Talk:Adam Susan

Move?

Suggestion: If this is supposed to cover two people, perhaps it should be moved to Chancellor (V for Vendetta)--Lenin & McCarthy 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And I've made a request for a move.--Lenin & McCarthy 18:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how the new title will clarify things. Both the comics and the movie are called "V for Vendetta". If the chancellor has a different name in the movie and the books, each article can use the correct name. If not, both can be covered in the article at its current location. Kafziel 18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying that this article is titled to concern only one character, and it encompasses both. If this article is to remain as it is, and not split, I think the title should be changed to represent the content better. I simply am suggesting "V for Vendetta" in the title because that is the name of the media it is in.--Lenin & McCarthy 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the manual of style discourages using words in parenthesis unless absolutely necessary. For instance, it's Darth Vader, not Darth Vader (Star Wars). If the other chancellor has a different name, an article can be made for him/her there. If they have the same name, but you think this article is too lopsided, you can just add information on the other character here under a new heading. Kafziel 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Film + Graphic novel portrayals becoming mixed

Someone changed the written Graphic Novel portrayal and ended up making it sound more like the events in the film. Could we please keep these two halves of the article seperate?? Iwan Berry 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe nitpick

The article says Sutler disposed of Jews, but doesn't Evey in the film look somewhat Jewish(without it being an issue for her)? ~Inkstersco

Could that be because Natalie Hershlag is, in fact, Jewish, and a dual-citizen of the USA and Israel? In the film she's playing a white English woman, who'd nominally be Protestant I suppose. How she looks is a consequence of using actors to portray characters in films. You shouldn't try and divine the plot from that. 188.29.165.168 (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested Move

It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for time! -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

LMAO @ Caption.

Susan

I've moved the article to Adam Susan, as I am sure the book version is more significant than the movie version (Adam Sutler). --DrBat 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone add a picture of Chancellor Susan from the novel because we only have 1 picture from the film (Sutler blasting his cronies).

Added an image request tag. Uthanc 23:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Creedy

I've edited it to remove the reference to Creedy as Susan's 'deputy' and to his 'running England' - Creedy was actually Almond's deputy and didn't have access to Susan until Almond's death. I've also added a reference to Susan's past as Commissioner of Metropolitan Police (something mentioned by Helen Heyer toward the end of the book).

Assessment

It's a good start, but it needs sources and it needs better layout. The comic section dwells mainly on summarising the plot as it relates to this character, there's little on creation or publication, creator's thoughts or any sourced reactions or commentary. Hiding Talk 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

V for Vendetta Template

I'm removing this template from all its articles:

Which, I agree, is fairly provocative. However, I don't see how "V for Vendetta" deserves this on its own, or what useful information it provides. Surely the links in the articles are sufficient? If people want to revert my changes, that's fine by me. But please reply to this post so we can get a discussion started. At the moment I see no reason why the template should exist. Maccy69 13:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted my previous edit and requested a template deletion instead, see below. Maccy69 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:V for Vendetta

Template:V for Vendetta has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Maccy69 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Quakers

As part of a tidy-up I removed "Quakers" from the list of groups persecuted by Norsefire and Susan. This wasn't entirely deliberate; I was removing "Communists" from this list and Quakers got caught up in the crossfire. However... I don't have the comic or the graphic novel with me right now, and I can't remember Quakers being explicitly target by the regime. Could someone with the comic or graphic novel check and reinstate Quakers if necessary? Cheers!  This flag once was red  18:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They're not mentioned in the comic. Quakers have a history of opposing war though, so they'd probably be on the list. That said I'm not sure there are many Quakers in Britain, I'd guess they were among the many religious weirdos who went off to found the USA. 188.29.165.168 (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Novelised Version?

Just wondering if there should be a section based on the portrayal in Steve Moore's novelisation of the film. While it's mainly similar, it does give some insight into the character, with allusions to the original. There's reference to, for example, Sutler preferring the company of machines to that of humans. Might not be too significant though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.21.69 (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say sure - go for it. I'm familiar with the comic/graphic novel, but I've only seen the film once and haven't read the novelisation, so I'd be interested in similarities between it and both the original and the film. Maybe create a sub-section under the film section?

