The 1-2-3 Killam
Mid-Card Championship Winner
Round 2: V for Vendetta vs. Terminator 2: Judgement Day
This poll will close on Thursday, October 25th at 2am PT (ish)
Round 2: V for Vendetta vs. Terminator 2
- Thread starter The 1-2-3 Killam
- Start date
- Status
Round 2: V for Vendetta vs. Terminator 2: Judgement Day
This poll will close on Thursday, October 25th at 2am PT (ish)
Dowdsy McDowds
Sally was here
I absolutely love V for Vendetta, and I have a hunch that in time people may decide it was the best adaptation of an Alan Moore source. Portman's dodgy accent aside, it is an absorbing watch as more of V's backstory and future plans are revealed, with a great rare film appearance from Stephen Fry too.
T2 is on another level though. There was such positive reaction to Arnie that his character did arguably the biggest face turn in cinema by shifting from destroyer in the first film to saviour in the follow-up. Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor also goes through an incredible transformation and it really does feel like all she has been doing since she drove off at the end of Terminator is prepare for the end of the world and prepare her son for the leader he will become.
T2 is on another level though. There was such positive reaction to Arnie that his character did arguably the biggest face turn in cinema by shifting from destroyer in the first film to saviour in the follow-up. Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor also goes through an incredible transformation and it really does feel like all she has been doing since she drove off at the end of Terminator is prepare for the end of the world and prepare her son for the leader he will become.
While both heroes end up sacrificing themselves at the end, THAT thumb is one of the most iconic images in cinema and the acting between Arnie and Ed Furlong throughout is what made that moment even more meaningful.
Man, what did V For Vendetta get past in the first round? I can only assume it narrowly defeated Watching Paint Dry: A Retrospective. What a robbery!
Terminator 2 has the following things over V For Vendetta:
I didn't even like V For Vendetta when I was fourteen and might have actually been impressed guns and pseudo-intellectual bullshit. And Natalie Portman.
Terminator 2 has the following things over V For Vendetta:
- It's a good movie and not a boring piece of shit.
I didn't even like V For Vendetta when I was fourteen and might have actually been impressed guns and pseudo-intellectual bullshit. And Natalie Portman.
If that doesn't describe Terminator 2 then I'll eat my own face.
I don't see how Terminator 2 pretends to be intelligent. "We've got to shoot this bloke even though he hasn't really done anything yet" is about as 'smart' as it attempts to be. If you want to see Cameron getting too big for his boots, see the environmental activism in Avatar or the queasy romanticism in Titanic. T2's action sequences are well shot and have stakes and ingenuity instead of being Matrix wannabes (which, admittedly, would have required actual time travel).
ÐаÑбоÑа
doesn't know REAL wrestling...
I enjoyed V For Vendetta for its story and some of its symbolic scenes of destruction. As with every other movie ever made, I could not give a solitary shit about its message. No form of media makes me care about that. That V4V does rely somewhat on perpetrating a message can distract from the story but didn't destroy it as a viewing experience for me.
It does have the casting combination of Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman, John Hurt and, of course, Stephen Fry.
But in virtually no way is it one of the best films ever.
And it is certainly not T2. To paraphrase the great Gorilla - the original was escaping the irresistible force, the sequel was the irresistible force meeting the virtually immovable object, with tremendous action sequences and special effects that still stand up somewhat today.
If it has any message beyond the action, it is that Fate (Judgement Day) is inevitable and perhaps that friendship can drive even an inferior model to defeat that irresistible force. But they certainly do not dominate the screen in the same way that they do in Cameron's other aforementioned later efforts.
It does have the casting combination of Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman, John Hurt and, of course, Stephen Fry.
But in virtually no way is it one of the best films ever.
And it is certainly not T2. To paraphrase the great Gorilla - the original was escaping the irresistible force, the sequel was the irresistible force meeting the virtually immovable object, with tremendous action sequences and special effects that still stand up somewhat today.
If it has any message beyond the action, it is that Fate (Judgement Day) is inevitable and perhaps that friendship can drive even an inferior model to defeat that irresistible force. But they certainly do not dominate the screen in the same way that they do in Cameron's other aforementioned later efforts.
I've never seen any of the Terminator movies, but I have to point out that V for Vendetta is unquestionably the shittiest film entered into this tournament.
Anyone who likes it has poor taste, but more importantly, anyone who attempts to suggest that the film contains any kind of intellectual depth is an idiot. If I have a pet peeve in life it is dumb, low brow media that people insist is making some kind of profound observation.
If you want proof of the films lack of intellectual weight all you have to do is look at the people who have adopted its logo as a symbol of their movement. Teenage anarchists and Anonymous, in other words, in other words a bunch of total morons.
V for Vendetta is a movie that tries to examine to complex and multifaceted issue of terrorism and does so by creating an unambiguously evil government who are presented with all of the subtlety of a thrown brick. The 'oppressive regime' might as well be sitting around twirling their evil mustaches and spit roasting orphans for all the humanity the film confers upon them.
