Variety is reporting today that Hugo Weaving (The Matrix & Lord of the Rings) has replaced James Purefoy, who left the production for undisclosed reasons.


The Wachoski Brothers directed film is to be released on Nov 4th.

Julius M

You can read the full article here:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR111792 ... =1236&cs=1

I think the Wachowskis are only producing, and their long time AD is directing.

They may have written it, too.

I wonder if casting a known actor as "V" means that they'll show his face in the movie?

Well, at the official site during the press junket they posted they were saying that the would never show V's face... but yeah. That was the other actor.

I think Hugo will be SUPER creepy in this role!

JM

Interesting choice of actor. This movie scares me tho. Ive been a big fan of V since the 'Warrior' days, Im curious to see it, but im concerned about what theyre gonna do with it. I know most all comic book based movies have tampered with the source material, but V is not most comic books. Is a hollywood made movie Really going to allow a Terrorist to be the hero of the story? Thats a big part of V, He's a terrorist, pure and simple. change that one detail and youve got a totally diferent story.


Im not down on the movie or the fact its being made, But i really do think that its a classic piece of writing (of any genre or style) and should be treated with respect. Im hoping they make it just as it is in the book, because if not the power of the story just wont be there. You only have to look at the travesty that was the league of extraordinary gentlemen to see just how badly wrong hollywood can get Alan Moore.

Opinions?

Some how, i've completly missed this Series. Is it avaliable in a Collected form so i can check it out?



Sure, we've only seen one little pic Of Natalie Portman bald for this role, but she looked pretty hot to me.

Yep. All 12 issues are collected in a trade paperback and WELL worth a read. it starts a little slow but by the end your mind will be blown!

Here's a link to Amazon's listing:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846

Julius M

It's a damn good story.....Not for kids......They'd get bored more than likely with it..........I just hope they stay true to the source or as Terror of Zygons said it'll be a completly different movie........


Hugo Weaving,huh? Okay........I can see that.............

I know what you mean. I don't think V is going to be kept as an ironic terrorist, either. It seems the hot new trend is to make entertainment that fits in more with the conservative right mindset, so I wouldn't be surprised to see V become more of a freedom fighter character rather than a terrorist like character. It's a fine distinction, to be sure, but I think they'll change it just enough to make the story pointless.




I think because of the difference in mediums, they really can't. Certain story telling techniques just don't translate. I'm hoping it's more like a Crow situation, where the heart and meaning is kept despite superficial changes.



The funny thing is how little Moore cares. And I actually enjoyed LXG. I think most people don't know that the pulp Victorian literature was the equivalent then to today's mindless action movies. The authors back then weren't trying to make deep works, they were trying to get paid. LXG was much more true to the spirit of the original works than most people know. But whatever, different strokes and all that...

I think the one thing this film has going for it in regards of vast departures from the source or studio tampering, is that it should not be too expensive of a film to produce, so the higher-ups may leave it alone, allowing for a more adult, indie feel. Plus, they aren't going into this looking for a franchise. General audiences aren't even going to be aware that this is adapted from a comic book, and that, in this case, is a good thing.

Yep, i know exactly what you mean there Kenny, the victorian pulps were indeed the equivalent of todays mindless action movies. And youre right, LXG IS very true to the spirit of thsoe original works. I read an interview with moore somewhere online and tho i cant remember exactly what he said (he was referring to feasability of watchmen being made as a movie, i remember that much ) i recall he said something to the effect of He'd rather hollywood pay him for them to 'adapt' one of his stories than not. Cant blame the guy really. The books are still out there for those who want to read them and will still be considered classics long after the movies have been forgotten

What i didnt like about LXG tho, is that they changed the actual story. That wouldnt have been a problem if he replacement story was better, I just didnt think it was. As you say, different strokes and all that, but for me it seemed like "Ok, weve spent all the money. We had to pay Alan Moore, Connery and we needed a SFX budget. oh, we dont actually have much (if any) money for a script or anything else. better just make it up as we go along then."

I didnt really see the need to add a token american characeter, but i understand why they did. however, i think Huck Finn would have been a beter choice (going with the mark twain thing here) because he fits the whole anti-hero theme of the league way better than the squeaky clean Tom Sawyer
I dunno, in short i just thought LXG wasnt thought through very well. It seemed very rushed and it looked like there was a great movie in there but theyd just run out of cash and just cobbled together what theyd shot and thrown it out there. It was ok, but it could have been so much more. I just dont want to see V for vendetta turn into the same thing is all. Its a fantastic story and could be a fantastic movie and i think it should be. I see no sense in wasting a great story by turning it into a so-so movie that no-one goes to see and dosnt make anyone any money. As long as they make it good i'll be happy, even if they change it.

>>Is a hollywood made movie Really going to allow a Terrorist to be the hero of the story? Thats a big part of V, He's a terrorist, pure and simple. change that one detail and youve got a totally diferent story. <<

Hmm. It's been a few years since I've read that story, but I don't know that I'd call V a terrorist. A terrorist is a man who murders indiscriminately, distinguishing neither between innocent and guilty nor between soldier and civilian. I don't recall V murdering any innocent civilians, but I could be wrong about that. I'll have to go back and check.

Regardless, there's the old saying that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". I always thought of V as a revolutionary who fought against a fascist dictatorship. V was written in the 1980's, and was a response to the Ronald Regan-Maggie Thatcher right wing conservatism that was so prevalent at the time. The idea of a sitting President, who had the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson whispering sweet nothings in his ear, scared the hell out of Moore.

And a bunch of other people, too. Like me.

Here's a pic of Natalie Portman As Evey Hammond:



Here's the link to the Newsarama story:

http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33465

Mike
(Oooo, I hope DC Direct makes a V figure!)