Scots Taffer on 31/3/2006 at 01:28
Dunno, it's pretty muddled from over here. ;)
Wyclef on 31/3/2006 at 01:29
LOL ANONYMOUS
JUST LIKE V
Unfortunately my moniker "Wyclef" gives my entire identity away
Anonymous on 31/3/2006 at 04:01
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
I am saying that V for Vendetta doesn't fit the definition of NAP fiction as described by Udolpho because the primary portion of his definition doesn't occur in the book or the film.
I am also saying that in dystopian and NAP fiction any description of how horrible the world is REQUIRES an examination of the fictional government's policies, because the inherent political nature of both forms of fiction makes the root of the horribleness of the world the government. If you can name me ONE SINGLE PIECE of dystopian literature where the root of the dystopia is NOT the government (and by extension the populace that allows that government to exist), I'll retract that statement.
Clearly
I'm not the dumb one here.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The root of PKD's dystopia is not government tyranny but the dehumanized nature of society as a whole--mood organ dialing, pill-popping, andy-fucking, and electric sheep-loving. (There's also a conspiracy involving Buster Friendly that has nothing to do with the government.)
Various other PKD novels similarly show dystopian settings that are not directly related to government tyranny.
Goblin on 31/3/2006 at 16:32
I just watched V in the cinema and left quite impressed. It wasn't perfect, but it was pretty bloody good both as an adaption and a movie in its own right.
They certainly made changes from the comic. Not all were for the better, but they certainly didn't wreck the story.
I regretted the addition of the romantic interest. It missed the point of V and Evey's relationship entirely.
The ending of the film was good, though quite different in focus to the comic. Disregarding the "succession" motif seemed to emphasise the meaning of the end rather than the narrative. Again, not quite as good as the comic's ending, but not a disastrous reinterpretation by any means.
I did, however, lament Finch not "getting his man" in the end. Finch killing (while beginning to sympathise with) V didn't make a great deal of sense, but it provided closure to an important subplot.
Providing Gordon with a real character and backstory was an improvement over the comic, as his involvement in the comic was so undercooked as to make the plot momentarily lose momentum.
The action content was well-handled, taking quality over quantity. There was only really three fight scenes (surprising considering it's essentially a superhero comic), and short ones at that, but each so masterfully choreographed and filmed. It showed that V was fucking badass, without needing to constantly remind the viewer of the fact.
On that note, another improvement over the comic was the subtle handling of V's superhuman abilities. Revealing that V is so strong that he can stab someone through the heart with his finger was cool in the comic, but not really necessary. The film trimmed this down to a brief allusion to his treatment at Larkill mysteriously changing him at a cellular level, and leaving the implications thereof to the audience.
BEAR on 31/3/2006 at 22:46
Subtle hints are always better.
Spitter on 31/3/2006 at 23:25
This was an interesting movie, but didn't just deliver. I kept feeling there's this great movie somewhere out there but we never get to see it. Instead we're offered lots of repetitive scenes (ok, there was a horrible fire I GET IT) and utterly forgettable fighting scenes. The movie also tried too hard to be thought provoking, but didn't really succeed in it, what with the hero of the movie fighting against an utterly evil nazi empire who eat little babies for breakfast and all. Rather black and white.
I did enjoy the actor performances and despite the flaws, I was entertained. Makes me want to pick up the comic book instead of preordering the DVD though.
Also I'll never forgive them for the Benny Hill music.
TheGreatGodPan on 1/4/2006 at 04:23
Brave New World and Gattaca don't really focus on government tyranny. Suzy Government attempts to be the near opposite of state-tyranny dystopias by portraying a world of "Capitalizm" where there is nearly no government and corporations fill the vacuum. The weak-government & mega-corporations thing had already been done to death by cyberpunk, but they focus more on technology than businesses, and the ones in Suzy Government are much more recognizable to modern readers.
I remember hearing about Isaac Asimov's highly critical review of 1984 from (
http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/2NonMyst.htm) Steve Dutch (yeah, it's the same guy who did "(
http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/WhyIntNoRB.HTM) Why Intellectuals Don't Take Religious Believers Seriously"). It took me forever to find the actual (
http://www.geocities.com/ncptrory/1984.htm) review. I really liked 1984, especially the parts Asimov criticizes as boring. I think it's the only negative thing I've read about it. Maybe I don't read enough literary criticism.
Fafhrd on 1/4/2006 at 21:54
I never said government tyranny, I said government POLICY, so you fail with Brave New World (strict population control and free drugs for everyone) and Jennifer Government (absolute laissez-faire capitalism).
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is, I feel, debatable as to whether or not it qualifies as dystopian fiction, since I didn't think the society was fundamentally different from our own, just the technology used to engage in our various vices.
TGGP did get me with Gattaca, however, so I cede the dystopia point.
The V for Vendetta isn't NAP fiction point still stands, however.
TheGreatGodPan on 2/4/2006 at 01:07
DOH!
Fafhrd: If we're still discussing the criteria Udolpho set down, he didn't say that NAP must contain something that dystopian fictions doesn't, but that it must lack something
Quote Posted by Udolpho
Are NAP works inherently meritless? This question, which at first glance would appear to have an obvious answer ("yes"), is complicated by the existence of well-regarded dystopian fiction that appears to fit the NAP definition. While it is tempting to simply restrict the definition of NAP to anything that meets the above criteria and is extraordinarily stupid, stupidity is such a large component of everything in popular culture that this feels like cheating.
There must in fact be qualities that a worthwhile dystopian work exhibits and that NAP fiction is unconcerned with, beyond simply those qualities of art that mark it out as great.
Also, to me Brave New World seemed to be only partly a product of the government's policies as the citizens were rather complicit in the society. That's why rather than a paranoid cabal clinging to power the state acts more like a bouncer that chills out the weirdos harshing everyone else's buzz.
