely prophetic that has relevance to current events should
> be discounted as clumsy propaganda and sticking ones head in the sand, the
> story has f'all to do about left/right wing politics. It's about control
> and
> the destruction of the individual in pursuit of the state.
It is a bunch of crap apparently turned out by the British left wing who
must have been really shitting in their pants over Thathcher.
> If it's pissed you off this much I would suggest it most likely provides a
> commentry on issues that make you uncomfortable. (the commentry not the
> issues)
Just for your edification here are some the salient points in the movie:
1.We have the nasty big corporation that infected everyone with the flu and
then sold them the cure after thousands died ( pretty much standard
propanganda fare for left wing propaganda - down with capatalism - workers
of the world unite - let me see where are such failed govts?)
2. We have the nasty old Prime Minister, who is represented as some kind of
nasty old Christian evangelist preacher ( note the badges displayed by the
police in the movie) and naturally a Hitler figure ( pretty much standard
left wing propaganda fare - and since only about 5 % of Europeans still
attend church on Sunday I would say the left has pretty much done a good job
in the last twenty years).
3. Then of course we have the courageous humorist, who keeps a Koran in the
basement because of its poetic beauty, and is killed by the nasty old
fascist christian govt for having a Koran ( the Saudis must have helped fund
this picture). Now go and try to get a bible into Saudi Arabia.Or better yet
watch what happens when a Moslem converts to another religion.
4. Then we have the implication that the this facist Christian govt hates
music and has somehow banned it ( shades of the Taliban - what did the
Taliban ban - let me see kite flying - yes, singing - yes, music - yes,
books - yes, dancing - yes - makes hard shell Baptist here look like a left
wing liberal). ( Try the Book " The Sewing Circles of Serat"). You might
also consider that the European birth rate has fallen below the replacement
rate.Considering that Europe is more and more dependent on its North African
immigrants, who are practicing Moslems ( while Europeans have forsaken
religion), looks like it will eventually under Sharia law.
5. Then we have a nasty play on the BBC represented by the BTN. I can only
guess that the left must have been quaking about govt funding here and maybe
Thatcher having the purse strings. I mean Noam Chomsky has even said BBC is
the only broadcast he can bear to watch. That ought to tell you something.
6. Then of course we have our main character plotting to blow up Parliament.
Of course we have to get rid of parliament - it represents a democracy - why
we we have to replace that with a commie politburo geez cant have elected
people in Parliament - govt know best.
The movie was bunch of political crap and a crappy movie too. Hell I liked "
Enemy at the Gates" and they were communist.
And I did not go into of the more subtle points of this crappy movie
Now run along and go read " The Black Book Communism - Crimes - Terror -
Repression" and " In Denial - Historians, Communism, and Espionage"
>
> Talk about ignorance and sticking you head in the sand.
Your view down there is kind of blocked aint it.
Herbert Cannon
>
> Herbert Cannon schreef:
>
>> >
>> > The ending is different... But I'm guessing Herb's complaint is that
>> > it's insufficiently pro-right wing.
>>
fought in WW II and dropped plenty of Willy Pete on the enemy - so when you
call me right wing - go fuck yourself.
Mark Goldberg
> Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> I avoided it, somewhat like the clap, after I read debbie Schlussel's
>>review last month:
>
>
> She took the whole thing out of context. Watch it when it comes out
> on DVD.
Don- can you explain why you think she took it out of context.
Mark
Herbert Cannon
> Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> I avoided it, somewhat like the clap, after I read debbie Schlussel's
>>review last month:
>
> She took the whole thing out of context. Watch it when it comes out
> on DVD.
felixmeister
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:12:29 +0800, felixmeister wrote:
>> Cerebus is rather 'interesting'
>
> *Great* up until about book 6-7. Then *shite*.
>
Hell, it gets kinda wierd in Church and State.
Fraser Johnston
"felixmeister" <felix_i...@work.it.out> wrote in message
news:op.s7o20qn67jlbx0@felix...
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 17:43:04 +0800, Karim <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:12:29 +0800, felixmeister wrote:
>>> Cerebus is rather 'interesting'
>>
>> *Great* up until about book 6-7. Then *shite*.
>>
>
>
> Hell, it gets kinda wierd in Church and State.
That's where I think it took a big nosedive.
Fraser
Mark Goldberg
> Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> I avoided it, somewhat like the clap, after I read debbie Schlussel's
>>review last month:
>
>
> She took the whole thing out of context. Watch it when it comes out
> on DVD.
The reason I ask is, that I saw 'flightplan' with Jodie foster, and it
was disturbing. I enjoy such films,and entertainment is entertainment.
Meaning there's no telling taste- especially in movies.
But it did bother me, the setup, who were depicted as the heroes, who
were the villains, the antiheroes- why? why did they have to play it so
politically correct. Here review, read afterwards, was rather
insightful, and she felt as I did, although, she is sharper, and much
more precise. So- when I saw her scalpal analysis of 'V' I definitely
gave her some credence.
