The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

[TiLT]

I've been on a bit of a Millennium-binge lately. I started reading the first book 2 1/2 weeks ago and finished the last one this last Sunday. Also watched the Swedish movie, and I just now came back from watching the American version at the theater.

First of all, I was a bit disappointed in the Swedish movie. It's not a cultural thing either, seeing as I'm Norwegian. It just felt a bit cheap, not to mention that it changed the plot in completely random ways that never made any sense (as in, there was no reason why they couldn't just keep the original plots) and skipped important things. It also changed the personalities of major characters, particularly Blomkvist who felt like an incompetent fool in the movie. Several times throughout the movie I was also thinking that I would never have been able to understand important plot points if I hadn't read the book before.

Now here's the interesting thing: The new American version isn't Americanized at all. It's still set in Sweden and is actually way more faithful to the book than the Swedish movie was, and it covers a lot more of the plot without ever feeling like it requires knowledge of the book first (not that I'm in an excellent position to judge this considering my fresh knowledge of both the book and the film). No personalities are changed (well, at least not important ones. They toned down the Nazis a bit for some reason, including Harald Vanger who now appeared merely meek instead of hateful). One character's role in the story is completely changed however, but I can see why they did it and it doesn't hurt the movie at all. Both Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara are closer to their book counterparts than Michael Nyqvist and Noomi Rapace were in the Swedish movie. There are no attempts to hide the violence and nudity, and in fact it appears they've been a bit more bold here, showing more of everything without going too far. The plot moves faster, but always stays manageable because of the skillful way in which it's handled.

All in all, the new movie is way better than the old one in my opinion.

[rickfc]

I've been on a bit of a Millennium-binge lately. I started reading the first book 2 1/2 weeks ago and finished the last one this last Sunday. Also watched the Swedish movie, and I just now came back from watching the American version at the theater.

First of all, I was a bit disappointed in the Swedish movie. It's not a cultural thing either, seeing as I'm Norwegian. It just felt a bit cheap, not to mention that it changed the plot in completely random ways that never made any sense (as in, there was no reason why they couldn't just keep the original plots) and skipped important things. It also changed the personalities of major characters, particularly Blomkvist who felt like an incompetent fool in the movie. Several times throughout the movie I was also thinking that I would never have been able to understand important plot points if I hadn't read the book before.

Now here's the interesting thing: The new American version isn't Americanized at all. It's still set in Sweden and is actually way more faithful to the book than the Swedish movie was, and it covers a lot more of the plot without ever feeling like it requires knowledge of the book first (not that I'm in an excellent position to judge this considering my fresh knowledge of both the book and the film). No personalities are changed (well, at least not important ones. They toned down the Nazis a bit for some reason, including Harald Vanger who now appeared merely meek instead of hateful). One character's role in the story is completely changed however, but I can see why they did it and it doesn't hurt the movie at all. Both Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara are closer to their book counterparts than Michael Nyqvist and Noomi Rapace were in the Swedish movie. There are no attempts to hide the violence and nudity, and in fact it appears they've been a bit more bold here, showing more of everything without going too far. The plot moves faster, but always stays manageable because of the skillful way in which it's handled.

All in all, the new movie is way better than the old one in my opinion.

Awesome. My wife read through the series in a couple of days, and I'm in the middle of the second book. We're looking forward to the movie next week sometime...

[metallicorphan]

I read the first book at the beginning of the year while i was in Hospital and enjoyed it although it was slow to get into and the last 50-100 pages or so weren't needed IMO,but i have been trying to get into the second book and just can't do it

i do want to see this film,i am a fan of David Fincher as well

my sister just bought a 3 DVD box set of the Swedish versions all extended as well,like 3 hrs each

[rickfc]

8 minute preview...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7awaM0UmYI

[kronovan]

I haven't read any of the Millienium trilogy and I've only watched the 1st Swedish movie. I did really enjoy the movie, but I've been in a wait and see mode for the other 2 as I'd read the US movies cast would bestronger. Well with Craig, Plummer and Skarsgard I'd say that proved to be true. I enjoyed a number of Michael Nyqvist's previous roles, but I do prefer Craig to him as an actor. Out of the US cast Rooney Mara seemed to be the unknown entity - how's her performance as Lisbeth Salander?

[PR_GMR]

Mmmm, interesting. I like the Swedish film trilogy just fine; the second movie in that trilogy, though, its a bit weak. Never read the books, but I will be seeing the new David Fincher directed film.

[TiLT]

I read the first book at the beginning of the year while i was in Hospital and enjoyed it although it was slow to get into and the last 50-100 pages or so weren't needed IMO,but i have been trying to get into the second book and just can't do it

The second book has the slowest start of all three. In fact, I don't think you even get to know what the book is about until about 25% into it. Once you do however, it keeps a solid pace all the way to the end of book 3. The last two books are really just two separate parts of the same story, whereas the first book stood well enough alone. Once you get past the very long introduction in book 2 you'll be hooked.

Out of the US cast Rooney Mara seemed to be the unknown entity - how's her performance as Lisbeth Salander?

