This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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
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.
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).
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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
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.
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).
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?