That said-why do you feel she is taking it out of context in her review
of 'V'
Mark
Don Wagner
> Don- can you explain why you think she took it out of context.
Cuz' the novel was written with Maggies regime in mind, not the
current little hubbub. As soon as we see a building get thrashed
everyone turns to 9/11. As soon as we see a little man talking smack
on the screen we see W.
It's a good movie...in context...and is worth seeing. In contrast to
"Bowling for Michael Moores Bank Account" which was a piece of shit
from frame one, for instance.
Shuurai
Herbert Cannon wrote:
> Strange movie. Expected better. I would say miss it -not very well done. Not
> truthful either.
> Anyone else seen it?
I saw it the week it came out... it was interesting. I also expected
it to be better - seemed a bit rushed, and the politics were a little
heavy-handed.
Pretty much your basic Wachowski bros film... good idea for a story
but ruined in the end by their over-doing it. Same thing happened with
the Matrix trilogy.
Shuurai
Herbert Cannon wrote:
> >
> > The ending is different... But I'm guessing Herb's complaint is that
> > it's insufficiently pro-right wing.
>
> rather clumsy propaganda attempt to give truth to lies.
> All you have to do is recall recent events.
Nah - the fact that it was released as a movie now may be related to
current events, but the story itself was written a long, long time ago.
Early eighties I think.
Shuurai
Perhaps because it was written over twenty years ago, and because the
main character is trying to model himself after someone from the
1600's?
This story was a comic book, written long before Osama was a threat,
long before Bush was in office. The timing for the movie is perfect -
lots of liberals will go see it and love it because they think it's
talking about OUR government, and lots of conservatives will go see it
and hate it because they think it's talking about OUR government.
Mark Goldberg
> Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Don- can you explain why you think she took it out of context.
>
>
> Cuz' the novel was written with Maggies regime in mind, not the
> current little hubbub. As soon as we see a building get thrashed
> everyone turns to 9/11. As soon as we see a little man talking smack
> on the screen we see W.
So Margaret Thatcher should have been terrorized? Hmmm. Why?
Since there is no telling taste, I will likely wait for that discount
coupon and then rent it for $2 from blockbuster, eventually
But my reasons, are simply that in context with our times, using the
theme to derive pleasure and justification from what it did, seemed
beyond tawdry.
Surrealism, back in the beginnings of the 20th century was in their
minds, something of a blend of revolutionary politics, social theatre,
to blend shockingly incongruous images and combinations.
The dadaists, meant to unsettle and destroy notions of truth, truths,
falsity, and destroy the foundation for 'established values'
The goal was a kind of indoctrination philosophy, to destroy, and be
able to discard beliefs and inhibitions. It was giddy, it was designed
to destroy the beliefs even held within museums, libraries- as well as
the mentality of the judeochristian culture..
"We must break away from rationality, as out of a horrible husk,' they
sneered and shouted with fists a thrust- to trans value goodness and
evil. The honor of murder, was inherent in Brecht's plays- and I was
witness to these things as a college student and ever since. The attempt
to destroy the value base of the civilization, to force a chaos,
denouement, and self destruction.
So I demure from your personal assessment about 'Maggie' being a
different venue. But as I too understand- there's no telling taste.
I imagine if we were however, in a park, with our kids, and some asshole
wanted to strip our young uns's of garments to free the oppressed
mentalities and share the world ... .you and I would be quite ready to
dismember them with very similar vigor and alacrity.
The desire to maintain the threads of continuity are not artifices, nor
facile.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
>
>
> Cuz' the novel was written with Maggies regime in mind, not the
> current little hubbub. As soon as we see a building get thrashed
> everyone turns to 9/11. As soon as we see a little man talking smack
> on the screen we see W.
>
> It's a good movie...in context...and is worth seeing.
What I didn't include in my post, was the sense of forced alienation,
which movies thrust upon everyone, with this dadaist, anything goes, and
that's freedom, and that's entertainment.
It's cross pollination leaves me suspicious and cold. I don't hate my
civilization at all. I don't need to destroy it, to vilify it, nor to
constantly pretend that events around me need to be driven to chaos to
make sense.
Mark
felixmeister
wrote:
>
>>>
>> Yeah, kinda just like 1984.
>> So anything vaguely prophetic that has relevance to current events
>> should
>> be discounted as clumsy propaganda and sticking ones head in the sand,
>> the
>> story has f'all to do about left/right wing politics. It's about control
>> and
>> the destruction of the individual in pursuit of the state.
>
> It is a bunch of crap apparently turned out by the British left wing who
> must have been really shitting in their pants over Thathcher.
>
>> If it's pissed you off this much I would suggest it most likely
>> provides a
>> commentry on issues that make you uncomfortable. (the commentry not the
>> issues)
>
> Just for your edification here are some the salient points in the movie:
>
> 1.We have the nasty big corporation that infected everyone with the flu
> and
> then sold them the cure after thousands died ( pretty much standard
> propanganda fare for left wing propaganda - down with capatalism -
> workers
> of the world unite - let me see where are such failed govts?)
