V for Vendetta - Page 4

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - V for Vendetta (Page 4 of 4)

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:41:15 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's funny that the same people who talk about guns and revolutions all day on the Internet think a movie about the same is just evil propaganda because it has a few gays in it. Maybe you are more like the government thugs in that movie than you care to admit, eh?

I have nothing against homosexuals as people myself (though I find their political lobby loathesome), but you're being disingenuous. There is a huge qualitative difference between believing that homosexuality is immoral and believing that all homosexuals should be locked up or executed.

Right, there IS a difference so I don't see how you think that a government that locks up and/or executes gays (as in the film) is so offensive to your politics...

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:42:44 PM EDT

[#2]

Want to know how they sucked in regular folks and ARFCOMERS? By these two lines quoted from the movie, which are by the way, the ONLY redeeming values of the story.

1. "The people should not fear their government. The government should fear the people".

2. "Do you know what happens to people without guns when they go up against people with guns?"

Other than those two quotes it was 100% about a gay liberal revolution. If you can't see that then you must have slept through the entire movie.

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:44:41 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's funny that the same people who talk about guns and revolutions all day on the Internet think a movie about the same is just evil propaganda because it has a few gays in it. Maybe you are more like the government thugs in that movie than you care to admit, eh?

I have nothing against homosexuals as people myself (though I find their political lobby loathesome), but you're being disingenuous. There is a huge qualitative difference between believing that homosexuality is immoral and believing that all homosexuals should be locked up or executed.

Right, there IS a difference so I don't see how you think that a government that locks up and/or executes gays (as in the film) is so offensive to your politics...

A government that executed ANYONE who was not actively harming other people is offensive to my politics. And your statement was either a non sequitur or incoherent.

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:46:55 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
A government that executed ANYONE who was not actively harming other people is offensive to my politics. And your statement was either a non sequitur or incoherent.

Sorry, are you one of the ones that like the film or hated it because they thought it was pro-gay liberal trash?

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:47:18 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's funny that the same people who talk about guns and revolutions all day on the Internet think a movie about the same is just evil propaganda because it has a few gays in it. Maybe you are more like the government thugs in that movie than you care to admit, eh?

Generally I like movies about Fascist take-overs because I hope it happens.

What the FUCK??????

What else is going to stop us going the way of Rome? Good intentions?

Its going to get worse not better. Just look at England.

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:48:36 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is not "just a movie".

It is leftist propoganda disguised as enteratainment, with just enough explosions and guns to fool people into going to see it.

AyeGuy, did you see the movie?

No. I certainly had planned to, but I heard enough about it here to put me off. I did not see Brokeback Mountain either.

Why would you mention Brokeback Mountain?

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:52:11 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's funny that the same people who talk about guns and revolutions all day on the Internet think a movie about the same is just evil propaganda because it has a few gays in it. Maybe you are more like the government thugs in that movie than you care to admit, eh?

I have nothing against homosexuals as people myself (though I find their political lobby loathesome), but you're being disingenuous. There is a huge qualitative difference between believing that homosexuality is immoral and believing that all homosexuals should be locked up or executed.

Right, there IS a difference so I don't see how you think that a government that locks up and/or executes gays (as in the film) is so offensive to your politics...

They didn't depict anyone being locked up or executed just for being gay. But it just so happens that the "victims" depicted in the movie were gay. Do you think that is a coincidence?

You're obviously a gay apologist and probably a DU troll. I don't think anyone here condones the government locking up gays just for being gay. The point here is that this movie was a BAIT-AND-SWITCH. If they had shown the homosexual propaganda in the previews, far fewer people would have bothered watching it. Without question, this is a movie about a revolution from a gay perspective.

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:54:34 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's funny that the same people who talk about guns and revolutions all day on the Internet think a movie about the same is just evil propaganda because it has a few gays in it. Maybe you are more like the government thugs in that movie than you care to admit, eh?

Generally I like movies about Fascist take-overs because I hope it happens.

What the FUCK??????

What else is going to stop us going the way of Rome? Good intentions?

Hmmm...Rome lasted hundreds of years as a republic and several hundred more as an empire in the west, and 1,400 more years as an empire in the east. And the only reason Rome fell so quickly in the west was a lack of a peaceful means of succession. I think I would rather see THAT happen than see a facist takeover in the US.
I still can't figure out whether you think a facist takeover would spur a revolution and that's why you want it to happen or if you think a facist government would be preferrable. If the former, you're naive and unrealistic. If the latter you're a loathesome nutburger.

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:54:50 PM EDT

[#9]

If the DUers loved this movie I think that is enough to keep me away. I also saw Portman on MTV talking about how the movie is supposed to partly symbolize our current government. I think one of the writers said the same thing as well.

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:57:00 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's funny that the same people who talk about guns and revolutions all day on the Internet think a movie about the same is just evil propaganda because it has a few gays in it. Maybe you are more like the government thugs in that movie than you care to admit, eh?

I have nothing against homosexuals as people myself (though I find their political lobby loathesome), but you're being disingenuous. There is a huge qualitative difference between believing that homosexuality is immoral and believing that all homosexuals should be locked up or executed.

Right, there IS a difference so I don't see how you think that a government that locks up and/or executes gays (as in the film) is so offensive to your politics...

