Frankly, I think at this point I like the V for Vendetta movie just as a big fuck you to Alan Moore.
That's right. Fuck Alan Moore.
If you don't want people tampering with your shit, then find a way to maintain intellectual control over it. otherwise, quit being such a bitch about it.
well, that's not the way the publishing world works all the time, sadly
and fortunately, he took your advice and now he'll only work with publishers that don't try and pump you in the butt for movie rights
aren't you happy now
Yes, I'm very happy. Good for him.
Part of being a commercial artist is having your work turned into movies. If you don't like it, fine, go cry yourself to sleep on your money filled pillow.
The thing about Alan Moore is that he will always bitch about everything anyone ever does with his work, but that's his own fault for selling out. He could have just as easily drawn all these stories on the inside of discarded Big Mac containers while living under a bridge.
So no one is going to write a rebuttal to this? Because it's all kinds of wrong. Especially that money-filled pillow part.
I was rather startled by the "selling out = making any amount of money" thing
I am forced to believe it was sarcasm, because that shit doesn't make sense
I was comparing it to being a "real" artist and living under a bridge. Regardless, I know Moore did not make a ton of money off of his creation.
Come on, I can't be the only one who is sick of Moore's high-and-mightyness when it comes to people adapting his work. I mean, Stephen King doesn't complain when they turn his books into visual horrors that scar the soul.
Granted, I don't know what it feels like to have ones work co-opted in such a way... but it seems he just hates everything out of hand.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
Frankly, I think at this point I like the V for Vendetta movie just as a big fuck you to Alan Moore.
That's right. Fuck Alan Moore.
If you don't want people tampering with your shit, then find a way to maintain intellectual control over it. otherwise, quit being such a bitch about it.
well, that's not the way the publishing world works all the time, sadly
and fortunately, he took your advice and now he'll only work with publishers that don't try and pump you in the butt for movie rights
aren't you happy now
Yes, I'm very happy. Good for him.
Part of being a commercial artist is having your work turned into movies. If you don't like it, fine, go cry yourself to sleep on your money filled pillow.
The thing about Alan Moore is that he will always bitch about everything anyone ever does with his work, but that's his own fault for selling out. He could have just as easily drawn all these stories on the inside of discarded Big Mac containers while living under a bridge.
So no one is going to write a rebuttal to this? Because it's all kinds of wrong. Especially that money-filled pillow part.
I was rather startled by the "selling out = making any amount of money" thing
I am forced to believe it was sarcasm, because that shit doesn't make sense
I was comparing it to being a "real" artist and living under a bridge. Regardless, I know Moore did not make a ton of money off of his creation.
Come on, I can't be the only one who is sick of Moore's high-and-mightyness when it comes to people adapting his work. I mean, Stephen King doesn't complain when they turn his books into visual horrors that scar the soul.
Granted, I don't know what it feels like to have ones work co-opted in such a way... but it seems he just hates everything out of hand.
Frankly, I think at this point I like the V for Vendetta movie just as a big fuck you to Alan Moore.
That's right. Fuck Alan Moore.
If you don't want people tampering with your shit, then find a way to maintain intellectual control over it. otherwise, quit being such a bitch about it.
well, that's not the way the publishing world works all the time, sadly
and fortunately, he took your advice and now he'll only work with publishers that don't try and pump you in the butt for movie rights
aren't you happy now
Yes, I'm very happy. Good for him.
Part of being a commercial artist is having your work turned into movies. If you don't like it, fine, go cry yourself to sleep on your money filled pillow.
The thing about Alan Moore is that he will always bitch about everything anyone ever does with his work, but that's his own fault for selling out. He could have just as easily drawn all these stories on the inside of discarded Big Mac containers while living under a bridge.
So no one is going to write a rebuttal to this? Because it's all kinds of wrong. Especially that money-filled pillow part.
I was rather startled by the "selling out = making any amount of money" thing
I am forced to believe it was sarcasm, because that shit doesn't make sense
I was comparing it to being a "real" artist and living under a bridge. Regardless, I know Moore did not make a ton of money off of his creation.
Come on, I can't be the only one who is sick of Moore's high-and-mightyness when it comes to people adapting his work. I mean, Stephen King doesn't complain when they turn his books into visual horrors that scar the soul.
Granted, I don't know what it feels like to have ones work co-opted in such a way... but it seems he just hates everything out of hand.