Not really this nasty big corp (and virus) was:
1. simply a way for the script writers to avoid the original premise that
there
had been a nuclear war, then chaos etc in the aftermath, stavation, weather
change and then the party comeing in and organising everybody.
2. The corp itself was just a tool of those in power to gain that power and
wealth, to help consolidate that power.
> 2. We have the nasty old Prime Minister, who is represented as some kind
> of
> nasty old Christian evangelist preacher ( note the badges displayed by
> the
> police in the movie) and naturally a Hitler figure ( pretty much standard
> left wing propaganda fare - and since only about 5 % of Europeans still
> attend church on Sunday I would say the left has pretty much done a good
> job
> in the last twenty years).
He was changed from a fat old man sitting in front of Fate (a supercomputer
that ran all of England) into Big Brother, ya didn't see the reference,
shit it was big enough. Good old 1984 that horrible piece of left wing
propaganda, burn it I say!
> 3. Then of course we have the courageous humorist, who keeps a Koran in
> the
> basement because of its poetic beauty, and is killed by the nasty old
> fascist christian govt for having a Koran ( the Saudis must have helped
> fund
> this picture). Now go and try to get a bible into Saudi Arabia.Or better
> yet
> watch what happens when a Moslem converts to another religion.
The implication goes both ways. A comment on the banning of the koran is a
comment on the banning of the bible or the hindi sacred texts, etc etc.
Banning is bad m'kay.
> 4. Then we have the implication that the this facist Christian govt hates
> music and has somehow banned it ( shades of the Taliban - what did the
> Taliban ban - let me see kite flying - yes, singing - yes, music - yes,
> books - yes, dancing - yes - makes hard shell Baptist here look like a
> left
> wing liberal). ( Try the Book " The Sewing Circles of Serat"). You might
> also consider that the European birth rate has fallen below the
> replacement
> rate.Considering that Europe is more and more dependent on its North
> African
> immigrants, who are practicing Moslems ( while Europeans have forsaken
> religion), looks like it will eventually under Sharia law.
Ahh, now you are starting to get it. Further the main message of the
removal of the music etc was a destruction of culture, everything that had
gone before and made western culture good was systematically removed or
banned.
> 5. Then we have a nasty play on the BBC represented by the BTN. I can
> only
> guess that the left must have been quaking about govt funding here and
> maybe
> Thatcher having the purse strings.
Um, no, it was a standard - to contorl the people you must control their
thoughts, to control their thoughts you must get your message out and try
to prevent anyone else's message getting through. Control of the media
does this fairly well.
I mean Noam Chomsky has even said BBC
> is
> the only broadcast he can bear to watch. That ought to tell you
> something.
Yes that the BBC has had surprisingly little 'editorial' control in it's
long
history, and that most of the directors have been interested in education
over ratings.
> 6. Then of course we have our main character plotting to blow up
> Parliament.
> Of course we have to get rid of parliament - it represents a democracy -
> why
> we we have to replace that with a commie politburo geez cant have elected
> people in Parliament - govt know best.
1. Blowing up Parliment is a particularly british thing (I wouldn't expect
you to understand especially the way you americans tend to Diefy your
politicians).
2. Where was the replacement with a stalinist like replacement, oh wait a
fucking second it was a stalinist like regime they were getting rid off.
Your point --> the window.
3. It was to be replaced by anarchy (or did the red circles and V's,
strangely
reminisient of a certain anarchy symbol go completely over your head).
4. The blame for the current regime being in power was placed squarely on
the
heads of the populace. The people were the ones who voted them in and
allowed
all their freedoms to be taken away, no-one else. And it was the people who
would have to take those freedoms back.
> The movie was bunch of political crap and a crappy movie too. Hell I
> liked "
> Enemy at the Gates" and they were communist.
> And I did not go into of the more subtle points of this crappy movie
> Now run along and go read " The Black Book Communism - Crimes - Terror -
> Repression" and " In Denial - Historians, Communism, and Espionage"
And why are you bringing communism up, the comic and movie are a
denouncement
of all of the action taken by the stalinist regime and other totalitarian
goverments.
You seem to be of the opinion that if it is anti-control, pro-people then
it
must be pro-communist. WTF. If anything to be be pro-communist is to be
pro-control, anti-people.
>
>>
>> Talk about ignorance and sticking you head in the sand.
> Your view down there is kind of blocked aint it.
Nah we have great views down here, not quite as cool as the Grand Canyon
but
some pretty awe inspiring stuff.
felixmeister
Mark Goldberg
>
> This story was a comic book, written long before Osama was a threat,
> long before Bush was in office. The timing for the movie is perfect -
> lots of liberals will go see it and love it because they think it's
> talking about OUR government, and lots of conservatives will go see it
> and hate it because they think it's talking about OUR government.
>
I have to read a review of the book before I watch the movie. The
dadaist denouement of the civilization, is what concerns me.