They didn't depict anyone being locked up or executed just for being gay. But it just so happens that the "victims" depicted in the movie were gay. Do you think that is a coincidence?

You're obviously a gay apologist and probably a DU troll. I don't think anyone here condones the government locking up gays just for being gay. The point here is that this movie was a BAIT-AND-SWITCH. If they had shown the homosexual propaganda in the previews, far fewer people would have bothered watching it. Without question, this is a movie about a revolution from a gay perspective.

So.. Natalie Portman's character was gay? V was gay? The little girl getting shot in the back was gay? All the people who died from the government's experiments and biological weapons releases were gay?

I think you just have a chip on your shoulder and see what you want to see.

Posted: 3/19/2006 4:24:08 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's funny that the same people who talk about guns and revolutions all day on the Internet think a movie about the same is just evil propaganda because it has a few gays in it. Maybe you are more like the government thugs in that movie than you care to admit, eh?

I have nothing against homosexuals as people myself (though I find their political lobby loathesome), but you're being disingenuous. There is a huge qualitative difference between believing that homosexuality is immoral and believing that all homosexuals should be locked up or executed.

Right, there IS a difference so I don't see how you think that a government that locks up and/or executes gays (as in the film) is so offensive to your politics...

They didn't depict anyone being locked up or executed just for being gay. But it just so happens that the "victims" depicted in the movie were gay. Do you think that is a coincidence?

You're obviously a gay apologist and probably a DU troll. I don't think anyone here condones the government locking up gays just for being gay. The point here is that this movie was a BAIT-AND-SWITCH. If they had shown the homosexual propaganda in the previews, far fewer people would have bothered watching it. Without question, this is a movie about a revolution from a gay perspective.

So.. Natalie Portman's character was gay? V was gay? The little girl getting shot in the back was gay? All the people who died from the government's experiments and biological weapons releases were gay?

I think you just have a chip on your shoulder and see what you want to see.

As I said before, no one was locked up or executed simply for being gay. There were several vignettes in the movie depicting victims of the government, some were just for curfew, etc. But unquestionably, there were some scenes that embelished a pro-gay agenda. If you cannot see that then you have not watched the movie. However, I think you are a DU troll anyway so for you that would have been a good thing.

The producers' intentions were clearly to impart sympathy to a pro-gay agenda. So I don't know what you are trying to say other than you must be in agreement with the message of the film.

Posted: 3/19/2006 4:30:39 PM EDT

[#12]

By the way, I sure as hell didn't see what I wanted to see, nor did I see what was advertised. If I wanted to see a homosexual-sympathizer movie I would have gone to Brokeback Mountain.

Posted: 3/19/2006 4:38:13 PM EDT

[#13]

In the book, both Britain & the US are victims of a limited nuke war.

I didn't find the gay agenda overbearing, the same thing happened to Gays in Nazi Germany, Castro's Cuba, & the Arab world. They are usually one of the first groups locked up when totalitarian goverments take over.

Posted: 3/19/2006 5:14:57 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
As I said before, no one was locked up or executed simply for being gay. There were several vignettes in the movie depicting victims of the government, some were just for curfew, etc. But unquestionably, there were some scenes that embelished a pro-gay agenda. If you cannot see that then you have not watched the movie. However, I think you are a DU troll anyway so for you that would have been a good thing.

The producers' intentions were clearly to impart sympathy to a pro-gay agenda. So I don't know what you are trying to say other than you must be in agreement with the message of the film.

I don't see how persecution of gays by a totalitarian government is a 'pro-gay message', but whatever. Unless you think that sort of thing should be okay.

And yeah I am really from the DU, I just come here to infect you conservatives with 'teh ghey'.

Posted: 3/19/2006 6:18:21 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
As I said before, no one was locked up or executed simply for being gay. There were several vignettes in the movie depicting victims of the government, some were just for curfew, etc. But unquestionably, there were some scenes that embelished a pro-gay agenda. If you cannot see that then you have not watched the movie. However, I think you are a DU troll anyway so for you that would have been a good thing.

The producers' intentions were clearly to impart sympathy to a pro-gay agenda. So I don't know what you are trying to say other than you must be in agreement with the message of the film.

I don't see how persecution of gays by a totalitarian government is a 'pro-gay message', but whatever. Unless you think that sort of thing should be okay.

And yeah I am really from the DU, I just come here to infect you conservatives with 'teh ghey'.

The pro-gay agenda comes in the form of a couple of key scenes in the movie which didn't have much to do with the plot and were clearly inserted as propaganda. You must have felt perfectly at home watching the scene where Natlie Portman finds a letter left behind by a former prisoner (who happens to be gay), in which the writer of the letter talks about her romantic encounter and relationship with another woman while we watch images of the two women meeting, falling in love, and having a relationship. The implication was to make the viewer feel sympathetic to the gay agenda. Natalie Portman's character becomes filled with emotion as the letter is closed. The message of this particular scene was clearly seperated from most of the rest of the movie and was not so much to do with an oppressive totalitarian government as it was to induce sympathy to a homosexuals lifestyle.

Furthermore, the movie depicts terrorism as something good while subtly predicting the future of the United States as a totalitarian, ultra-rightwing beast if the conversatives were to stay in power long enough.

