Josh, about that screenshot, with the haircut, I am curious about what it means about V.
We do not see the hair-cutters face in the widescreen version of the film, but they did not attempt to hide the face in the promo photos, and perhaps the face is also visible in the full frame edition of the video. So are we to assume that this is supposed to be V in a very realistic mask? Because the one time we saw him in a human mask, it was dark and had a big fluffy beard, the better to hide the fact that it was not a realistic mask. So does V have accomplices or what?
That's not neccessarily true. There are many instances where objects, people, etc are more visible in full frame versions of films that were shot open matte or super 35.
Okay, let's try this again and pay close attention this time: If it's not in the widescreen version of the film, it's not in the film. In olther words, it may be on the celluloid itself, but it's not a real, true, accurate part of the film--it doesn't count.
Someone asked, so I'll spoiler this, though I can't do anything about the post I'm replying to:
One can read it either way, he either has accomplices or its a mask. I prefer the interpretation that since they weren't going to show the hair cutter's face in the movie anyway, there was no reason to further complicate schedules or have Weaving come in for filming of the scene when he won't be visible in it in any significant capacity.
Of course, one can make the case for most of his scenes in this film, but since there isn't much "acting" (physical or otherwise) for the part of the barber in that scene it makes little difference - unlike alot of other scenes where he's still wearing a mask but is acting with physicality (I'm assuming of course that Huge was ever actually in costume, I don't know enough about the making of the film to know if his work was just essentially voice over or if he was actually in the costume most of the time).
I enjoyed the film and its DVD presentation, but one aspect of it made me think that I am possibly spending too much time on the forum. My mind kept getting sidetracked by the idea that Warner Brothers must have cleared the rights to use clips from the Robert Donat version of "The Count of Monte Cristo". Someone must know who has "clear title" to them, and I want them to release it on DVD!
...and don't even get me started on V watching it cropped to fit a 16:9 television.
If this were a low budget film by directors who don't care about their film's visuals, I'd buy the "if it is not in the widescreen version it doesn't count." But these guys are powerful enough to control what is photographed. I didn't mean to resurrect the trite widescreen debate.
Some of the time. James Purefoy did 4 to 6 weeks of filming (reports vary) before dropping out. Weaving then stepped into the mask and, of course, you have stunt people.
"Since V's face is never seen, all Weaving had to do to step into the role was re-voice the lines Purefoy had already done and then take over for the rest of the shoot. Purefoy doesn't get a credit, but sometimes that is him up onscreen — with Weaving woven in.
"Can I tell the difference?" McTeigue says. "Yeah. Can the audience tell? I doubt it."
"A lot of people play V," Silver adds. "Any move you make, you have different stunt guys, so in the knife fights it's one guy. When swinging on the ropes, it's another.""
Thanks for that bit of info David. Makes sense. I knew Weaving was a replacement for someone else, but never really followed the production to know when it happened, how far into shooting, why the original dropped out/was fired, etc.
In any case, since this is the DVD review thread I guess I should ask. Is the single disc version the exact same transfer and sound wise as the 2-disc version in terms of the film itself. This is one movie I'm definately picking up in hi-def in the not too distant future so I don't think I want to splurge on the 2-disc version right now, but I would if there was a difference in the film's presentation quality across the two.
I'm just thinking - your comment in #29 is particularly spoilery, and in fact you're responding to a post which is itself in spoiler tags. Could you possibly rework your post, or put it in tags?
Question: During some dark scenes, such as the video-confrence with the High Chancellor & party, and on more than one occasion with a closeup V-shot, there is significant light "Halo-ing" on what would otherwise be an all-black spot of film.
Was this intentional for the film, or is it a DVD video-problem?