The author of the comic book series, Alan Moore, has disavowed this film and refuses to take money from the proceeds.
Regards, Ivan
Does that mean he disagrees with the propaganda in the film?
"The Watchmen" is a masterpiece, in my opinion.
From Alan Moore's interview at: at http://www.mtv.com/shared/movies/in...re_alan_060315/
Moore: I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it, and I'm not going to be going to see it. 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. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures — not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys — and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?
Actually I did some reading on that and Alan's disagreement has nothing to do with the final product. Apparently he decided shortly after the rights were sold that Hollywood is just stupid so he didn't want to have anything to do with the movie, wasn't going to discuss ideas with them, wasn't going to be on set, wasn't going to watch it, they could do whatever they want just don't bother him. Then during some interview one of the Wackowskis made the comment that they had Alan's full support, that's when he got mad and demanded they remove his name, he was OK with them ruining his stuff (which he apparently assumed was bound to happen) the problem was when they implied he was involved with the production when he had refused to even have coffee and chat with anyone involved.
The movie is actually pretty good. Like most hard left moonbat stuff it's preaching to the choir, so if you're not in the choir the anti-Bush parts are pretty ignorable. Makes a lot more sense the first time through than the graphic novel did, they dropped all the stuff that indicated maybe V was just nuts and the stuff that set him off might not have actually happened at all.