Skinhead Natalie Portman’s new movie is called “V for Vendetta”. The makers of the show insist scenes featuring terrorist attacks on London’s tubes will remain.

Producer Joel Silver (The Matrix) says: “It’s a controversial film and a controversial time. It’s going to make people think.”

What is it supposed to make people think about? I personally think it’s in bad taste. I do not want to watch a movie showing these events, and I really think they should take the scenes out.

I’m sure some of you may be thinking “Get over it”, or, “Don’t be so serious”. However, if they really must keep the scenes in, perhaps they should consider postponing the release date until all the chaos has died down? I feel it’s a bit disrespectful to the people affected as well. It brings the feeling that they don’t really care about what the people had to go through.

I dunno, maybe I’m just PMSing.

were the scenes shot before the terror attack?

like in spiderman, the twin towers were destroyed after the shots of spidey spinning a web between them were shot... and they took those scenes out of the film (but not out of the poster)

As far as I know, they were shot before the attacks.

Yep, and I thought it was better that they took the twin towers out of the film.

you cannot erase history... the twin towers were there while spidey was, why remove the facts?

i say get over it

If they have to rethink release dates every time they have footage in a movie that might further traumatize people, we will only be able to see stupid movies like honey i shrunk the kids or ella enchanted. The people must get over it, it is a part of life

I don't see in harm in this being in the movie. It is like saying that they should take all scenese out of movies where people get killed in cold blood etc...

I suppose so, I mean, in the end: If you don't want to see it and be reminded of it if you were all traumatized, then don't go watch it?

But I still wanna know what they reckon it'll make us all "think about"?

maybe it'll make the baddies think twice about emulating such attacks?

How's that?

they'll see how their actions affect people (i don't know really) - i'm guessing

Personally, I don't think they give a damn what anyone thinks or feels about it?

Well that's just my take on the situation. I reckon they don't realise what they're doing, and they don't realise it's wrong. For them, it's all about their God - not other people and their feelings.

It's just a movie. You dont see anyone bitchhing when a bad guy shoots a cop because it's "bad taste" these things happen everyday it's just fictional thats now turned into reality cutting the scenes out would only waste time/ money/ effort!!! imagine you made the movie and then someone came along and said it was bad taste? LOL i'd tell them to go eat toffy apples.

Natalie Portman looked so much better with her long hair (off-topic I know) but like said before, if they release it now or 6 months later doesn't really make such a difference if you really have a problem with it. It would make it even more hypocritical to assume that 6 months later the 'effects' would be gone. Shit happens everyday and must we point fingers at movies that had scenes in it (For example a plane blown up by terrorists) and 4 years later something like that happens? Exactly!

On the other hand, I checked the trailer for V For Vendetta and it looks rather craptastic (in my eyes). The whole man behind the mask looked rather dumb to me. I am not familiar with the graphic novels so keep that in mind before you blast me into hell for saying this!

And some trailer link :

V For Vendetta

If this movie was a documentary, people wouldn't be so against it since documentaries are of course factual representations of a person or event.

However, V for Vendetta is a "made for entertainment" movie featuring a real tragedy but using artistic license, CGI and other special effects to enhance and or distort the facts to suit the vision of the director who along with the producer and everyone else involved in this production are all hoping to cash in on. Controversy sells really well. Just look at how much money Michael Moore managed to rake in.

It's this fact that annoys already traumatised people who were either present during the bombings or affected by them. What's worse from their point of view as well is that it's a bunch of people in America who watched the events unfolding on CNN telling their story.

toasted .... you never know ... this movie might do a bit of good ... maybe it'll remind people about how serious things really are ... open some eyes a bit ...

Yep. Removing scenes to avoid controversy is not unlike the adage of the ostrich putting its head in the sand to avoid enemies. Ignoring things doesn't make them go away.

StanDarsh, I'd agree with that, but as I said this isn't a documentary so the facts won't necessarily get a fair representation. Personally I don't think it'd be too much to ask for them to at least postpone this movie until a respectable period after the tragedy before cashing in on it. Everyone else did that for America's 911 tragedy, so why can't they do it for the UK?

It looks like a shit movie anyway. Maybe they are hoping to generate some publicity to get more people to see the movie ?

That is my whole point of why I think this is completely wrong.

It's disgusting that they are going to use it to generate more money with their wonderful "controversy".

Am I the only one (besides o-juice) that thinks it's wrong to generate publicity - and in the long run, money - from a terrible tragedy that has completely changed and affected people's lives in a big way?

I'm actually surprised the PR people and spin doctors haven't claimed that all/half of the proceeds will go towards funds for victims of the bombings. That'll surely get the money rolling in.

toasted: The reason other people in this thread fail to agree with your and my views on this subject is that fact that like the Americans making this movie, the bombings happened a world away. On some dinky island.

For all the abuse and misuse of the loathsome buzzword "global village", unless it happened or happens in your backyard, you're not going to really care. Some woman got stoned in Algeria for adultery? You'd get people debating whether or not she deserved it for cheating on her husband, nevermind looking at the fact that a human being got pummeled to death by rocks.

Natalie Portman, like Demi Moore, prove that even without hair they're hot! Sorry this thread is very misleading, it states Natalie Portman's New Movie yet the subject is the insensitivity of movie producers to current events. Perhaps a title change?

but she is the lead in the movie, not so? it is her movie?

just like everyone talks about the new movie starring brad pitt, they go by the stars' name.

i am all powerful, so i veto the title change ':(

NO ':(

I do hope that the movie is as good as her looks.

Just a quick update on this story.

Although the producer, Joel Silver, may have insisted no changes will be made to the futuristic thriller, one important aspect is changing..

And were o-juice and myself just not so right? They have decided it would be best to postpone the release of the movie from November to next March. After the tube bombings, Silver said: "It's a great time for this movie. It's a controversial film and it's a controversial time."

Too controversial a time, evidently.

Finally, they had some sense knocked into them. Much respect.