He actually doesn't make any money off of adaptations. He insists they give the money to the artist so he legitimately has no part of it.
I was comparing it to being a "real" artist and living under a bridge. Regardless, I know Moore did not make a ton of money off of his creation.
Come on, I can't be the only one who is sick of Moore's high-and-mightyness when it comes to people adapting his work. I mean, Stephen King doesn't complain when they turn his books into visual horrors that scar the soul.
Granted, I don't know what it feels like to have ones work co-opted in such a way... but it seems he just hates everything out of hand.
He liked "For the Man Who Has Everything"
And he didn't hate Hayter's Watchmen script.
In fact, didn't he personally give approval for Timm & Co. to do "For the Man Who Has Everything"?
My impression of the matter is that he's not so much upset by the adaptations themselves (though obviously that is part of it) as he is with the treatment he's recieved at the hands of movie studios. For example, there was a lawsuit over the LxG movie that basically ended in Fox Studios suggesting Moore had plagarized the concept from another writer. And then with the V for Vendetta, the studio deliberately lied about him supporting the project.
If you had to put up with shit like that on top of incredibly crappy adaptations, I think you'd be completely justified in hating Hollywood and all it produces.
I remember reading an article from Moore about his issues with his adaptions. To him, they choose to change major things or insert their own motives. Such as how Depp chose to make his "From Hell" character an addict...which he was not in the book. Instead Moore wanting him more "clean". And then in LXG, Connery chose to NOT make Quartermain an addict, something Moore felt was important.
Then in V, he said that the Martix Bros decided to take his story about a specific time in British history, and turn it into Bush bashing. His issue with that was "Why use my story. If you have an issue with YOUR government, write your own dang story!".
But stories like "For the Man Who Has Everything", they stuck to the original. Rather than re-work it and Hollywood-ize it, they basically said "Lets animate this." The spirit of the original stayed true.
I don't really blame him. If you want to take the idea of an original work and use it sell a movie, at least have the guts to actually stick to the original! Otherwise, just make your own thing.
I remember reading an article from Moore about his issues with his adaptions. To him, they choose to change major things or insert their own motives. Such as how Depp chose to make his "From Hell" character an addict...which he was not in the book. Instead Moore wanting him more "clean". And then in LXG, Connery chose to NOT make Quartermain an addict, something Moore felt was important.
Then in V, he said that the Martix Bros decided to take his story about a specific time in British history, and turn it into Bush bashing. His issue with that was "Why use my story. If you have an issue with YOUR government, write your own dang story!".
But stories like "For the Man Who Has Everything", they stuck to the original. Rather than re-work it and Hollywood-ize it, they basically said "Lets animate this." The spirit of the original stayed true.
I don't really blame him. If you want to take the idea of an original work and use it sell a movie, at least have the guts to actually stick to the original! Otherwise, just make your own thing.
This is my issue. I think that there are a number of parallels between the Thatcher and Bush administrations, and that, surprise, a story like V for Vendetta could cover a multitude of different authoritarian leaders. You'll note that Margaret Thatcher wasn't the villain in V for Vendetta, and instead Moore made up a character that represented her. Why is it so hard for him to see that the villain he created could have multiple parallels?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I remember reading an article from Moore about his issues with his adaptions. To him, they choose to change major things or insert their own motives. Such as how Depp chose to make his "From Hell" character an addict...which he was not in the book. Instead Moore wanting him more "clean". And then in LXG, Connery chose to NOT make Quartermain an addict, something Moore felt was important.
Then in V, he said that the Martix Bros decided to take his story about a specific time in British history, and turn it into Bush bashing. His issue with that was "Why use my story. If you have an issue with YOUR government, write your own dang story!".
But stories like "For the Man Who Has Everything", they stuck to the original. Rather than re-work it and Hollywood-ize it, they basically said "Lets animate this." The spirit of the original stayed true.
I don't really blame him. If you want to take the idea of an original work and use it sell a movie, at least have the guts to actually stick to the original! Otherwise, just make your own thing.
This is my issue. I think that there are a number of parallels between the Thatcher and Bush administrations, and that, surprise, a story like V for Vendetta could cover a multitude of different authoritarian leaders. You'll note that Margaret Thatcher wasn't the villain in V for Vendetta, and instead Moore made up a character that represented her. Why is it so hard for him to see that the villain he created could have multiple parallels?