Posted: 3/19/2006 6:22:07 PM EDT

[#16]

Actually it took place in Britain and I don't see why you'd care what people do in their private lives unless you really do think the gov't should go around arresting people for 'immorality' or whatever.

Posted: 3/19/2006 6:49:27 PM EDT

[#17]

Most pedophiles are homosexual, of course. That is a fact.

So, dolanp, in your view the Government should not go around arresting them for their "immorality".

It's only what they do in their private life after all.

*****

By the way, who ever goes aroud "advocating" for heterosexuality?

Why no one of course....so why must the Gay lifestlye constantly be thrown in our face?

Posted: 3/19/2006 6:58:44 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Most pedophiles are homosexual, of course. That is a fact.

And just where did you pull that little fact from.........

Posted: 3/19/2006 7:07:32 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As I said before, no one was locked up or executed simply for being gay. There were several vignettes in the movie depicting victims of the government, some were just for curfew, etc. But unquestionably, there were some scenes that embelished a pro-gay agenda. If you cannot see that then you have not watched the movie. However, I think you are a DU troll anyway so for you that would have been a good thing.

The producers' intentions were clearly to impart sympathy to a pro-gay agenda. So I don't know what you are trying to say other than you must be in agreement with the message of the film.

I don't see how persecution of gays by a totalitarian government is a 'pro-gay message', but whatever. Unless you think that sort of thing should be okay.

And yeah I am really from the DU, I just come here to infect you conservatives with 'teh ghey'.

The pro-gay agenda comes in the form of a couple of key scenes in the movie which didn't have much to do with the plot and were clearly inserted as propaganda. You must have felt perfectly at home watching the scene where Natlie Portman finds a letter left behind by a former prisoner (who happens to be gay), in which the writer of the letter talks about her romantic encounter and relationship with another woman while we watch images of the two women meeting, falling in love, and having a relationship. The implication was to make the viewer feel sympathetic to the gay agenda. Natalie Portman's character becomes filled with emotion as the letter is closed. The message of this particular scene was clearly seperated from most of the rest of the movie and was not so much to do with an oppressive totalitarian government as it was to induce sympathy to a homosexuals lifestyle.

So I take it you would have no problem with the goverment locking up homosexuals.....I think that part of the movie was pretty spot on....as far as what a totalitarian government would do to anybody that "didn't fit in" with it's view of society.

Posted: 3/19/2006 7:18:36 PM EDT

[#20]

SPOILERS:

Did anybody understand the ending? When people started taking off their masks, we saw the gay "Koran-owner" who was supposedly captured and detained indefinitely or presumed executed, we also saw the "Lesbian lovers" who were also captured, detained, and/or executed, and we also see the young girl w/ glasses that was shot in the back by one of the "fingermen." Just how in the hell did these people show up.

My best guess: V was actually behind alot of the capturing, and he "turned" people like he did with Evey, but that still doesn't explain the little girl who was shot.

My buddy's theory: It was mere symbolism, to show that the people mentioned above weren't actually there, but they were "included" in the revolt.....

I never leave a movie without understanding the ending. I do not get this one. This movie sucked, btw. I felt absolutely no emotion for any of the characters, and I never got a good feel for exactly what drives V. How did he blow up his detention center? This movie took place in 2021 and V had been planning to blow up Parliament for 20 years.......it doesn't add up. Britain of 2001 was not even close to fascism.

Posted: 3/19/2006 7:22:12 PM EDT

[#21]

I liked it

Any movie that gets people thinking and dicussing the wrong turns a goverment can take is redeeming reguardless of its slant

any person changes their political foundations because of a movie is a moron

some people just unhinge when homosexaulity or abortion comes up

Posted: 3/19/2006 7:22:36 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
My buddy's theory: It was mere symbolism, to show that the people mentioned above weren't actually there, but they were "included" in the revolt.....

That was my take on the last scene......the dead where there in spirit.

Posted: 3/19/2006 7:24:10 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
SPOILERS:

Did anybody understand the ending? When people started taking off their masks, we saw the gay "Koran-owner" who was supposedly captured and detained indefinitely or presumed executed, we also saw the "Lesbian lovers" who were also captured, detained, and/or executed, and we also see the young girl w/ glasses that was shot in the back by one of the "fingermen." Just how in the hell did these people show up.

My best guess: V was actually behind alot of the capturing, and he "turned" people like he did with Evey, but that still doesn't explain the little girl who was shot.

My buddy's theory: It was mere symbolism, to show that the people mentioned above weren't actually there, but they were "included" in the revolt.....

I never leave a movie without understanding the ending. I do not get this one. This movie sucked, btw. I felt absolutely no emotion for any of the characters, and I never got a good feel for exactly what drives V. How did he blow up his detention center? This movie took place in 2021 and V had been planning to blow up Parliament for 20 years.......it doesn't add up. Britain of 2001 was not even close to fascism.

Because the movie was a load of trash. It doesn't matter if it communicates a coherant idea or not, as long as it is artsy. And communists never let anything like sense get in the way of their message.

But hell, at least it wasn't anti-gun.

