I just watched "V for Vendetta" last weekend, and it has brought up quite a few questions as to what, in pop culture, kind of violence is acceptable. The main thing that bugged me as I thought about that movie and other images it reminded me of was that there seems to be a notion in popular culture that not only can violence become the necessary route; but also, in some ways, vilence is the RIGHT thing to do in some circumstances. For example, the movie I watched basically hovered around the theme of vengence against a government that controls and kills people to an astonishing degree. The main character "V" knows exactly what the government is trying to do, and puts into action an elaborate plan to expose the government for what it is AND kill those who made him what he is. By the end of the movie, you feel as if the only course of action "V" could take was to kill those who made him what he is.
There is an interesting twist to the whole movie, however. Near the end, large numbers of people march on parliament where a large military force is stationed to stop them from going further, and instead of a violent clash, the people end up being able to walk through the soldiers ranks unharmed. It worked so beautifully that I wonder if the murderous vedetta that "V" carried out was truly necessary. Maybe that means that popular culture is subconsciously espousing an idea that non-violence is great and all, but you still need to have some violent actions take for it to be truly affective and effective.