It's been a long time since I read they books, but I can't remember anything that they added that would've turned it into a Bush bashing movie.
Couldn't tell you. Perhaps, as a British Citizen, he doesn't feel that what is happening now and what happened during thatcher are really similar.
It may also be that he feels that, since they decided to speak against their government, they should have the film set in their own country...and maybe make the badguy wear a mask that is somehow relavent to their own people.
Thing is, when it comes to someone's stories, I err on the side of the creator. If he doesn't like your take on it, don't make it. Just make your own thing.
I remember reading an article from Moore about his issues with his adaptions. To him, they choose to change major things or insert their own motives. Such as how Depp chose to make his "From Hell" character an addict...which he was not in the book. Instead Moore wanting him more "clean". And then in LXG, Connery chose to NOT make Quartermain an addict, something Moore felt was important.
Then in V, he said that the Martix Bros decided to take his story about a specific time in British history, and turn it into Bush bashing. His issue with that was "Why use my story. If you have an issue with YOUR government, write your own dang story!".
But stories like "For the Man Who Has Everything", they stuck to the original. Rather than re-work it and Hollywood-ize it, they basically said "Lets animate this." The spirit of the original stayed true.
I don't really blame him. If you want to take the idea of an original work and use it sell a movie, at least have the guts to actually stick to the original! Otherwise, just make your own thing.
This is my issue. I think that there are a number of parallels between the Thatcher and Bush administrations, and that, surprise, a story like V for Vendetta could cover a multitude of different authoritarian leaders. You'll note that Margaret Thatcher wasn't the villain in V for Vendetta, and instead Moore made up a character that represented her. Why is it so hard for him to see that the villain he created could have multiple parallels?
perhaps it was a reaction less to the bush/thatcher parallels and more to the fact that the end of the movie simply portrays the mob as choosing to blindly follow a new leader (V) instead of blindly following the old leader, thus entirely subverting the original intent of the work? perhaps.
Servo on
0
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
edited August 2007
The book is pretty preachy for Moore, but it is at least disturbing and morally ambiguous by the end.
The movie is just a blowjob for the enlightened liberal middle class. With some wicked awesome knife fights to make the pandering even more nauseating.
I remember reading an article from Moore about his issues with his adaptions. To him, they choose to change major things or insert their own motives. Such as how Depp chose to make his "From Hell" character an addict...which he was not in the book. Instead Moore wanting him more "clean". And then in LXG, Connery chose to NOT make Quartermain an addict, something Moore felt was important.
Then in V, he said that the Martix Bros decided to take his story about a specific time in British history, and turn it into Bush bashing. His issue with that was "Why use my story. If you have an issue with YOUR government, write your own dang story!".
But stories like "For the Man Who Has Everything", they stuck to the original. Rather than re-work it and Hollywood-ize it, they basically said "Lets animate this." The spirit of the original stayed true.
I don't really blame him. If you want to take the idea of an original work and use it sell a movie, at least have the guts to actually stick to the original! Otherwise, just make your own thing.
This is my issue. I think that there are a number of parallels between the Thatcher and Bush administrations, and that, surprise, a story like V for Vendetta could cover a multitude of different authoritarian leaders. You'll note that Margaret Thatcher wasn't the villain in V for Vendetta, and instead Moore made up a character that represented her. Why is it so hard for him to see that the villain he created could have multiple parallels?
perhaps it was a reaction less to the bush/thatcher parallels and more to the fact that the end of the movie simply portrays the mob as choosing to blindly follow a new leader (V) instead of blindly following the old leader, thus entirely subverting the original intent of the work? perhaps.
And bam, they are a democracy again. Nifty.
And yes, I can totally see how being anti-authoritarian and anti-dictator automatically makes you a bleeding heart liberal. Please.
The movie opened up a good story to an entire population that never would have even heard of it otherwise. Yes, they changed it... show me one move that didn't change the source material. It happens EVERY TIME for a variety of reasons. Bitching about it is just asinine.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Kevin CristI make the devil hit his kneesand say the 'our father'Registered Userregular
edited August 2007
I liked JLU's version of "For the man.." but they ruined the "Burn." scene imo, I read the word in the comic as a low growling command. The cartoon turned it into a battlecry.