Posted: 3/19/2006 7:24:37 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

My buddy's theory: It was mere symbolism, to show that the people mentioned above weren't actually there, but they were "included" in the revolt.....

that was my thought
the whole idea was that he was a not a man as a man can be killed or captured , but a idea

so V was not just a man he was a idea in everones hearts that stood up to the goverment

Posted: 3/19/2006 7:29:38 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
In the book, both Britain & the US are victims of a limited nuke war.

I didn't find the gay agenda overbearing, the same thing happened to Gays in Nazi Germany, Castro's Cuba, & the Arab world. They are usually one of the first groups locked up when totalitarian goverments take over.

I agree completely with your second comment (I didn't read the book, so am unqualified to comment on the first). My father was a young teenager in Serbia when the Nazi's rolled in. Although they targeted Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and Jehovah's Witnesses for persecution, others like my father got some attention too. He fit into none of the aforementioned categories, but was the stepson of a local judge, and so became a political prisoner. He wasn't targeted for an extermination camp like the others, but conditions in the slave labor camp where he spent the war probably weren't much better.

As I watched this movie, I had to imagine what it was like for my father and others like him who were rounded up during the night, and taken away for imprisonment. While I agree that the lesbians in this movie were portrayed sympathetically, I really don't see how this movie could be portrayed as anything close to promoting a gay agenda. Perhaps the film could have shown Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses being rounded up to add some balance to the hatred of those responsible, but would that really be necessary? As a conservative Christian, I'm no proponent of the homosexual lifestyle, but I think to focus on that part of the film is to miss the larger points being made. In my opinion, it would become a distraction to what was really happening, witnessing the brutal reign of a totalitarian leader, one who was surrounded by sycophants and weaklings who had long since abrogated their responsibilities to their citzenry. They were just following orders.

This movie clearly depicted Lord Acton's dictum: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely."

Posted: 3/19/2006 8:15:43 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
I went and saw it today. I thought it was pretty good. If you dont like extremism totalitarianism(right OR left) you should like this. One of the more intersting sidenotes of this flick is the status of the US mentioned in time frame this movie takes place.

I give it an 8.5/10

How was that status described in the movie? The original comic pretty much had nothing abou the US other than a vague mention of a 'war' that presumably destroyed teh US and the USSR. The novelization of the movie had a fairly intense anti-US screed mixed in with a future history where the US fought and lost a war with China, and dissolved into a civil war, long after the UK decided to drop alliances with the US.

Still undecided on seeing the film in the theater, knowing the mindset of the Warchowskis and at least some of the actors. On the one hand, I don't care to support them, and on the other hand its just a movie.

Posted: 3/19/2006 8:50:35 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Most pedophiles are homosexual, of course. That is a fact.

And just where did you pull that little fact from.........

Paying attention to the news. Who do male pedophiles (like all those preists) target, most of time? Little girls? No.

That is one of the biggest truths hiding in plain sight the Gay crowd has managed to obscure: pedophiles are mostly homosexual.

Posted: 3/19/2006 8:52:16 PM EDT

[#28]

I saw the movie last night, and I thought it was so good that I saw it again tonight. It's now my favorite movie. It's kind of ironic that The Count of Monte Cristo used to be my favorite movie (the new one; I've never seen the old one though I want to now), since it is V's favorite as well.

The end where it shows all the people who were dead (I think the one with the hand on her shoulder was Evey's mom, the guy behind her being her father), it is most definitely a symbolic thing. Remember that Evey said that V was all of them.

Also, he said 10 years, not 20 (to the person who was saying that in 2001 Britain wasn't fascist).

Please remember that this movie is neither Black Hawk Down, nor is it 24 or any other film that takes a stab at realism.

IT IS BASED UPON A COMIC BOOK. Therefore, it is idyllic and artistic; this is why he carries knives and not guns. While guns are awesome, I liked them as much as anyone here, knives fit a character such as V far better than any gun. In the same vein as my comic book remark, you must also remember that he is a super hero of sorts - certainly less super than most, but still he has incredible intelligence, strength, speed, and agility (i.e. why he can kill a dozen guys with guns with half a dozen or so knives).

I think that the movie was great, and that if you can think of it as not needing to be realistic it's obvious that this artistic form pays a greater tribute to the idea of freedom than realism could.

I don't think the lesbian part was really "necessary," though it did make sense. Like other posters said, homosexuals are a likely target for a totalitarian state. I don't think that it flowed well to interject such a long subplot but it did add something, the explanation about the "last inch" that Valerie talked about.

And I honestly can't believe that someone would be so dumb as to say this is a guise for a gay revolution.

Posted: 3/19/2006 8:55:36 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
In the book, both Britain & the US are victims of a limited nuke war.

I didn't find the gay agenda overbearing, the same thing happened to Gays in Nazi Germany, Castro's Cuba, & the Arab world. They are usually one of the first groups locked up when totalitarian goverments take over.

I agree completely with your second comment (I didn't read the book, so am unqualified to comment on the first). My father was a young teenager in Serbia when the Nazi's rolled in. Although they targeted Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and Jehovah's Witnesses for persecution, others like my father got some attention too. He fit into none of the aforementioned categories, but was the stepson of a local judge, and so became a political prisoner. He wasn't targeted for an extermination camp like the others, but conditions in the slave labor camp where he spent the war probably weren't much better.

