I thought the same thing about bacon after reading and watching Charlotte's Web. After Training Day I knew without a doubt that all cops were dirty. I still can't figure out where the Hobbits and Elves live but I'm sure they're around somewhere after watching The Lord of the Rings.

Maverick, you truly are an idiot. It is obvious that, with your head so far up your ass, you missed the point of my post.

You completely missed my point. No one will "embrace the film's political ideology." In fact, the film does not have a political ideology. But, even if it did, embracing a political ideology based on a film made entirely for entertainment and profit-making purposes is right on par with believing in Hobbits and Elves.

Get it?

Great beer. Great rep as a hero of the American Revolution. By any dispassionate definition, a terrorist. The Boston Massacre was nothing more or less than Adams's gang of thugs (400 of 'em) beating up on a platoon of English soldiers, knowing that they were under strict rules not to engage the thugs until a magistrate had appeared to read the Riot Act to them, formally calling on them to disperse or face the armed might of His Majesty. Problem was, the Redcoats proved to be human, unable to tolerate bricks and 2x4s in the face. They fired. People died. Sam Adams thought this would have triggered a revolution - which would have gotten its ass kicked. John Adams (Sam's cousin) defended the soldiers when no other lawyer would take the case - because Sam's thugs would have, at the least, busted their homes. John Adams won the case, thus establishing the "Reasonable Revolutionaries" image of the American Founding Fathers that, just barely, allowed the Men of '76 to prevail by providing just enough support in the Colonies and the English Parliament to prevent England from making the American Revolution a war to the death. Our death.

In other words, Humpty Dumpty, a terrorist is whoever I say it is. Likewise, a transcendant hero. Or a martyr.

This is exactly why I won't see this movie. I adore Alan Moore, and if this is what the film has been made into, they REALLY missed the whole point of the book. Alan Moore himself was so upset with the treatment surrounding the movie and his ownership of the rights that he demanded that they remove his name not only from the movie, but from the book as well. And as such, he is trying to get them to stop sending him money from the book. That is going pretty far just to make a statement.

I've heard that a lot of the movie makes a big deal out of the Guy Fawkes thing. Alan Moore himself does not. He has specifically said that he was using Guy Fawkes as a symbol, without using any real references to the historical Guy Fawkes. I have also heard that the movie seems to be set within a sort of American POV with conservatives and liberals. If so, this is very far from the book's intent. It is meant to be anarchists vs. fascists. And Moore specifically points out that neither is really a political system. They are both ways of motivating mass numbers of people.

The biggest point I would have to respond to is in regards to your blog title. If they are making V out to be a hero, this movie is excrement. Yeah, I know I'm being harsh, but it's specifically the opposite of the intent. When asked, "Do you think V is a hero?" he answers, "No, we called the first chapter "The Villain" where we introduce him. I don't want to say he's the hero any more than I really want to say he's the villain. He's a force." The entire question of the book is whether you identify with V or find yourself opposed to him, you are being manipulated to get somebody else's agenda going. If you are a fascist and opposed to V, you will do anything for God, king, or country, without questioning whether there is a better way. If you find yourself sympathizing with V, you believe that no good can come from anything the government does, and you seek change for the sake of change. Both ideas are foolhardy.

Is it any wonder our youth are confused and angry when villains are made to be heros.

Villains and heroes are not clearly defined in real life, and they are not alwys int he movies either. This is the way stories have always been in asian culture, but the west went more toward a binary setup of good vs evil, white vs. black, rightous vs evil.

I know this will get me called an idiot, but saying that you hope people will not embrace the political ideaology of a movie is a little odd. I mean we would have to quit making movies if that were our fear. THat is why, love it or hate it, the fact that the Catholic church wants a disclaimer on the Divinci Code movie is completely rediculous.

Later

Hate to admit it, BUT, I like what JohnnyP suggested. It is ironic that we cheer as a "good guy" commits an act of violence. Once again, Tottie is totally right, this kind of thing DOES confuse the youth. Just like what I had written about teens thinking it's cool to commit murder because that's what their favorite rapper says is cool. And Yes, as Mav states, the film is made for profit, but does that make it right?