The movie opened up a good story to an entire population that never would have even heard of it otherwise. Yes, they changed it... show me one move that didn't change the source material. It happens EVERY TIME for a variety of reasons. Bitching about it is just asinine.
You can adapt something and change the plot and compress the story itself and keep in the spirit of what you're supposedly adapting. V didn't at root open up the story. The end was a farcical whitewashed bloodless coup by a bunch of people in masks. There was no terror, no society in anarchy. There was no real price to pay. You didn't see the ugly side of revolution. It was pandering. Here's your social critique telling you what a good person you are. Isn't a dude in a mask killing evil Stormtroopers with knives super badass? Now go buy a latte.
The movie opened up a good story to an entire population that never would have even heard of it otherwise. Yes, they changed it... show me one move that didn't change the source material. It happens EVERY TIME for a variety of reasons. Bitching about it is just asinine.
You can adapt something and change the plot and compress the story itself and keep in the spirit of what you're supposedly adapting. V didn't at root open up the story. The end was a farcical whitewashed bloodless coup by a bunch of people in masks. There was no terror, no society in anarchy. There was no real price to pay. You didn't see the ugly side of revolution. It was pandering. Here's your social critique telling you what a good person you are. Isn't a dude in a mask killing evil Stormtroopers with knives super badass? Now go buy a latte.
The movie opened up a good story to an entire population that never would have even heard of it otherwise. Yes, they changed it... show me one move that didn't change the source material. It happens EVERY TIME for a variety of reasons. Bitching about it is just asinine.
You can adapt something and change the plot and compress the story itself and keep in the spirit of what you're supposedly adapting. V didn't at root open up the story. The end was a farcical whitewashed bloodless coup by a bunch of people in masks. There was no terror, no society in anarchy. There was no real price to pay. You didn't see the ugly side of revolution. It was pandering. Here's your social critique telling you what a good person you are. Isn't a dude in a mask killing evil Stormtroopers with knives super badass? Now go buy a latte.
I totally see your point, believe me I do. Not necessarily about pandering to liberals, but I'll concide that it could be viewed that way. I liked V in spite of that. Not because it had a huge social message... it really did not... but just because I thought it was a good movie. I liked the acting, and I liked the story.
But then, I also liked the Punisher. Neither were very deep... in fact, both were pretty much just straight forward revenge stories. But sometimes people like watching that stuff without digging for subtext.
Of course, having said that, I am now coming around to seeing why that pissed Alan Moore off so much. So... uh... touche.
I still liked it though, so nyah...
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
The movie opened up a good story to an entire population that never would have even heard of it otherwise. Yes, they changed it... show me one move that didn't change the source material. It happens EVERY TIME for a variety of reasons. Bitching about it is just asinine.
You can adapt something and change the plot and compress the story itself and keep in the spirit of what you're supposedly adapting. V didn't at root open up the story. The end was a farcical whitewashed bloodless coup by a bunch of people in masks. There was no terror, no society in anarchy. There was no real price to pay. You didn't see the ugly side of revolution. It was pandering. Here's your social critique telling you what a good person you are. Isn't a dude in a mask killing evil Stormtroopers with knives super badass? Now go buy a latte.
But make sure you buy your latte from from a coffee shop in a book store. So you can walk around and act all intelligent by talking about shit you don't know fuck about.
After V for Vendetta came out my Mom's boss kept on talking about how it was such a great movie since it really degraded. My mom then mentioned that it was based on a comic and all of a sudden it seemed to lose the meaning to her boss. I still find it odd that just because it was a comic she thought it lost all it integrity as a political piece.
And yes, I can totally see how being anti-authoritarian and anti-dictator automatically makes you a bleeding heart liberal. Please.
ah, but it was never about democracy
it's all about anarchy
Damnit, I was gonna hit him with the clue bat.
As the man said, V does not advocate democracy. He advocates the lack of government, ie anarchy.
I know that Moore himself is an anarchist, but I thought that V intended the anarchy to be a temporary situation to wipe the political state clean and then build a new form of government that they actually believe in from the ground up.
Anarchy wears two faces, both creator and destroyer. Thus destroyers topple empires, make a canvas of clean rubble where creators then can build a better world. Rubble, once achieved, makes further ruin's mean irrelevant.
What Evey then tells the crowd at the end is this:
In anarchy there is another way. With anarchy, from rubble, comes new life, hope reinstated. They say anarchy's dead, but see... reports of my death were... exaggerated.
