Thank you for doing this movie.  I really enjoy it we I saw it the theater and every time I watch it afterwards.

I also agree with Trey in that adaptions need to be judge as their own works separate from what they are adapted from.  There are things that work on the pages of book that don't work on film and vice-versa. This also holds true with comic books and video games, or whatever else one may adapt from.  They may share the same elements like plot, story, character, etc. but there a things a filmmaker has to do  in order to make a movie work that are different from what authors have to do to make a what they do work.

I really like the addition of Miki. I look forward to what she brings to the table in future commentaries.

At the very least, they should provide you with a cushion or something. What is this, the middle ages?

Yes, we provide me with only the best.  In DiF's defense... I *do* live at the place it is recorded.  So, that does kind of make it my own fault for sitting on the floor.  However, I like sitting on the floor.  So....meh.

Back to V!

I do thoroughly enjoy the movie.  I think that the whole revenge sentiment is fantastic.

They can take their name off of it in protest. It's not much, I agree, but it would be nice if an author could take the books title away from a film (I think Stephen King managed to get his name off of the Children of the Corn and Lawnmower Man sequels, but the titles kept being used)

Guys, tropes. I understand the usage of the term when it relates to themes inherent in a film, but is it valid to call out recurrent themes across different films?

The way I understand them:
Lynch's usage of drapery would be a trope; they are a  motif he uses across films and significant to his story telling.
Cocking a shotgun with one hand may be a trope if the use is making an overt reference to Terminator 2.
A gay character who hides his sexuality is not a trope, even if the character is played by the same actor. It's a character detail.

I'm asking for clarification because the barrage of trope-isms in this episode left me a little perplexed. Thoughts?

Last edited by Dave (2011-06-14 23:05:13)

I am all for pimping and sexy, merely puzzled.

What Dorkman said... tho I believe the Lawnmower Man issue was that the actual title was "Stephen King's Lawnmower Man".    King said, the contract says you can release a movie called Lawnmower Man, but MY Lawnmower Man, it ain't. 

As I recall the same thing happened on Pet Sematary II - the first was a pretty faithful adaptation of a King novel, but the sequel was a studio project that King had nothing to do with.  So the filmmakers were ordered to be careful not to advertise it to imply that the sequel was something King had written or endorsed.

Really, the only way for an author to fully protect their work from a bad adaptation is to not sell it.   William Goldman held on to The Princess Bride for decades until he finally found a director and a studio that he trusted with it.    And King learned his lesson and didn't sell the rights to the Dark Tower series until just recently.  I can only imagine how many offers for that one he's turned down over the years.

Meh. Film making is a collaborative medium. Terry Rossio (Pirates of the Caribbean), in his Web articles, complains extensively about producers screwing up his and Ted Elliott's genius ideas, as well as directors going cowboy and rewriting with their own pet writers. You've also got powerful stars who can decide to rewrite their own dialog or push push for other changes—or just turn in strange performance choices. You could even have a DP make some dull photography choices or an editor fail to find the right rhythm and pacing. And practically no author or screenwriter is going to admit that his or her work was improved by the collaboration.

It's no different from project work in the consulting industry. Everybody has an opinion and a goal, collaborates to affect the outcomes, and blames any failures or shortcomings on whomever he or she views as the sticks in the mud, including the original architect.

The architect never sees his vision fully realized, but it's the client who paid for it who has to live with it—and who reaps any benefit from it. And the architect doesn't get paid $400,000 to produce a lousy 110-page document with enough white space to add a Visio diagram on every page, nor residuals for later use of his ideas or even his name permanently attached to the project results or Blu-ray he can show his friends.

So where do I sign up to get screwed over like that?

/bitter

If I remember right, Chuck Plwiahusnethnick has gone on the record more than one saying that he thinks the film of Fight Club is better than the book.

Yes and yes, but only because both Cordwainer Bird and Alan Smithee were official pseudonyms, sanctioned by the Writer's Guild and Director's Guild, respectively.

The Writer's Guild allows individual writers to choose their pseudonyms, whereas the DGA used to have a policy of any director who wanted his name off a movie to be credited as "Alan Smithee".    But the DGA doesn't do that any more, because it became public knowledge that Alan Smithee meant "the real director didn't want his name on this trainwreck".    I think - tho I'm not sure - the DGA now allows for individual pseudonyms the same as WGA.

But the use of pseudonyms only happens after a grievance process, writers or directors have to appeal to their union and show that the end result of their work is so compromised that they shouldn't have to be associated with it.   If their union agrees, the union backs them up and demands the producers use the pseudonym.   However, all residual rules still apply in either case.

For non-union projects, though, it's all about whatever contract you signed, and whether the producers even bother to honor it or not.    Without a union to back you up, you have no choice but to try legal action on your own, if you want to try going down that road.  And most likely by the time anything comes of the suit, the project's been in release for years already.  At least residuals aren't an issue here, because non-union projects don't pay residuals anyway.

Finally managed to actually watch this yesterday. Most of my fears, which revolved around the changed background involving Nazis, were unfounded. I doubt I'll watch it again, though

What I find interesting about adaptations like this is trying to figure out WHY various changes were made. Deconstruct the chain of script meetings. Some things, obviously, were changed just because (like turning a black market smuggler into a gay talk show host). However, you guys talked about the new plot involving the detectives and the virus. Why was it needed? My theory: In the book, the main detective goes on a personal quest to find and stop V. This in the end involves finding out his history, and realizing he will have to think like V in order to catch him. Thus he goes to the concentration camp ruins, takes some LSD, and goes on a bad trip that leads him to the same state of mental freedom as V and Evey. He then realizes naturally V is in the Victoria subway station and shoots and kills V.
So, imagine you're looking at this script. Obviously, you're not going to have the good cop kill V like a bitch. It has to be a bad ass fight scene. You also probably don't want to do the acid trip as by that point in the film the audience may be overloaded enough. So, the cop isn't going to the camp, and that gets rid of the need for his growing mental breakdown... and you end up with a character you need as a way to tell the V backstory but who no longer has anything to actually do.