As I watched this movie, I had to imagine what it was like for my father and others like him who were rounded up during the night, and taken away for imprisonment. While I agree that the lesbians in this movie were portrayed sympathetically, I really don't see how this movie could be portrayed as anything close to promoting a gay agenda. Perhaps the film could have shown Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses being rounded up to add some balance to the hatred of those responsible, but would that really be necessary? As a conservative Christian, I'm no proponent of the homosexual lifestyle, but I think to focus on that part of the film is to miss the larger points being made. In my opinion, it would become a distraction to what was really happening, witnessing the brutal reign of a totalitarian leader, one who was surrounded by sycophants and weaklings who had long since abrogated their responsibilities to their citzenry. They were just following orders.

This movie clearly depicted Lord Acton's dictum: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely."

So far the only example we have gotten about corrupt powers "rounding up the innocent" has been the Nazis. What, the Communists did not do the same thing? Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did. The Chinese Communists also rounded up and disposed of...lots of Chinese. Hollywood seems to have forgotten that, a lot like some of you guys.

Posted: 3/19/2006 8:58:17 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I find IRONIC Belloc is your in Italy, the home of Mussolini & Fascism .

You find it "ironic" that I am in Italy? Do you have a different definition of "irony" then the rest of the human race?

your right I used the term ironic too loosely, I should have just said how INCONGROUS it is that
you live in Italy, the birthplace of Mussolini & Fascism yet you don't even understand the history
or evolution of Fascism.

Well, if you really "should have", then perhaps you also "should have" spelled it properly.

JEEZ, fucking TYPO for chrissakes !

Posted: 3/19/2006 9:03:38 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most pedophiles are homosexual, of course. That is a fact.

And just where did you pull that little fact from.........

Paying attention to the news. Who do male pedophiles (like all those preists) target, most of time? Little girls? No.

That is one of the biggest truths hiding in plain sight the Gay crowd has managed to obscure: pedohiles are mostly homosexual.

I think you may be on thin ice with that one, and even if it were true (which I kind of doubt), it doesn't logically follow that therefore, homosexuals are mostly pedophiles. I believe the Latin phrase is "post hoc ergo proctor hoc," or reaching a conclusion based on false logic.

Brother, all I wanted to do was discuss this freakin' movie.

Posted: 3/19/2006 9:09:47 PM EDT

[#32]

I saw it.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Posted: 3/19/2006 9:14:23 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In the book, both Britain & the US are victims of a limited nuke war.

I didn't find the gay agenda overbearing, the same thing happened to Gays in Nazi Germany, Castro's Cuba, & the Arab world. They are usually one of the first groups locked up when totalitarian goverments take over.

I agree completely with your second comment (I didn't read the book, so am unqualified to comment on the first). My father was a young teenager in Serbia when the Nazi's rolled in. Although they targeted Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and Jehovah's Witnesses for persecution, others like my father got some attention too. He fit into none of the aforementioned categories, but was the stepson of a local judge, and so became a political prisoner. He wasn't targeted for an extermination camp like the others, but conditions in the slave labor camp where he spent the war probably weren't much better.

As I watched this movie, I had to imagine what it was like for my father and others like him who were rounded up during the night, and taken away for imprisonment. While I agree that the lesbians in this movie were portrayed sympathetically, I really don't see how this movie could be portrayed as anything close to promoting a gay agenda. Perhaps the film could have shown Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses being rounded up to add some balance to the hatred of those responsible, but would that really be necessary? As a conservative Christian, I'm no proponent of the homosexual lifestyle, but I think to focus on that part of the film is to miss the larger points being made. In my opinion, it would become a distraction to what was really happening, witnessing the brutal reign of a totalitarian leader, one who was surrounded by sycophants and weaklings who had long since abrogated their responsibilities to their citzenry. They were just following orders.

This movie clearly depicted Lord Acton's dictum: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely."

So far the only example we have gotten about corrupt powers "rounding up the innocent" has been the Nazis. What, the Communists did not do the same thing? Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did. The Chinese Communists also rounded up and disposed of...lots of Chinese. Hollywood seems to have forgotten that, a lot like some of you guys.

I haven't forgotten any of those examples. All I was doing was relating my point of reference based on my own father's life experience, and what I know of them. I agree with all of those examples as well, but yes, Hollywood does seem to overlook them.

Posted: 3/19/2006 9:17:36 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

You seem to be hyper-focused on Nazism & ignoring the origins of Fascism in Italy
in the 1920's under Mussolini.

If you want to call the Nazi's leftists, fine go right ahead becuase Nazi's were NOT true Fascisit's !!

No, they were not true "fascisits", however they were true leftists, which is really the whole point, the Nazis were leftists.

You seem to think that just typing "the nazis were leftists" somehow makes the statement true. It does not. MAybe you could expound on your idea, then you would'nt have people argueing with you. What policies exactly did the Nazis impliment exactly that made them in your mind a "leftist" Political party? Or is it just that you consider yourself a "rightist" and just can't stand the association? it seems the latter is the case. like some of the people who think Fred Phelps is a "leftist" plant.

Nazi -National Socialist German Worker's Party
Or is it you "just can't stand the association" with any semblance of intelligence or historical literacy?

It seems both are the case.