The whole political discourse Moore was writing about was from a perspective where along the political spectrum, you have a totalitarian fascism at one end (total control), and anarchy (unlimited freedom) at the other. The government and V represent the extremes of both, respectively. Neither was intended to be right because neither system works as they represent the extremes of political power. They were meant to question at what point does society pick in between those two bookends.
In volume 8, V goes on about how he's sowing destruction which would eventually reap anarchy (or not). Destroying the Eye and the Ear and putting the people in a position to rebel and act out without the government being able to efficiently stomp the bootheel down on their necks doesn't immediately lead to anarchy, but it is supposed to put them on the right path.
" 'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole law of the land." Not that it is what happens. Instead you get riots and chaos.
"This is only the Land of Take-What-You-Want. Anarchy means 'without leaders'; not 'without order.' With anarchy comes an age of ordung, of true order, which is to say voluntary order." What immediately follows, "is not anarchy." Everything he does is designed to destroy the current order, because it isn't until that is done and the cycle of self-destruction that comes with a taste of freedom combined with resentment run their course. Evey's job as it relates to the creator is to let them know that the destruction is over. There is no order. No control. There is proto-anarchy in England.
What the people do next is up to them. They can go V's way towards anarchy without leaders in a utopian "voluntary order" society, or they can revert back towards totalitarianism, which V sees as everything else.
So, yeah... V isn't just an anarchist (an extremist of which everything but the extreme leads to fascism). He represents total anarchy. Pure anarchy.
All of which is considerably different from the movie.
Posts
Nothing interesting or cool happened in the movie, and everything was at best mediocre.
Apart from some dubious animation, that shit was rad.
Hell, some people think Daredevil was a good movie
I was comparing it to being a "real" artist and living under a bridge. Regardless, I know Moore did not make a ton of money off of his creation.
Come on, I can't be the only one who is sick of Moore's high-and-mightyness when it comes to people adapting his work. I mean, Stephen King doesn't complain when they turn his books into visual horrors that scar the soul.
Granted, I don't know what it feels like to have ones work co-opted in such a way... but it seems he just hates everything out of hand.
He liked "For the Man Who Has Everything"
And he didn't hate Hayter's Watchmen script.
He actually doesn't make any money off of adaptations. He insists they give the money to the artist so he legitimately has no part of it.
In fact, didn't he personally give approval for Timm & Co. to do "For the Man Who Has Everything"?
My impression of the matter is that he's not so much upset by the adaptations themselves (though obviously that is part of it) as he is with the treatment he's recieved at the hands of movie studios. For example, there was a lawsuit over the LxG movie that basically ended in Fox Studios suggesting Moore had plagarized the concept from another writer. And then with the V for Vendetta, the studio deliberately lied about him supporting the project.
If you had to put up with shit like that on top of incredibly crappy adaptations, I think you'd be completely justified in hating Hollywood and all it produces.
After what they did to his Robocop script, I would have been pissed too.
What the fuck were they thinking with that one.
"It's a movie series about a gritty, crime-infested drug-ridden dystopia! That'll be a hit with the kids!"
Then in V, he said that the Martix Bros decided to take his story about a specific time in British history, and turn it into Bush bashing. His issue with that was "Why use my story. If you have an issue with YOUR government, write your own dang story!".
But stories like "For the Man Who Has Everything", they stuck to the original. Rather than re-work it and Hollywood-ize it, they basically said "Lets animate this." The spirit of the original stayed true.
I don't really blame him. If you want to take the idea of an original work and use it sell a movie, at least have the guts to actually stick to the original! Otherwise, just make your own thing.
This is my issue. I think that there are a number of parallels between the Thatcher and Bush administrations, and that, surprise, a story like V for Vendetta could cover a multitude of different authoritarian leaders. You'll note that Margaret Thatcher wasn't the villain in V for Vendetta, and instead Moore made up a character that represented her. Why is it so hard for him to see that the villain he created could have multiple parallels?
It's been a long time since I read they books, but I can't remember anything that they added that would've turned it into a Bush bashing movie.
It may also be that he feels that, since they decided to speak against their government, they should have the film set in their own country...and maybe make the badguy wear a mask that is somehow relavent to their own people.