That is too blase, too callous, too indifferent for my tastes; precisely
because of what you intimate- people take a message out because the time
calls for conclusions, and that's how it's used. The medium is the
message, as the old saw goes.
Mark
Fraser Johnston
"Shuurai" <Shuu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144535416.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It was written in Thatchers Brittan.
Fraser
felixmeister
wrote:
He started in 1981 and finished it in 1988, just as Thatcher was going
into her third term.
Rich
> "Rich" <rlanc...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > Herbert Cannon schreef:
> >
> >> >
> >> > The ending is different... But I'm guessing Herb's complaint is that
> >> > it's insufficiently pro-right wing.
> >>
> Let me add one thing here - my father and plenty of my friends fathers
> fought in WW II and dropped plenty of Willy Pete on the enemy - so when you
> call me right wing - go fuck yourself.
Crikey... Apologies if you took 'right wing' as an insult, I was really
only referring to where I presume your politics are.
Not that I think you should rely on your father´s bravery and
sacrifice to escape any criticism, but in this case it was truly not
meant as an attack.
Cheers
Rich
Rich
Don Wagner schreef:
> Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > Don- can you explain why you think she took it out of context.
>
> Cuz' the novel was written with Maggies regime in mind, not the
> current little hubbub. As soon as we see a building get thrashed
> everyone turns to 9/11. As soon as we see a little man talking smack
> on the screen we see W.
It's interesting that the only outright negative reviews I´ve seen
come American right-of-centre reviewers; the US being a country proudly
founded on the basis of the violent overthrow of the oppressive British
government.
I appreciate it's stirring the pot a bit, but why do you think some
people see 'V' as Osama Bin Laden and not as, say, Paul Revere? His
ideology and values are closer to the latter - he doesn't attack
non-complicit civilians and stands nominally for freedom from
government control rather than conversion to another belief.
Cheers
Rich
Herbert Cannon
> Nah - the fact that it was released as a movie now may be related to
> current events, but the story itself was written a long, long time ago.
> Early eighties I think.
And it was polilical claptrap then as now. Crappy movie anyway.
house mouse
I guess you aren't going to be buying the DVD?
I might have to check out this flick to see what all this is about.
Jacob Andersen
> Strange movie. Expected better. I would say miss it -not very well done. Not
> truthful either.
> Anyone else seen it?
Not truthful?
What exactly do you mean by that?
/Jacob
Jacob Andersen
>>
>> The ending is different... But I'm guessing Herb's complaint is that
>> it's insufficiently pro-right wing.
>
> Unless you are totally ignorant, which I doubt, you would know that it is a
> rather clumsy propaganda attempt to give truth to lies.
> All you have to do is recall recent events.
So you are unaware that this is an adaptation of a graphic novel from the
eighties? How recent could those events be?
/Jacob
Jacob Andersen
> "Herbert Cannon" <hcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>>Strange movie. Expected better. I would say miss it -not very well done. Not
>>truthful either.
>>Anyone else seen it?
>
> Yeah, but the graphic novel was much better.
Same message though as far as I can tell. And that seems to be Herbs main
critique point.
Of course the message is completely lost on him, because all he sees is
something that doesn't agree with him.
/Jacob
Rabid Weasel
> Yeah, kinda just like 1984.
> So anything vaguely prophetic that has relevance to current events should
> be discounted as clumsy propaganda and sticking ones head in the sand, the
> story has f'all to do about left/right wing politics.
How was 1984 even vaguely prophetic? Nothing that it predicts has come
into being with even 1/8th of the capacity suggested. The closest is
"universal surveillance" and even that is not but a pale shadow of what
was suggested.
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
Rabid Weasel
> Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Don- can you explain why you think she took it out of context.
>
> Cuz' the novel was written with Maggies regime in mind, not the
> current little hubbub. As soon as we see a building get thrashed
> everyone turns to 9/11. As soon as we see a little man talking smack
> on the screen we see W.
>
> It's a good movie...in context...and is worth seeing.
One might realistically suggest that the Producers chose this story line
specifically in hopes of trying to make a political statement of the
current U.S.
It wouldn't be the first time something intended to make a statement about
something else was, um... "expanded" to try to make a statement about some
different area that what was originally intended. I don't recall hearing,
was the crap about the Koran in the Graphic Novel?
Rabid Weasel
And both *may* be right. The intend of the original story line may have
nothing to do with the intent of the movie Producers.
:-)
Rabid Weasel
> Just for your edification here are some the salient points in the movie:
>
> 1.We have the nasty big corporation that infected everyone with the flu and
> then sold them the cure after thousands died ( pretty much standard
> propanganda fare for left wing propaganda - down with capatalism - workers
> of the world unite - let me see where are such failed govts?)
This is an absolute standard for SciFi-ish type flicks which one to set up
a single hero against insurmountable forces. The typically insurmountable
forces are, quite logically, governments or multi-national corps which
control governments. Witness _Johnny Mnemonic_, and _Highlander II - The
Sickening_.