Cheers,  This flag once was red  18:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Closet?

I read once that Susan was supposed to be closeted gay, maybe so closeted he doesn't realize (there's that part when he's in the car where he seems to have a fixation on gays) and sublimates that into a sexual obsession with Fate - does anyone else think that? Roscelese (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I do, but our opinion isn't pertinent here - we'd need to cite a source that made that link. For what it's worth, I saw Susan as an Ernst Röhm-type figure (and if you swap Susan's initials you get the initials of the the Sturmabteilung...) - but that falls under original research: we'd need a third-party to make that link before we could add it to the article. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have phrased that differently - does anyone remember reading that somewhere, or where? ;) Roscelese (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you phrased it just fine - it's just that I'm an idiot who can't read ;-) "I read once" should have given me a clue...! I can't help with sourcing that, though - anytime I've looked for sources for V-stiff I've come up with next-to-nothing. A few interviews with Alan Moore, and not much else. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Coalition government

The statement that "After the founding of Norsefire, he is mentioned briefly as Under-Secretary for Defence during the "Saint Mary's crisis", thus implying a coalition government between Norsefire and a stronger party" is completely false logic. The fact that he was an Under-Secretary for Defence implies nothing about which party or parties were in government, except that the Norsefire party was either the government or part of the government. My understanding is that the party had been elected as the governing (majority) party.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Not just a portmanteau

Sutler is also a camp follower or someone who supplies goods to an army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.66.99 (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It's still a pretty pathetic and obvious bit of a moustache-twirling change though. Partly the point of him having a woman's name as a surname is to illustrate how so many great fascist leaders are pretty pathetic examples of human beings, failed men overcompensating. And the rest of us will uncomplainingly liquidate millions because some one-testicled social inadequate tells us to. Hitler was the sort of bloke who'd start a bar fight then hide in a toilet til the scuffers turned up. "Susan" is a completely un-macho name, unsuitable for carving under monuments. A weak and unlikeable manipulative sneak who screams at strangers in restaurants cos he doesn't think they're "patriotic" enough! It doesn't require strategic geniuses or great men to lead a society into disaster, it doesn't even take a competent one. It's all our fault! We do it for them!

"Sutler" just adds to the myth that there was something special, magical, destiny-tinged about Adolf, such that even half his name is enough to lead someone to kill millions. That's not how fascists and dictators work, and that was a big part of the point of the book.

84.68.124.71 (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Forbidden Emotion Of Love"

V doesn't so much manipulate Fate to express love, which it is incapable of feeling. It's a big computer, a large database, but still there's nothing in the book to suggest it's anything less mundane than an ordinary computer. V uses Fate to manipulate Adam, whom he has correctly surmised is completely fucking cuckoo. Yes, Susan is in love with his computer, and his weird sexual compulsions and repressions certainly push him down that narrow and peculiar alley, then just a little shove right over the edge. That, and the special "Rose" that V has been cultivating for the Leader, is V's plan for Susan's downfall. And a bloody clever one, but then V's mind is supposed to be far ahead of any ordinary human thinking.

The implied masturbation scene seems to be V causing a succession of "erotic" (to a madman) images to appear on Fate's screens. Susan sees that as, finally, Fate, the goddess he adores in his unworthiness, rewarding him for his devotion. V cultivates Susan's love for Fate, but Fate itself is simply a conduit. Behind the scenes is really just V.

It might be that orgasmic release, Adam's love finally reciprocating, is what causes him to open up a little, to drop his shell, for just long enough to allow Rose Almond in close enough to shoot him.

Anyway... as ever with pop culture subjects on here, this entire article is worthless original research by point-missing spergs who don't understand subtext. On a night out with Adam Susan, he'd be the popular one who gets all the women. This site really is a heap of shit, eh?

84.68.124.71 (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)