Posted: 3/19/2006 9:56:33 PM EDT

[#35]

Saw it tonight I liked the movie.The gay thing in there was kinda weird but its just a movie. Just the loud fat guys sitting behind us sucked, and the ringing phone

.

Posted: 3/19/2006 9:57:11 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most pedophiles are homosexual, of course. That is a fact.

And just where did you pull that little fact from.........

Paying attention to the news. Who do male pedophiles (like all those preists) target, most of time? Little girls? No.

Oh so "Paying attention to the news" is where you get your "facts" from......So you also beleive that "assault weapons" are the choice of drug dealers and terroists. And that a 50 BMG can knock out a Main Battle tanks as well.

Posted: 3/19/2006 10:02:52 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
I saw the movie last night, and I thought it was so good that I saw it again tonight. It's now my favorite movie. It's kind of ironic that The Count of Monte Cristo used to be my favorite movie (the new one; I've never seen the old one though I want to now), since it is V's favorite as well.

The end where it shows all the people who were dead (I think the one with the hand on her shoulder was Evey's mom, the guy behind her being her father), it is most definitely a symbolic thing. Remember that Evey said that V was all of them.

Also, he said 10 years, not 20 (to the person who was saying that in 2001 Britain wasn't fascist).

Please remember that this movie is neither Black Hawk Down, nor is it 24 or any other film that takes a stab at realism.

IT IS BASED UPON A COMIC BOOK. Therefore, it is idyllic and artistic; this is why he carries knives and not guns. While guns are awesome, I liked them as much as anyone here, knives fit a character such as V far better than any gun. In the same vein as my comic book remark, you must also remember that he is a super hero of sorts - certainly less super than most, but still he has incredible intelligence, strength, speed, and agility (i.e. why he can kill a dozen guys with guns with half a dozen or so knives).

I think that the movie was great, and that if you can think of it as not needing to be realistic it's obvious that this artistic form pays a greater tribute to the idea of freedom than realism could.

I don't think the lesbian part was really "necessary," though it did make sense. Like other posters said, homosexuals are a likely target for a totalitarian state. I don't think that it flowed well to interject such a long subplot but it did add something, the explanation about the "last inch" that Valerie talked about.

And I honestly can't believe that someone would be so dumb as to say this is a guise for a gay revolution.

+1

Posted: 3/19/2006 10:11:40 PM EDT

[#38]

thanks for the reviews, I think Ill see it this weekend...

Posted: 3/19/2006 10:19:33 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Most pedophiles are homosexual, of course. That is a fact.

And just where did you pull that little fact from.........

To say "most" is simply incorrect, both numerically and percentage wise. However, for a group that is only 2% of the population, the number and percentage of pedophilia and pederasty they commit is shocking.

Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'
Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture
By Jon Dougherty
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.

"Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.

Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C.

"It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh," wrote Baldwin. "However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization – the nuclear family."

Though the homosexual community and much of the media scoff at such accusations, Baldwin – who chaired the California Assembly's Education committee, where he fought against support for the homosexual agenda in the state's public schools – says in his report that homosexual activists' "efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement" constitute an "unmistakable" attack on "the family unit."

Baldwin's research is substantiated in a recently completed body of work written by Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of numerous authoritative books debunking sexual myths, including "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences."

In her thesis – also written for the Regent University Law Review – Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. …"

Abel also found that non-incarcerated "child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender … whose targets were males."

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

Jay Heavener, spokesman for PFLAG – Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, counters that federal crime data refute claims that homosexuals molest children at higher rates than heterosexuals.

"According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this claim is false," he told WND by e-mail. "The gay and lesbian community calls into question any dubious research which flies in the face of our own experience."

And Gary Schoener, a clinical psychologist who has been diagnosing and treating clergy abuse for 28 years, told Salon.com, "There are far more heterosexual cases than homosexual."

In terms of sheer numbers, that may be true. But in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.

Baldwin says evidence he examined disproves the assertion that child molestation is more prevalent among heterosexuals. Both he and Reisman found that media coverage of adult homosexual abuse of minors is also slanted.

"The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) recently boasted that although homosexuals are less than two percent of the population, three-fourths of the people who decide the content of the front page of the New York Times are homosexual," Reisman wrote.

That one fact is especially noteworthy, experts point out, given the recent child sex scandals taking place within the American Catholic church.

A survey by WorldNetDaily of recent news reports found that rarely did the media describe priestly sexual abuse as "homosexual" or "gay" activity – even though the worst incidents involved male-to-male contact, and a spate of investigative reports has revealed that the Vatican is concerned about an upsurge of homosexuals in seminary schools throughout the world.

Gay press promotes sex with children

Baldwin says his research not only "confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals," but it found that "the mainstream homosexual culture" even "commonly promotes sex with children."

"The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality," Baldwin wrote.

During his research, he also found:

The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, "Male Intergenerational Intimacy," containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home."
In 1995 the homosexual magazine "Guide" said, "We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual" and "deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …" The article went on to say: "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality."
Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, "Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist": "In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it."
In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a "Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.
Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
Homosexuality 'youth-oriented'?

"Research on the homosexual lifestyle confirms it is almost exclusively a youth-oriented culture," Baldwin wrote. "Very few gays exhibit preference for older men."

"Some admit to focus on teenage boys," he said, "some on prepubescent boys, and many cross over between categories."