Rabid Weasel
I suspect that what Herb sees is a constant an unremitting attack from the
left on his views, his politics, and his political leaders. In the midst
of this unrelenting, continuous attack, _V For Vendetta_ is released, it's
sources (i.e. "Hollywood") being essentially the same as many of the
attacks he's thus far witnessed. In the vacuum of other information, it
seems logical to assume that this is just one more attack.
Further, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the mere fact that the original
author's intent had nothing to do with the current U.S. Political climate
has absolutely *NO* bearing upon whether or not the Producers of the movie
wish to apply it to the current U.S. Political landscape.
I mean, heck Orwell had no gripe against Bush or the "War on Terror" (and
how *could* he?!?!) yet, "Big Brother" is constantly the accusation of the
left against Bush. For that matter, "Big Brother" has been the accusation
against untold numbers of Politicians and political maneuvers Orwell had
never even *imagined*. It's hardly a great stretch to suggest that a
"classic" with political overtones might be used (or misused) to try to
make a political statement.
Jacob Andersen
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 01:01:30 +0200, Jacob Andersen wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:34:11 GMT, Don Wagner wrote:
>>
>>> "Herbert Cannon" <hcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>Strange movie. Expected better. I would say miss it -not very well done. Not
>>>>truthful either.
>>>>Anyone else seen it?
>>>
>>> Yeah, but the graphic novel was much better.
>>
>> Same message though as far as I can tell. And that seems to be Herbs main
>> critique point.
>> Of course the message is completely lost on him, because all he sees is
>> something that doesn't agree with him.
>>
>> /Jacob
>
> I suspect that what Herb sees is a constant an unremitting attack from the
> left on his views, his politics, and his political leaders. In the midst
> of this unrelenting, continuous attack, _V For Vendetta_ is released, it's
> sources (i.e. "Hollywood") being essentially the same as many of the
> attacks he's thus far witnessed. In the vacuum of other information, it
> seems logical to assume that this is just one more attack.
You're probably right, but the fact that he sees an attack against a
fascist regime as an attack on his (as far as I can tell) decidedly
non-fascist views should be cause for, well "something".
> Further, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the mere fact that the original
> author's intent had nothing to do with the current U.S. Political climate
> has absolutely *NO* bearing upon whether or not the Producers of the movie
> wish to apply it to the current U.S. Political landscape.
They probably did. But to make a point of specifics that hasn't happened
and then deciding that this fictional story is not "truthful" is just
strange. The original was probably a warning against giving the government
increased possibilities for control and surveillance in the name of safety
or something. I don't really know much about British politics under
Thatcher. The movie is probably pretty much about the same thing, and it
would be a fairly good bet that the producers found that now was a relevant
time to put this movie out.
But that it isn't "truthful" is just nonsense. It's a work of fiction with
at point. It doesn't make any claims to the reality of what is causing
things like The Patriot Act to be accepted. It's just that the fact that
these laws are passed may make the point more interesting.
> I mean, heck Orwell had no gripe against Bush or the "War on Terror" (and
> how *could* he?!?!) yet, "Big Brother" is constantly the accusation of the
> left against Bush.
Big Brother is just a catchy term that makes people consider the broader
scope of what "could" theoretically happen.
Sure it's a far cry from where you are, but it's fairly undeniable that the
government IS allowed to control its citizens to a further degree than
would have been accepted had certain events not caused fear in the
populace.
It's an age-old point, and this movie makes it.
As far as I can tell, it SHOULD be fairly congruent with Herbs views (and
certainly your own), but the point is lost on him - even though he agrees
with a VERY central point (that governments should fear their citizens, not
the other way around). All he sees is an attack.
> For that matter, "Big Brother" has been the accusation
> against untold numbers of Politicians and political maneuvers Orwell had
> never even *imagined*. It's hardly a great stretch to suggest that a
> "classic" with political overtones might be used (or misused) to try to
> make a political statement.
I'd guess Orwell wouldn't be loving the current turn of events all that
much, even if they're not quite "1984"
/Jacob
felixmeister
Sorry mixed references. The 'kinda just like 1984' was in response to 'a
rather clumsy propaganda attempt to give truth to lies.'
And the next section is refering more to V for vendetta and how a
particular agenda was incorrectly overlaid over the story.
The universal surveillance warned about in 1984 has not come about
in the form suggested there. The problem is that it has been more
'insideous', in that instead of, as puported in 1984, the cameras
being forced upon us, we have welcomed, invited and at times demanded
them. Which I feel is even worse, as it is much easier to rebel or
rail against something that you are forced to do, but much much harder
to recognise the threat when you yourself have requested it.
Rich
It's not so much in the concrete predictions - sci-fi is rarely an
attempt to do that - as the correlations and warnings, the parallels.
It's exceptionally accurate in pinpointing the control mechanisms of
oppression, whether in Africa, Asia, Europe or America.
Now, a political opposition party has no power and wants it, so the
opposition always uses texts like 1984 to attack the party in power.
It's not specifically anti-left or -right, so it is adapted to suit.