The film presents the harsh reality of a totalitarian dictatorship very obviously based on Nazi Germany, except because it is a Hollywood blockbuster produced for idiots everything is the fault of a shadowy cabal of super resourceful megalomaniacs with zero motivation other than to be bastards for no discernible reason. As such any attempt the movie makes at social commentary degrades to an over simplistic farce. It'd be like a WW2 epic suggesting that the Treaty of Versailles was actually written by Hitler and Goebbels as part of their master plan to seize power.
That's not to even attempt to address the whole host of other issues that the film had. V is about as bland a character as it is possible to construct. He's a poorly written, dictionary definition Mary Sue who makes Edmond Dantes appear believable. He's a romanticized freedom fighter who can slaughter a crowd of men with guns and blow up large sections of London, but is unambiguously right to do both.
Natalie Portman (who's character's name I cannot remember) is similarly bland, possibly because she winds up being completely superfluous to the plot. Her job in the narrative is to stand there listening to other people talk for ninety minutes and to participate in that utterly ******ed torture sequence "I was violently torturing you for your own good", "Gee, I guess you're right." that manages to stand tall as the stupidest aspect of a film that was pretty fucking dumb to begin with.
I won't vote since I haven't seen one of the films, though I haven't rules out watching the first five minutes of T-2 just as an excuse to help get this two hour long fecal waterslide eliminated.
Anyone who likes it has poor taste, but more importantly, anyone who attempts to suggest that the film contains any kind of intellectual depth is an idiot. If I have a pet peeve in life it is dumb, low brow media that people insist is making some kind of profound observation.
If you want proof of the films lack of intellectual weight all you have to do is look at the people who have adopted its logo as a symbol of their movement. Teenage anarchists and Anonymous, in other words, in other words a bunch of total morons.
V for Vendetta is a movie that tries to examine to complex and multifaceted issue of terrorism and does so by creating an unambiguously evil government who are presented with all of the subtlety of a thrown brick. The 'oppressive regime' might as well be sitting around twirling their evil mustaches and spit roasting orphans for all the humanity the film confers upon them.
The film presents the harsh reality of a totalitarian dictatorship very obviously based on Nazi Germany, except because it is a Hollywood blockbuster produced for idiots everything is the fault of a shadowy cabal of super resourceful megalomaniacs with zero motivation other than to be bastards for no discernible reason. As such any attempt the movie makes at social commentary degrades to an over simplistic farce. It'd be like a WW2 epic suggesting that the Treaty of Versailles was actually written by Hitler and Goebbels as part of their master plan to seize power.
That's not to even attempt to address the whole host of other issues that the film had. V is about as bland a character as it is possible to construct. He's a poorly written, dictionary definition Mary Sue who makes Edmond Dantes appear believable. He's a romanticized freedom fighter who can slaughter a crowd of men with guns and blow up large sections of London, but is unambiguously right to do both.
Natalie Portman (who's character's name I cannot remember) is similarly bland, possibly because she winds up being completely superfluous to the plot. Her job in the narrative is to stand there listening to other people talk for ninety minutes and to participate in that utterly ******ed torture sequence "I was violently torturing you for your own good", "Gee, I guess you're right." that manages to stand tall as the stupidest aspect of a film that was pretty fucking dumb to begin with.
I won't vote since I haven't seen one of the films, though I haven't rules out watching the first five minutes of T-2 just as an excuse to help get this two hour long fecal waterslide eliminated.
SorgFamily
Getting Noticed By Management
Ouch, just shit on my favorite character from possibly my favorite book. What a backhanded compliment.
Anyways, I voted for T2. I've watched it countless times and I'm still not bored with it. The T-1000 is definitely in the top 10 villains of all-time and imo a much better villain than Arnold was. Maybe I'll catch some shit for that but I had a lot more fun rooting for him than I did rooting for Kyle Reese that's for damn sure. I would have voted for T3 over V, which for what it is (A Hollywood popcorn movie) is enjoyable in parts but in no way comparable to T2.
Oh good, the resident grouch reared his ugly little head.
Clearly not, it made it past the first round (audience popularity), was given favorable reviews by most critics (critical popularity), and grossed more than many movies in this tournament (monetary success). Just because you have issues with it doesn't mean it sucks.
Says a guy that debates about professional wrestling on an internet forum.
That's like hating Catcher in the Rye because some dude said it convinced him to kill John Lennon, except your example is stupid. By this standard, the Bible sucks because it inspired the Crusades, and The Rolling Stones suck because of the incident at the Altamont Speedway. Stupid people do stupid shit and come up with stupid reasons.
Oh no, an unambiguously evil government?! This is the quintessential mark of a bad work of fiction! 1984, Star Wars, Brave New World, and Harry Potter (when Voldemort took over the Ministry) are all such terrible pieces of pop culture because of these unquestionably evil governments.
