Daniel Robert Epstein: Natalie Portman - V for Vendetta

Interesting interview. I really want to see that movie.

Uhoh....she almost slipped up and called a "graphic novel" a comic book....you'd think she'd have learned about rabid anal fanbases after Star Wars!

I could have seen this thing a few weeks ago and I didn't.....ugh.

It was never a good idea, in my opinion, to let the Wachowski bros. adapt Alan Moore's work.

They are not the same?

Good interview. I think I might go to the theatre to see it.

Ahhh just by the name alone I thought it was the long awaited sequel to The Professional AKA Leon.

Yes, a comic book and graphic novel are the same....unless you're a pretentious asshole who wants to overcomlicate things, or you're ashamed/embarrased/don't know how to explain reading comic books as an adult to people who can't grasp that not every comic/art form is the same.

Example:Batman is a comic book. It's published monthly, etc. Batman:The Dark Night Returns (which was a multipart publication, but was limited and eventually bound into a single book) is a singular story that is more dramatic or stylized and thus is typically called a "graphic novel", suggesting more depth....but with pictures. One off publications can also fall under that, etc.

Eitherway.....same thing. Just as film and movie mean the same thing.

Nope incorrect

A graphic novel is a longer book that is bound and is all original material

a comic book is a goddamn pamphlet

I don't think anyone's done a good job of adapting any Alan Moore work to the big screen yet.

See what I mean? It's primarily about length to people who think there's a difference. It's still a comic if it's 4 pages or 400, just as a 200 page book is no less a book than a 2000 page book. Original is hardly the case-you'll find plenty of miniseries compiled and listed as a graphic novel (Kingdom Come, Dark Night Returns, etc).

Correct, on "definition" and on anal fanboys who feel that there's some kind of artistic or merit distinction between the two. It's all bullshit semantics; if V were published in daily strip form in a newspaper, as one big volume, or (wasn't it printed as?) a series of books later compiled into one book....it's still a story told with illustration over narration. Comic. Book.

Christ...what next, I'll be at home watching the Godfather, make a comment on what a classic film it is, and someone will burst in screaming "You're watching a shiny piece of plastic on a TV, it's not a film!" ?? Listening to Pink Floyd and have someone burst in "You're not listening to music/songs, it's a concept album!"

Explain to me, then, the ohsoimportant "distinction" of saying graphic novels over comics? One confuses people who don't know anything about comics and you can bullshit your way into making it sound like it's something higher regardless of content, the other carries a stigma?

Frank Miller told me he felt it was semantics

Jim Steranko feels there is a distinct difference because he says he did the first graphic novel
http://newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4576

Until this "new" respect that comics have gotten since the Marvel movie age there was never as many arguments> i've had people tell me that since dickens serialized many of his books does that make them a collection or a novel. i respond with "collection"

its not anal fanboys, its people who are loyal to the medium. I've always bought tpbs since i started buying comics. We called them hardcover collections or trade paperbacks. and then stuff that was original material and bound instead of stapled into a pamphlet graphic novels.

Yeah, remember The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?

*shudders*

The main problem with all this terminology is it's not universally descriptive. What do you call Harvey Pekar's "Loser"? It's not a collection, or a paperback. Graphic novel? It may be a form of graphic storytelling, but it's sure not a novel. "Trade paperback" is a book size, and is a term that applies equally to comics or prose if the book has the right measuerments. It's not specific to comics.

Some people think the term "comics" or "comic books" is superior because it's culturally standard and therefore non-pretentious, but as a descriptive term it's not much better than "funny books," which is what my grandma always called comics. The term has come to apply even though most of the comics in question aren't actually comic in content.

Will Eisner liked the term "sequential art," and that actually makes sense for work of the caliber that guys like Eisner produced. But it seems almost over-the-top pretentious when applied to most of the pamphlet superhero comics on the racks at any given moment...

i know but certian comics arent exactly sequential art. there are comcis that have one panel per page in a whole story. so that term doesnt totally w ork

I have to say I'm deeply concerned about this movie. I'm a huge fan of Ms. Portman, but everything I see in the previews screams "dumbed down" regarding the plot as it transitioned from graphic novel to screen. The example cited in the interview is one that jumped out immediately: In the graphic novel, Evey is a streetwalker. No, no wait, she isn't. She works in a munitions factory. The money from that job isn't enough. She decides she needs to make a little money on the side, so she tries prostituting herself only to come on to the wrong guy her first time out the door - an undercover operative on a stakeout. The preview shows us that the scriptwriters in the movie have stripped this conflict from her character, made her a "nice girl" with a job in media who gets picked up for a curfew violation. Gone is the sense of compromise that her world has forced on her.

Now I'm too much of a fan of Natalie to blame her for playing apologist to the Wachowskis, but the more I see of the previews, the more I think that this movie does not capture the essential spirit of the comic. I see a lot of stunt scenes and slow motion action. In the comic, most of the action happens off camera, or in playback forensic detail, or in the blink of an eye. V performs inhuman feats, but they aren't lingered over. And it works. Apologists will argue that you can't do the same for movies, forgetting that this is exactly how movies used to operate, and many suspense movies still use these techniques to great effect.

As happy as I am to see V making it to the big screen, and as happy as I am to see such a good cast taking the roles, this looks to me like one more butchering of Alan Moore's work.

Probably but I'll be perfectly happy if it's at least entertaining on purely a "movie" level, i.e. "From Hell"-esque. However, the way it seems to be perpetually delayed I'm not holding out a ton of hope.

I'd rather they delay it than rush it to the screen half-done.

Yeah I just came to say the same thing.

I think he means that girls tend to have good taste. Would you be offended if he was referring to dungeons and dragons or fantasy football?

[Edited on Mar 18, 2006 by Jeff_Fries]

No he doesn't. I hear all the time, "OMG you're a girl into comics?? WOW" like it's some amazing thing. Whatever. Girls are into lots of things, especially not being condescended to.

Can I yell "Lightning bolt, Lightning bolt!" as I throw a rolled up sock at you then? Please???

But seriously, I've yet to read or listen to (on NPR) a good review of this film. I'm not a follower of the graphic nover/comic/whatever. I've just heard it's not a terribly coherent film. I'll probably catch it when it hits HBO/Cinemax/Starz on Demand because it's got Ms. Portman with the cute buzzcut.

i have a serious girl crush on Natalie Portman.