And since the right is in power in the US at the moment, it bears the
flack. And there *are* some passages that fit neatly with a hawkish
right ("continuous war..."), just as there are plenty that fit
perfectly with a message-obsessed left.
The genius of Orwell was in creating the perfect amorphous monster of a
government; whatever your political background, you see Big Brother in
your political opponents.
Cheers
Rich
Rabid Weasel
> You're probably right, but the fact that he sees an attack against a
> fascist regime as an attack on his (as far as I can tell) decidedly
> non-fascist views should be cause for, well "something".
Yeah. I'll grand that his reaction was a little, well... ummm...
reactionary. But I think I understand where he's coming from with it.
>> Further, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the mere fact that the original
>> author's intent had nothing to do with the current U.S. Political climate
>> has absolutely *NO* bearing upon whether or not the Producers of the movie
>> wish to apply it to the current U.S. Political landscape.
>
> They probably did.
I waffle between thinking they must have and thinking that they were just
trying to cash in on a string of successful Graphic Novel -to- Big Screen
events such as _The Crow_ and _Sin City_.
BTW, I finally rented _Sin City_ last night. It was decent but I wished I
hadn't watched it with my wife. It wasn't her style of flick and it kinda
creeped her out.
> But to make a point of specifics that hasn't happened
> and then deciding that this fictional story is not "truthful" is just
> strange. The original was probably a warning against giving the government
> increased possibilities for control and surveillance in the name of safety
> or something. I don't really know much about British politics under
> Thatcher. The movie is probably pretty much about the same thing, and it
> would be a fairly good bet that the producers found that now was a relevant
> time to put this movie out.
I agree. Unless you work with the supposition that this was a new story
line and the movie was *definitely* produced with base motives - not that
of a "warning against giving too much power to the government" but of an
attack with a specific target. Sort of the way _Wag the Dog_ was thought
by some Candidate_ was thought by some to have been purposely critical of
Hillary Clinton.
> But that it isn't "truthful" is just nonsense. It's a work of fiction with
> at point. It doesn't make any claims to the reality of what is causing
> things like The Patriot Act to be accepted. It's just that the fact that
> these laws are passed may make the point more interesting.
Sure.
>> I mean, heck Orwell had no gripe against Bush or the "War on Terror" (and
>> how *could* he?!?!) yet, "Big Brother" is constantly the accusation of the
>> left against Bush.
>
> Big Brother is just a catchy term that makes people consider the broader
> scope of what "could" theoretically happen.
I agree.
> Sure it's a far cry from where you are, but it's fairly undeniable that the
> government IS allowed to control its citizens to a further degree than
> would have been accepted had certain events not caused fear in the
> populace.
Sure thing.
> It's an age-old point, and this movie makes it.
> As far as I can tell, it SHOULD be fairly congruent with Herbs views (and
> certainly your own), but the point is lost on him - even though he agrees
> with a VERY central point (that governments should fear their citizens, not
> the other way around).
Yes.
> All he sees is an attack.
Well, when you get used to seeing people swinging at you, you kinda start
to view most arm motions as a potential swing. Not say'n it's "right"
just saying it "is." This is the state of U.S. Politics. Very divisive.
And the party who's not in power (the Democrats/Left) pretty much gets to
obstruct, divide, and attack. :-)
>> For that matter, "Big Brother" has been the accusation
>> against untold numbers of Politicians and political maneuvers Orwell had
>> never even *imagined*. It's hardly a great stretch to suggest that a
>> "classic" with political overtones might be used (or misused) to try to
>> make a political statement.
>
> I'd guess Orwell wouldn't be loving the current turn of events all that
> much, even if they're not quite "1984"
I suspect not. I believe that he would be particularly unhappy about the
Patriot Act I/II and the growth of public property surveillance cameras.
Rich
> The universal surveillance warned about in 1984 has not come about
> in the form suggested there. The problem is that it has been more
> 'insideous', in that instead of, as puported in 1984, the cameras
> being forced upon us, we have welcomed, invited and at times demanded
> them.
They were in 1984, due to the government's constant state of war and
fear; most people will choose security for themselves and their
families over political liberty. Extremist politics does well in times
of depression and uncertainty.
Cheers
Rich
Rabid Weasel
Well, I can't argue with that.
Should we just skip ahead to insults and past this awkward moment of
agreement?
;-)
Rabid Weasel
> It's not so much in the concrete predictions - sci-fi is rarely an
> attempt to do that - as the correlations and warnings, the parallels.
> It's exceptionally accurate in pinpointing the control mechanisms of
> oppression, whether in Africa, Asia, Europe or America.
Sure, I'll agree with that.
> Now, a political opposition party has no power and wants it, so the
> opposition always uses texts like 1984 to attack the party in power.
> It's not specifically anti-left or -right, so it is adapted to suit.
> And since the right is in power in the US at the moment, it bears the
> flack. And there *are* some passages that fit neatly with a hawkish
> right ("continuous war..."), just as there are plenty that fit
> perfectly with a message-obsessed left.
Yes. I think I tried to sorta say this earlier. You said it quite well
though.