Seems like someone didn't pay attention to a fairly fleshed out plot, or maybe you're just being a biased grump because you didn't like the movie. The head of the "cabal" was an elected leader who seized and consolidated power to a few key branches. He was able to do this because a deadly disease was killing off millions and the public was scared. He used his new position of power to further his own agenda and create his own perfect state. Yes, it is very Hitler-esque, but if you're going to make a despotic villain, who better to base him off than the world's most despicable tyrant?
Mary Sue? Are you suggesting that Alan Moore longs to be a torture victim that had his flesh burnt off and has dedicated himself to a suicide mission?
Yes, he is a romanticized freedom fighter. So is Luke Skywalker. So is Rick Blaine. So are a huge portion of heroes that have graced the silver screen. People love seeing mysterious men with great abilities (whether it's to wield knives, use The Force, or smooth talk your way out of any situation) help the less fortunate.
Her name is Evey. In a movie called V for Vendetta, you'd think you'd be able to remember a name as obviously V related to the letter V as Evey. It has all the subtlety of a jackhammer, and yet you fail to remember. I think this is as good a point as any that you really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to critiquing this film.
But I do kind of agree with this part. Evey's role as the protagonist was pretty bland, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's her portrayal of this character as a horror film stereotype (the hunted, helpless girl) was not something I found endearing. The whole "I hurt you to help you" trope is also a lame plot device, but it worked in furthering the story at least. It warranted an eye roll... maybe even an exaggerated eye roll, but it's nothing you won't be able to get over.
Look, I'm not going to try to convince you that V for Vendetta is a great piece of film making. It's not. It's a fun super hero movie that has a little more depth than your average knives, guns, and bombs flick and a few good performance from the British actors. The story is good, not great, but that's made up for with some kick ass action sequences. V for Vendetta happens to be one of my favorite films, but in no way would I consider it to be a "great film." Truthfully, Terminator 2 is probably a better choice and you should vote for that, but don't let Gelgarin the Grouch dissuade you from voting. Just because he enjoys sucking the joy out of everything you like doesn't mean your fandom isn't justified.
Clearly not, it made it past the first round (audience popularity), was given favorable reviews by most critics (critical popularity), and grossed more than many movies in this tournament (monetary success). Just because you have issues with it doesn't mean it sucks.
Says a guy that debates about professional wrestling on an internet forum.
That's like hating Catcher in the Rye because some dude said it convinced him to kill John Lennon, except your example is stupid. By this standard, the Bible sucks because it inspired the Crusades, and The Rolling Stones suck because of the incident at the Altamont Speedway. Stupid people do stupid shit and come up with stupid reasons.
Oh no, an unambiguously evil government?! This is the quintessential mark of a bad work of fiction! 1984, Star Wars, Brave New World, and Harry Potter (when Voldemort took over the Ministry) are all such terrible pieces of pop culture because of these unquestionably evil governments.
Seems like someone didn't pay attention to a fairly fleshed out plot, or maybe you're just being a biased grump because you didn't like the movie. The head of the "cabal" was an elected leader who seized and consolidated power to a few key branches. He was able to do this because a deadly disease was killing off millions and the public was scared. He used his new position of power to further his own agenda and create his own perfect state. Yes, it is very Hitler-esque, but if you're going to make a despotic villain, who better to base him off than the world's most despicable tyrant?
Mary Sue? Are you suggesting that Alan Moore longs to be a torture victim that had his flesh burnt off and has dedicated himself to a suicide mission?
Yes, he is a romanticized freedom fighter. So is Luke Skywalker. So is Rick Blaine. So are a huge portion of heroes that have graced the silver screen. People love seeing mysterious men with great abilities (whether it's to wield knives, use The Force, or smooth talk your way out of any situation) help the less fortunate.
Her name is Evey. In a movie called V for Vendetta, you'd think you'd be able to remember a name as obviously V related to the letter V as Evey. It has all the subtlety of a jackhammer, and yet you fail to remember. I think this is as good a point as any that you really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to critiquing this film.
But I do kind of agree with this part. Evey's role as the protagonist was pretty bland, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's her portrayal of this character as a horror film stereotype (the hunted, helpless girl) was not something I found endearing. The whole "I hurt you to help you" trope is also a lame plot device, but it worked in furthering the story at least. It warranted an eye roll... maybe even an exaggerated eye roll, but it's nothing you won't be able to get over.
Look, I'm not going to try to convince you that V for Vendetta is a great piece of film making. It's not. It's a fun super hero movie that has a little more depth than your average knives, guns, and bombs flick and a few good performance from the British actors. The story is good, not great, but that's made up for with some kick ass action sequences. V for Vendetta happens to be one of my favorite films, but in no way would I consider it to be a "great film." Truthfully, Terminator 2 is probably a better choice and you should vote for that, but don't let Gelgarin the Grouch dissuade you from voting. Just because he enjoys sucking the joy out of everything you like doesn't mean your fandom isn't justified.
- Status
