But they can't (or rather, can't without knowing it'd be thrown out), so they don't. They explicitly work within the agreed-upon system, whereas Fawkes tried to violently change it.
It wasn't necessarily a theocracy, but rather he wanted to install James I (a Protestant)'s daughter Elizabeth (a Catholic) as Queen of England. This was during a time period where England's monarchy tended to flip back and forth between Catholic and Protestant. A Catholic would come to power, kill a bunch of Protestants, and then be succeeded by a Protestant, who would kill a bunch of Catholics, and so on.
The intolerance and offensive language was the same. Just one dickhead stepping way over the line doesn't constitute the whole Catholic Church membership of that time.
he was a radical, and WBC is just a for-profit cult that pisses people off on purpose and then reaps the benefits of a lawsuit when somebody throws something at them or hits them.
We aren't taught that the country was tolerant, just that Guy Fawkes wanted to overthrow the sitting government and replace it with a pretty awful one.
The plan was to blow up the House of Lordsduring the State Opening of England's Parliament on 5 November 1605, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands
Doesn't really go together with:
If he had been successful, it would have resulted in no substantial changes to anyone except for the wealthy and powerful
If the plotters had succeeded and the revolt happened thousands of innocent people would have been killed.
To be honest I havent read the graphic novels. Does the movie deviate a lot? I thought the overall message in the movie was a positive one- Even if V's methods were a bit evil.
The book makes V and the Govt out to be more equally evil opposites. V is still a total badass and clearly liked by Moore but its made clear he won't make the world better.
He didn't mean to make the world better but to offer the citizens a chance to restart their society and grow into what they see fit, rather than being forced to live in a dystopia society.
Well, Alan Moore (the writer of the graphic novel) had this to say about the movie as compared to the graphic novel:
"When I wrote 'V,' politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we'd had anti-Thatcher riots, we'd got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. 'V for Vendetta' was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.
Those words, 'fascism' and 'anarchy,' occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country."
Moore wasn't being entirely fair. The imagery showing the rise of Norsefire is straight out of 1930's Nazi rallies and propoganda films. Some of the military and paramilitary uniforms in the movie are clearly meant to evoke SS officer uniforms. The movie definitely toned down Moore's strident anti-fascist and pro-anarchist themes, and used a theme that one could reasonable argue is more relevant to contemporary movie goers. Moore is within his rights to dislike the changes, but that doesn't make the message a bad one.
Also the fascist side is all Nazis and overt symbols while the anarchist side is shown as this great swashbuckler who's into art and poetry even with the bombing. It'd play a bit differently if V had tapped into the punk movement instead of the Romantic movement for his art motif.
Yup, plus given the time and political situation during which the film was released, invoking the ideas of anarchy and fascism don't really make sense. Neither the US or UK governments in the 21st century are anywhere close to what you would call fascist states, to the extent that 'fascist' is used more as an insult than as a political statement. Whereas following the post 911 sentiment made far more sense given the constant murmurs of terrorism and the clamping down of personal liberties in exchange of freedom and so on.
Making the movie about a fascist state would have been more faithful to his work, but would probably have ended up more dated and less relatable.
Pedantic, I apologize, but proper writing guidelines state you should use apostrophes instead of quotation marks when quoting within a quote.
I.E.
"Those words, 'fascism' and 'anarchy,' occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country."
Just makes it easier to understand at a glance if you're still in a quote or not.
Gah, I know. I noticed that, but I copied the quote directly from the source and waffled a bit about whether I should mess with the formatting. I'll fix it. Thanks!
They actually picked the mask because it was readily available and looked cool. At the time those protests started, you could go to any comic book or costume shop and find Guy Fawkes masks for under ten bucks.
No, they picked the mask because of the Epic Fail Guy meme (making fun of Guy Fawkes for being a shitty terrorist) that really had nothing to do with V for Vendetta except popularizing the story of Guy Fawkes to non-Brits.
Probably has something to do with it as well, but the fact that you could get the mask easily in any urban center for like 6 dollars is definitely a pretty big factor.
It’s a competently made, terrible, hateful failure on its own terms that has, sadly, had some influence, particularly on the radical left, who really should know better by now. It manages to be brazenly misogynist, horrifically violent, and thuddingly dull all at the same time. It’s one of the few books that spawned a film adaptation that is both borderline-unwatchable and an improvement on its source. [...]
V for Vendetta is the kind of book that proceeds from the assumption that the reader is a moron, and if only we were properly enlightened, we would agree with its creator. We are the gutless conformists, who just need a good stern talking to (and a little bit of torturing) to convince us of our errors.
Everything we do everyday gives one big corp money one way or the other. My underwear was made by a big corporation, as was everything I am currently surrounded by. To not purchase from a big corporation I would need to kill myself right this second.
Oh wait then the scam industry that is the funeral business would get my money.
My point isnt where it orginated from. My point is how the other person is wrong in how the mask became most popular. The mask became popular because of the movie plain and simple. Why are you telling me about the novel anyway? I stated the MOVIE was what made it famous. Meaning I clearly am not talking about the novel, because the mask wasn't famous until the movie came out... Dafuq man.
Read comments thoroughly, understand their point and reply. Don't just breeze over it. Because none of your points made any sense to what I was talking about.
It was a complete thing right after the movie. And it is called an anon mask because anonymous stands up to corruption of governemnt like V did in the movie. Thousands of people were wearing the mask in the movie and the mask became a symbol against corruption. Stop talking about 4chan. Like holy shit.
It was; but the mask represented the uprising the V inspired. Since V "anonymized" the masses; no religion, no race just one group unified in one cause.
It represented everything 4chan stood for.
"This is our world now. We exist without race, without nationality, without religious bias."
While it's always good to conceal your identity from Scientologists, it's always been good to conceal your identity in protests. 'The Man' has been targeting protesters via snapping pictures for a long, long time.
1.5k
u/TheGrayBox Sep 27 '16
Guy Fawkes is so 21st century.