> The genius of Orwell was in creating the perfect amorphous monster of a
> government; whatever your political background, you see Big Brother in
> your political opponents.
<snork> <applause>
Herbert Cannon
"Jacob Andersen" <fu...@you.ass> wrote in message
news:1l5y99l6aagzs$.ovcm0wftc65g$.dlg@40tude.net...
felixmeister
<lawson@NO31429SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
Never mind that now what are you wearing.
<Something in purple suede he yearns, hopeing beyond hope>
felixmeister
Don Wagner
>Don Wagner wrote:
>
>> Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Don- can you explain why you think she took it out of context.
>> Cuz' the novel was written with Maggies regime in mind, not the
>> current little hubbub. As soon as we see a building get thrashed
>> everyone turns to 9/11. As soon as we see a little man talking smack
>> on the screen we see W.
> So Margaret Thatcher should have been terrorized? Hmmm. Why?
Mark, thats plain crazy talk.
>Since there is no telling taste, I will likely wait for that discount
>coupon and then rent it for $2 from blockbuster, eventually
Which is as it should be. There are very few "big screen" movies worth
$10+.
>So I demure from your personal assessment about 'Maggie' being a
>different venue. But as I too understand- there's no telling taste.
I personally feel she did a lot of harm and opened the doors to
further abuse, but since it isn't my country my opinion doesn't
really count for much.
--Don--
Chuck Norris puts the laughter in manslaughter.
felix isp iinet
: felixmeister schreef:
Good point, although there is more of a feeling of an oppressive
stalinist-like gov't imposing the surveillance alongside the change in
language.
Bugger, I need to re-read that book again.
I don't think anything scared me quite as much as 1984 when I was a kid.
Read Steven King and standard horror stuff, but '84 chilled me right to
the bone.
Except for maybe the movie Day of the triffids, those plants scared the
fuck out of me in year 4.
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 28th day of Discord in the YOLD 3172
Felixmeister - Touched by his Noodly Appendage
"I'm a f---ing starship I'm allowed to cheat"
"Vorlon t'vut'na chog!"
felix isp iinet
They changed the location and owner. V notes that he has a copy when he
first introduces her to the Shadow Gallery.
Rich
> I think they're two issues.
> > But as far as weapons goes, the conservatives (right wing) introduced
> > the strict gun ban motion following the Dunblane shootings.
>
> That would be the left over here. Bu then your right looks kind of like our
> left.
So... the problem with the US left is that it's not left enough? :P
> > France has dumb-ass protests like the UK has hooligans and the US
> > obesity; they're not going to change the habits of hundreds of years :P
> > So when's the US economy going to pick up? ;)
>
> Doesnt need to pick up it is doing fine. We have 20 million Mexicans who
> want to stay here very badly. Does that sound like a depression to you?
The French have as many Algerians and Moroccans who want to live there,
so what? The desires of poor neighbours are no economic barometer; look
at exchange rates, deficits and so on. It's not a doomsday scenario,
but then neither is France.
> > They were very pro-business, and also very centralising and more
> > concerned with political control than personal freedoms;
>
> Cant be both. That does not make sense.
Well they were. Talk about people sticking their head in the sand... ;)
> the revisions
> > to riot laws and public gathering laws were incredible.
>
> Riot laws. Are you advocating that riots should be legal? There is a large
> difference between peaceful gatherings and riots.
Don't be slow, Herb, I´m not advocating anything of the sort. A party
that gives the police the power to decide that any unauthorised public
gathering of more than four people is a 'riot' is not particularly
pro-liberty, however many tax breaks they give industry, business
regulations they repeal and industries they denationalise.
> > This is a major
> > reason why I don't see the link between liberal economy and personal
> > freedom.
>
> I do. You cannot have one without the other.
The economy is dependent on freedom; the freedom isn't dependent on the
economy. A fish is dependent on water, water doesn't need fish. :)
> > I'm a Brit, but living in Holland for the last few years..
>
> Interesting What I have read about Holland is they have a real bad
> immigration problem caused by too much silly liberalism. I just finished a
> recent book entitled " While Europe Slept - How Radical Islam is Taking
> Over the West from Within." The writer spend a lot of time in Holland.
Sounds like a thrilling title. There's a problem with radical Islam,
but arguably less so than for the US or UK. Of course, you can blame
all the ills of the world on too much liberalism, or not enough; but
outside the US there are more than two parties.
> > It's not a function of government, it's a side effect that needs to be
> > monitored.
>
> Its side effect is to increase govt supported by the dumbass liberal chicken
> littles on net work news who are trying to breed any self reliance out of
> people and make them totally dependent on govt.
Why is that in the networks' interest? I thought there was a liberal
conspiracy, surely the liberal bogeymen don't want people dependent on
Bush's office?
Cheers
Rich
Mark Goldberg
>
>> So Margaret Thatcher should have been terrorized? Hmmm. Why?
>
>
> Mark, thats plain crazy talk.
