Occupy Wall Street + NYCC '11 = ?

[starwolf_oakley]

Will the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd attempt to recruit the New York Comic Con crowd next week? Or vice versa? What happens when angst-ridden hipsters encounter angst-ridden cosplayers? One group smells like patchouli and the other, uh, doesn't. (NOTE: "Occupy Wall Street" corrected from "Occupy New York." Oops)

Legal image:

Comments

[starwolf_oakley]

I messed up calling it "Occupy New York." Whoops.
I'm not even sure why I called them "hipsters." Calling them "hippies" seemed to be a misnomer.

[rainspirit]

Hipsters is kind of a misnomer as well. From what I've seen, the only qualification to be part of the movement is being "one of the 99%". Aka the ones who aren't super rich and are being screwed by Wall Street. Not exactly obscure or ironic in the least!

[filthysize]

I've been down there. Union groups have joined and there are a lot of middle-aged blue collar people protesting. Calling them hipsters would just be silly.

[turtlefu]

I don't know about New York, but Portland has a lot of people in V for Vendetta masks blasting Radiohead, and Boston has a lot of art hippies from the South End.

[dancesontrains]

But it's Portland.

[lissa_quon]

The V masks have been a thing at a lot of the protests, at least as much as I've seen.

I sure the V masks are being worn by veterans of the Anonymous Scientology protests. At those protests keeping your face covered was like Rule #1.

[turtlefu]

The current "Anonymous" group is so incredibly different from the original Anonymous Scientology protests that I don't even consider them part of the same movement.

Also, wearing Guy Fawkes masks has, and always will be, incredibly stupid. Especially to people who actually understand the history of the Gunpowder plot.

[mrstatham]

Yeah, but they aren't Guy Fawkes masks to those people, they're V masks. That's the issue with what the film did to V's character, frankly - he's not designed to be a figurehead, because the book's version is arguably as bad a person as Fawkes was. The film positions him as a revolutionary hero who inspires the masses through subterfuge and trickery, and that's what that Anon flock seem to be pushing, not the antics of Fawkes.

[turtlefu]

Even then, as a V mask, it makes to sense.

Guy Fawkes wanted a strict totalitarian theocracy.
V wanted pure anarchy in reaction to fascism.

The protesters are against an oligarchy, but to say that we are currently living in a fascist society is just delusional. And I highly doubt the Wall Street protesters want pure anarchy.

[mrstatham]

Ah, but again, the film changes what V is. By having dozens wear the mask in the finale, and Evey basically stating he saved the country, the film is a lot less ambiguous, the context more simple. He's basically a heroic political symbol in the film, like it or not. And those that haven't read the book probably think nothing of appropriating his image to try and deal with what they feel is an overly oppressive force.

[turtlefu]

That's probably one of the biggest problems. The graphic novel is nuanced and complex. The film is simple and comparatively stupid.

Out of all these "activists" who swear to V, I wonder how many of them actually bothered to read the graphic novel with any depth.

[starwolf_oakley]

V is a more "straight-up" good guy in the movie, aside from torturing Evey and maybe tricking the cops into killing some the television station employees. In the graphic novel, V might be condemning England is a slow, horrible death in a nuclear irradiated world.

I haven't read the entire graphic novel, but there were some pretty clever elements to the movie. The cure to the virus (which allowed Norsefire to rise to power) was created from V's blood at Larkhill (in turn giving V enhanced speed/strength/endurance). So V feels some indirect responsibility for Norsefire's dominance. I think that was clever.

There's also a *chance* V is blind from the fire that destroyed Larkhill. Delia says, "He had no eyes." But I'm not entirely sure how he could so all the things he does, even with Daredevil-like enhanced senses. How would he know what books to protect? Since that at least caused me to reconsider elements of the film, that was clever.

I still don't get the point in blowing up Parliament if there obviously isn't a Parliament anymore, but even V knew is was symbolic.

[mrstatham]

In the book, the destruction of Parliament is basically V's final act and is significant since he spends the early chapters tearing down the current government's symbols and places of power. I'm fairly sure Parliament also has some significance to Norsefire, too. So it's definitely symbolic.

But the idea of V having 'superpowers' in the film bugged me, to be honest. In the book, it's merely implied his time at Larkhill did something to him, and I think there's a couple of bits where above-human power is suggested, but otherwise, it's V's smarts that get him through, not some wishy-washy bullet-time stuff.

I also don't think the V of the book is entirely a monster; Norsefire display that some kind of sustainable life is possible in England, even in a post-nuclear world. But he gives the people choice. He gives them freedom to do as they please and to find their own way. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to the reader to decide..

[notactuallyauser]

No, in the book, V destroys the Houses of Parliament in the first issue (its place is taken by the Old Bailey in the film.)

[mrstatham]

You're quite right. V destroys Downing Street at the end of the book. Still, it's equally significant as a target to be destroyed.

[timgueugen]

We had a mask wearing protestor like that when George W. Bush visited a couple of years ago.
http://saskatoonseven.blogspot.com/2009/10/mr-bush-visits-saskatoon.html

[cleome45]

I've never seen anyone do this. Am I just not frequenting the right parts of Portland?

[turtlefu]

I got it from twitter, so maybe the information is wrong. But that's what I've heard.

:p

[cleome45]

That sounds like it should be a verse from Weird Al's next masterwork.