Thing is, when it comes to someone's stories, I err on the side of the creator. If he doesn't like your take on it, don't make it. Just make your own thing.
On a similar note I purchased the Miller RoboCop comic which was created from with original RoboCop 2 ideas. It was a very fun read
perhaps it was a reaction less to the bush/thatcher parallels and more to the fact that the end of the movie simply portrays the mob as choosing to blindly follow a new leader (V) instead of blindly following the old leader, thus entirely subverting the original intent of the work? perhaps.
The movie is just a blowjob for the enlightened liberal middle class. With some wicked awesome knife fights to make the pandering even more nauseating.
And bam, they are a democracy again. Nifty.
And yes, I can totally see how being anti-authoritarian and anti-dictator automatically makes you a bleeding heart liberal. Please.
The movie opened up a good story to an entire population that never would have even heard of it otherwise. Yes, they changed it... show me one move that didn't change the source material. It happens EVERY TIME for a variety of reasons. Bitching about it is just asinine.
Steam: YOU FACE JARAXXUS| Twitch.tv: CainLoveless
You can adapt something and change the plot and compress the story itself and keep in the spirit of what you're supposedly adapting. V didn't at root open up the story. The end was a farcical whitewashed bloodless coup by a bunch of people in masks. There was no terror, no society in anarchy. There was no real price to pay. You didn't see the ugly side of revolution. It was pandering. Here's your social critique telling you what a good person you are. Isn't a dude in a mask killing evil Stormtroopers with knives super badass? Now go buy a latte.
What you said.
I totally see your point, believe me I do. Not necessarily about pandering to liberals, but I'll concide that it could be viewed that way. I liked V in spite of that. Not because it had a huge social message... it really did not... but just because I thought it was a good movie. I liked the acting, and I liked the story.
But then, I also liked the Punisher. Neither were very deep... in fact, both were pretty much just straight forward revenge stories. But sometimes people like watching that stuff without digging for subtext.
Of course, having said that, I am now coming around to seeing why that pissed Alan Moore off so much. So... uh... touche.
I still liked it though, so nyah...
But make sure you buy your latte from from a coffee shop in a book store. So you can walk around and act all intelligent by talking about shit you don't know fuck about.
For some reason, I just can't watch it anymore.
I really liked it, though.
Also - Algertman what's the name of that Robocop comic. You have me intrigued.
here ya go
Miller Robocop
"was supposed to be monthly, spread over 30 months"
really makes me laugh
ah, but it was never about democracy
it's all about anarchy
Damnit, I was gonna hit him with the clue bat.
As the man said, V does not advocate democracy. He advocates the lack of government, ie anarchy.
I am a freaking nerd.
I know that Moore himself is an anarchist, but I thought that V intended the anarchy to be a temporary situation to wipe the political state clean and then build a new form of government that they actually believe in from the ground up.
What Evey then tells the crowd at the end is this:
The whole political discourse Moore was writing about was from a perspective where along the political spectrum, you have a totalitarian fascism at one end (total control), and anarchy (unlimited freedom) at the other. The government and V represent the extremes of both, respectively. Neither was intended to be right because neither system works as they represent the extremes of political power. They were meant to question at what point does society pick in between those two bookends.
In volume 8, V goes on about how he's sowing destruction which would eventually reap anarchy (or not). Destroying the Eye and the Ear and putting the people in a position to rebel and act out without the government being able to efficiently stomp the bootheel down on their necks doesn't immediately lead to anarchy, but it is supposed to put them on the right path.
" 'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole law of the land." Not that it is what happens. Instead you get riots and chaos.
"This is only the Land of Take-What-You-Want. Anarchy means 'without leaders'; not 'without order.' With anarchy comes an age of ordung, of true order, which is to say voluntary order." What immediately follows, "is not anarchy." Everything he does is designed to destroy the current order, because it isn't until that is done and the cycle of self-destruction that comes with a taste of freedom combined with resentment run their course. Evey's job as it relates to the creator is to let them know that the destruction is over. There is no order. No control. There is proto-anarchy in England.
What the people do next is up to them. They can go V's way towards anarchy without leaders in a utopian "voluntary order" society, or they can revert back towards totalitarianism, which V sees as everything else.
So, yeah... V isn't just an anarchist (an extremist of which everything but the extreme leads to fascism). He represents total anarchy. Pure anarchy.
All of which is considerably different from the movie.