A 1988 study detailed in Baldwin's report found that most pedophiles even consider themselves to be "gay." According to the study, "Archives of Sexual Behavior," some 86 percent of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Also, the study found, the number of teenage male prostitutes who identify as homosexuals has risen from 10 percent to 60 percent in the past 15 years.

When asked what he thought about critics who attempt to debunk his research, Baldwin said the results speak for themselves.

"For them to say this theory is false is to call many of the homosexual movement's leaders liars," he said. "Most of my evidence comes right from the gay community."

"I managed to find enough evidence that my thesis – child molestation is an integral part of the homosexual movement – is a valid thesis," Baldwin told WorldNetDaily.

Other experts have also found a distinct pattern between child sex abusers and the incidence of homosexuality.

"How long can psychologists be in denial about the significance of the dark side, and ignore what it implies about the homosexual condition? And there's a matter of even greater concern. How long will psychologists eagerly throw open the door to gay life for every sexually confused teenager?" writes Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D, on behalf of NARTH – the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality – a group that says it exists to "provide psychological understanding of the cause, treatment and behavior patterns associated with homosexuality, within the boundaries of a civil public dialogue."

The North American Man-Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, is "a group that openly promotes sex with minor boys and claims that boy-lovers respond to the needs of the boys they love," Baldwin said in his report.

The group is often endorsed by "many of the homosexual movement's most prominent leaders," he said.

Advocacy moving to schools

Promotion of the "gay and lesbian lifestyle" is increasing in the nation's public schools.

A WND survey of homosexual-oriented websites found that almost every group has some sort of program to "educate" teachers, school administrators and other school employees about the homosexual lifestyle:

GLSEN – the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network – bills itself as "the largest national network of parents, students, educators and others" specifically formed to end "discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in K-12 schools. Two recent press released boasted of the Broward County (Fla.) school board approving GLSEN-sponsored "training for teachers."
A student activist working with GLSEN officials has managed to "give voice" recently to "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students" at California schools;
PFLAG has created a national campaign called, "From Our House to the Schoolhouse," distributing to school officials – among other materials – a booklet entitled, "Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer For Principals, Educators, & School Personnel. [Editor's note: Readers need the Adobe PDF reader to open and read this file.]
Though most school-related programs are sold to administrators and parents as programs designed simply to end persecution of homosexuals and lesbians, none disclose what Baldwin says is compelling evidence that homosexuality is harmful to children.

"What … does the academic literature say about the relationship between homosexuality and child molestation? Quite a bit, actually," he wrote, quoting data compiled by the Family Research Institute: "Scientific studies confirm a strong pedophilic predisposition among homosexuals."

The institute, after reviewing more than 19 studies and peer-reviewed reports in a 1985 "Psychological Reports" article, found that homosexuals account for between 25 and 40 percent of all child molestation.

"But this number is low," Baldwin says, "due to the fact that many reporters will not report if a child molester is a homosexual, even if he knows that to be the case."

Posted: 3/19/2006 10:38:53 PM EDT

[#40]

People seem to keep confusing the tangent plot points confused with main plot points.

The anti-americanism is there, but it is a sideplot, a backstory even. If this movie had been about a totalitarian American government, then people would have a valid gripe.

The homosexuality plot is also tangential to the overall arc - it just shows one subset of the persecuted populace. Like a previous poster said, they could've also rounded up some hindus or catholics to provide a little balance, but they chose not to. In fact, just about any undesirable person was imprisoned, like the television personality. They took him away because he satired the high chancellor, and they executed him because he had a forbidden copy of the koran. At no point did they state his sexual preference as a reason for persecution.

In short, the anti-american digs and the whole gay persecution angle are merely subplots, and not really meaningful otherwise. The purpose the anti-americanism serves is to provide a context for the british government to use the US-caused world chaos as a backdrop for increasing government control. Likewise the gay angle was for showing persecution of undesirable classes.

Like a previous poster, as a Christian, I do not condone the homosexual lifestyle - but I don't believe the government should have the power to outlaw it. Whether or not the movie is a calling for a gay revolution is besides the point - I can't condone any government, whether it be totalitarian, libertarian, communist, republic, democratic, british, american, or arabic, that takes such a stance against personal liberty.

Posted: 3/19/2006 10:55:56 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
photos-n-04.facebook.com/n15/110/104/215300004/n215300004_30366545_7628.jpg

....

Reminds me of the Burger King.....Scary!

Posted: 3/19/2006 11:04:12 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I think I'll see it. Oh, and by the way, "Fascism" is right-wing and "Communism" is left-wing, generally speaking. At some point, however, if they go far enough, they will actually meet.

???
The nazis were fascists and leftists, National Socialists Party.
Republicanism and Facsism/Communism are enemies because they are diametrically opposed. Fascism and Communism on the other hand are enemies because they are rivals.

The Nazis were NOT leftists. The term "socialist" was used because it was a popular political term in the 20s. There was nothing socialist about National Socialism. It was a middle class movement. True socialists would call the middle class the petit bourgeoisie. Learn your history, don't make generalizations.

Posted: 3/19/2006 11:22:31 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
I'm looking forward to seeing it.