I thought plain crazy was de rigeur.... I was being ironical, Don :^)
>
>
>>Since there is no telling taste, I will likely wait for that discount
>>coupon and then rent it for $2 from blockbuster, eventually
>
>
> Which is as it should be. There are very few "big screen" movies worth
> $10+.
I took my two kids and another kid, to see, Ice Age 2. Not bad. Good
animation- we were the only people in the entire theatre. The kids got
to jump up and down and act out and sing in front of the white movie
screen as they weren't disturbing anyone. Amazing what comes out of
their little brains, when they free associate.
>
>
>>So I demure from your personal assessment about 'Maggie' being a
>>different venue. But as I too understand- there's no telling taste.
>
>
> I personally feel she did a lot of harm and opened the doors to
> further abuse, but since it isn't my country my opinion doesn't
> really count for much.
And your review of 'Flight Plan'? :^)
Mark
Mark Goldberg
> I appreciate it's stirring the pot a bit, but why do you think some
> people see 'V' as Osama Bin Laden and not as, say, Paul Revere? His
> ideology and values are closer to the latter - he doesn't attack
> non-complicit civilians and stands nominally for freedom from
> government control rather than conversion to another belief.
>
> Cheers
> Rich
>
Oh... memorializing terrorism is a leftist dadaist love affair.
You enjoy yourself.
I don't find it liberating to worship that idol.
And equating all overthrow is of course, the favorite moral equivalency
of the left. No taste, no sifting nor winnowing. No right, nor wrong.
And right and wrong are derides as beneath contempt.
Which, I find, fake.
Oh... OBL would shoot your mother thru the head, and smile.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
>
> And both *may* be right. The intend of the original story line may have
> nothing to do with the intent of the movie Producers.
>
> :-)
Of course :^)
Mark
Rich
Mark Goldberg schreef:
> Rich wrote:
>
>
> > I appreciate it's stirring the pot a bit, but why do you think some
> > people see 'V' as Osama Bin Laden and not as, say, Paul Revere? His
> > ideology and values are closer to the latter - he doesn't attack
> > non-complicit civilians and stands nominally for freedom from
> > government control rather than conversion to another belief.
>
> And equating all overthrow is of course, the favorite moral equivalency
> of the left. No taste, no sifting nor winnowing. No right, nor wrong.
Please reread my post:
1) It was asking a question, and
2) It was most specifically differentiating between types of overthrow.
Rich
Rabid Weasel
> Except for maybe the movie Day of the triffids, those plants scared the
> fuck out of me in year 4.
I loved the book and the movie. Two different beasts though.
Don Wagner
>I took my two kids and another kid, to see, Ice Age 2. Not bad. Good
>animation- we were the only people in the entire theatre. The kids got
>to jump up and down and act out and sing in front of the white movie
>screen as they weren't disturbing anyone. Amazing what comes out of
>their little brains, when they free associate.
Went to Godson#2 first baseball game yesterday. He's 6yrs old. After
hitting a double, the he and the 2nd baseman decided to play tag in
the outfield by throwing their hats at each other. ..during the game.
;-)
The coaches are saints.
>And your review of 'Flight Plan'? :^)
Didn't see that one at all. Jodie Foster?
I took last Friday afternoon off and saw V for Vendetta, Slither
(which was actually pretty good) and Lucky Number Slevin (which was a
little too predictable for my taste). There is one of those
googa-plex theatres by me and they don't care if you spend the day
going from movie to movie.
Mark Goldberg
>
>>And your review of 'Flight Plan'? :^)
>
>
> Didn't see that one at all. Jodie Foster?
That's it. Schlussel gave that one a similar thumbs down, and she was in
my estimation quite on target. It's problematic for me, because I do
enjoy thrillers, but, times being what they are- all that subliminal and
out and out mind bending political correctness poses a real problem for me.
There is one of those
> googa-plex theatres by me and they don't care if you spend the day
> going from movie to movie.
I think the movie theatres are taking a real hit these days. First,
because they make a ton of crap that leads one to wait for videos of
them, and I guess, the whole movies on demand in the home has
deteriorated the movie house business.
Me, I associate it with copping my first feel in the darkened theatre.
Oh joy.
Mark
Fraser Johnston
"Rabid Weasel" <lawson@NO12025SPAM+dayton.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.04.11.12.37.45.760926@NO12025SPAM+dayton.net...
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:01:15 +0000, felix isp iinet wrote:
>
>> Except for maybe the movie Day of the triffids, those plants scared the
>> fuck out of me in year 4.
>
> I loved the book and the movie. Two different beasts though.
I saw the movie last year after reading the book 18 or so years ago. The
two were very very different. I definitely preferred the book.
Fraser
felix isp iinet
:
: "Rabid Weasel" <lawson@NO12025SPAM+dayton.net> wrote in message
I was still reading Nicholas Fisk at that stage and couldn't
find DotT till a few years later. I think what really creeped me out was
the kid and the triffid growing in the back yard.
--
Today is Boomtime, the 29th day of Discord in the YOLD 3172