ANY government or political party can become corrupt and become a Totalitarian Regime. It really would NOT matter if it was Facist or Communist. They both suck. The GOP woshipers should get their heads out of their asses. Who cares if a Republican or a Democrat or a Pink Fluffy Bunny Rabbit takes your freedom? Either way it is wrong and the end result is the same. Personally I like movies that broach this subject.

Like in most things the truth is someplace in between. Trusting any politician is INSANE. The Bush Administration has done quite a bit to curb freedom in this country. So did the Clinton Administration. They both blatantly IGNORE the constitution. Though I am ceratinly happier with Bush than I would have been with Gore or Kerry. Bush is evil, but Gore and Kerry were even more evil. I think the last decent pres. we had was Regean. I'm too young to remember much about him, but from what I read I wish we had another one.

But please stop making excuses for the current administration, they are NOT as bad as the previous one but they are not much better either. They are politicians therefore they want MORE power. It really doesn't matter if they lean to the right or left does it? More government power means less FREEDOM for us serfs.

I think ANY movie that gets people to think about freedom issues, and standing up to ANY oppresive government is important! I could care less if an oppresive regime is Right, Left or PURPLE. Get over the GOP woshiping, they can become authoritatian just as easilly as a liberal scumbag. I think it took some balls to make a movie like this after 911. I could care less if one of the makers wants to get his nuts cut off and be a chick. As long as my nuts stay where they are who cares?

I think this sums it all up, don't you think?

Posted: 3/20/2006 12:11:02 AM EDT

[#44]

George Orwell wrote 1984. That book explains clearly that when government becomes too powerful it is a danger to the people. Left or right, it means nothing

People say Bush is a Nazi for wiretapping
People say Clinton is a Nazi for Waco

Both are the acts of an over-reaching government.

Anyone that walked away from V for Vendetta thinking it was a Pro left, anti bush movie totally lost the point of the story.

Posted: 3/20/2006 12:38:00 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think I'll see it. Oh, and by the way, "Fascism" is right-wing and "Communism" is left-wing, generally speaking. At some point, however, if they go far enough, they will actually meet.

???
The nazis were fascists and leftists, National Socialists Party.
Republicanism and Facsism/Communism are enemies because they are diametrically opposed. Fascism and Communism on the other hand are enemies because they are rivals.

The Nazis were NOT leftists. The term "socialist" was used because it was a popular political term in the 20s. There was nothing socialist about National Socialism. It was a middle class movement. True socialists would call the middle class the petit bourgeoisie. Learn your history, don't make generalizations.

And yet another historical illiterate.

What sort of moronic dysfunctional public education system keeps regurgitating people who don't know the first thing about history?

"We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.
Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and the regaining of German freedom. Socialism therefore is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy.
..The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed."
~ Joseph Goebbels

Hitler was a Socialist

Posted: 4/10/2006 10:23:08 AM EDT

[#46]

Bump!

GREATEST movie ever made.

Posted: 4/10/2006 5:30:29 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Bump!

i26.photobucket.com/albums/c114/twodownzero/vsmall.jpg

GREATEST movie ever made.

+1

I liked it so I bought the book.

Posted: 4/10/2006 9:15:28 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Bump!

i26.photobucket.com/albums/c114/twodownzero/vsmall.jpg

GREATEST movie ever made.

+1

I liked it so I bought the book.

If I had time to read it, I'd buy the book.

I'm just so happy I saw it. What a GREAT movie.

Posted: 4/22/2006 10:34:58 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I just got back from seeing this movie. And the Wachowski Brothers make up for the less than great Matrix sequels. It definitely has parallels to Equilibrium and 1984 (Heck, the Chancellor is played by the same guy who played Winston Smith in the 1984 movie). And its just as good as them.

As for the argument that this movie "supports" terrorism, is anti-American, and takes shots at the Bush Administration, it could be, and it might not. The current regime isn't as bad as the government in this movie, but it is getting that way. But its all in context.

I see the movie as projecting the American Revolution into the future. The government is oppressive, and violence or terrorism is the only way. But I think there is a difference from, say AlQueda terrorism, and the terrorism used in the movie. AlQueda kills innocent civilians- indiscriminately - while V kills only those who deserve it. I think that is the major difference.

Revolution, even violent, is not only the right of a people, but their duty, when a government has only one end- to reduce the people to absolute despotism. Its all in the Declaration of Independence. Whether that applies to the current regime, I leave that question up to you.

Your lack of knowledge of the events of 1776 are shocking, especially given your username.

The colonials were fighting a War od Independance. In NO WAY was it a revolution.

The colonials were quite happy with the old ways; in fact they fought to keep them. They were rebelling against outside control, not against the system, which had been in place for almost 100 years already.

End thread hijack.

Yeah, that pic of the suicide vest was nice.

I'm sure it will inspire many arabs to strap bombs on themselves and head for the nearest Tel Aviv shopping mall or US military checkpoint in Iraq. Or Earth Firsters to bomb a mall right here.
And of course they will find a way to rationalize anyone they kill as an Enemy not an Innocent.

This film is poison and about what we can expect from the demented idiots in Hollywood.

Holy shit, it all makes sense now. I'll bet *MOVIES* caused 9/11hock.gif
Like those dipshits need any inspiration beyond what their own asshole leaders are already telling them...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - V for Vendetta (Page 4 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us