She's closer to her description in the book. Noomi Rapace made Salander sexy, but that's not really what she's supposed to be. Rooney Mara makes Salander younger and more androgynous, with a bit more of an edge to her.

[gellar]

Really looking forward to going out to see the movie.  Glad to see the initial reception is positive.

[Zarkon]

Why was this remade?

Oh.  Yeah.  Americans can't read subtitles in movies.

[rickfc]

Why was this remade?

Oh.  Yeah.  Americans can't read subtitles in movies.

I don't think it has so much to do with the audience as it has to do with money. The American studios want to get in on the popularity of the series in the US.

[pr0ner]

Why was this remade?

Oh.  Yeah.  Americans can't read subtitles in movies.

So you're bitching about a movie that appears to be a more faithful adaptation of the book?  Alrighty then.

[leo8877]

I'm sitting in the theater now waiting to see this. My wife loved the books and the original films. I never read them, but the movie looks great!

[leo8877]

Just got back and thought it was very well done.  I didn't read the books, so can't comment on how closely they followed, but it was good.

[Turtle]

I watched the original movies, but I haven't read the books. Anyone care to spoiler on why the American remake is more accurate to the books?

Also, another thing with subtitles is that you can still miss quite a bit characterization without knowing a language and all its nuances. Also, subtitles are made deliberately simpler since you only have so much time to read them.

[Razgon]

Thats true - I use subtitling all the time of course, being a Dane, and often its either wrongfully translated, or there is more to it than is being written in the subtitles.

Thats why its an interesting experience to watch a movie like Old Boy, since its korean, and I simply have no idea whether they really are saying what the subtitles claim, or if its totally made up.

[metallicorphan]

Thats true - I use subtitling all the time of course, being a Dane, and often its either wrongfully translated, or there is more to it than is being written in the subtitles.

Thats why its an interesting experience to watch a movie like Old Boy, since its korean, and I simply have no idea whether they really are saying what the subtitles claim, or if its totally made up.

i usually have subtitles all the time being HoH,but my Japanese Horrors i always have Subtitles on and i have tried to have the dubbed on as well,but the subtitles are totally different from what the dubbing says...so no idea which is the right 'script' the dubbing or the subtitles...now i don't ever bother with the dubbing and just have English subs

[TiLT]

I watched the original movies, but I haven't read the books. Anyone care to spoiler on why the American remake is more accurate to the books?

That's a way more complex question than you think, so I'll limit myself to some vague, very important points in my mind: (huge spoilers!)

Spoiler for Hiden:

The Swedish movie changes the personalities of both Blomkvist and Salander. Blomkvist is insecure, unattractive, slow, and never solves a damn thing on his own. This is totally unlike in the books where he's confident, attractive, quick-witted and draws many important conclusions without needing Salander to do it for him. The movie had Salander join his case on her own accord, solving the mystery with the bible verses without Blomkvist even being aware of her existence. In the book Blomkvist figures out the significance of the verses with a clue accidentally given to him by his daughter, and later hires Salander after Dirch Frode accidentally spills the beans about hiring her before. In the Swedish movie Blomkvist accidentally stumbles into the main bad guy and gets captured by him without having a single clue about what's going on. In the book Blomkvist has more or less solved the mystery by the time the confrontation happens, and he retains more control. All of these things are done right in the new movie.

Speaking of the bad guy, his personality changed quite a bit in the Swedish movie too. He desperately wants to know what happened to Harriet and encourages the investigation into her disappearance in the book, but in the movie he barely even appears before the end, where he seems dull-witted and uncaring. He's supposed to be slightly off the hinges, actually screaming at Blomkvist to tell him what happened to Harriet when neither of them actually knows a thing. Once again the American movie handles it right.

Salander falls in love with Blomkvist during their investigation and actually wants to begin a more serious relationship with him in the end, but something happens (related to Blomkvist's personality. I'm being purposefully vague here) that hurts her badly, and she decides to cut him off from her life. In the Swedish movie the only hint of this is that she gives him an awkward kiss and runs out the door. Her dislike of Blomkvist is important to the second and third book, so I have no idea how the Swedish sequels fix the way they ended up in the first movie. The American movie stays very close to the book's version of events.

The Wennerström affair gets much more focus in the book, including Millennium's role in the whole thing and how the magazine plans to get out of its problems (which ends up tying into Blomkvist's investigation of the Vanger family). The whole thing gets proper closure in the book, whereas the Swedish movie glosses over it and more or less leaves it hanging with only some vague clues left. The American movie shows the whole sequence of events and gives it more or less the same closure as the book.

Blomkvist's relationship with the editor of Millennium is barely even mentioned in the original movie, while it gets much more attention in the new one. It's an extremely central part of Blomkvist's personality in the books, quite possibly his biggest flaw, and can't be glossed over without making the character feel flat.

There's plenty of dialogue throughout the entire movie that's been changed in the Swedish movie for no apparent reason. The American movie stays close to the book regarding what people say.

The Swedish movie spends a long time focusing on things that aren't important while the American movie keeps moving forward at a brisk pace. The result is that the latter manages to cram in much more plot from the book.

There's plenty more, but these are just some of the more obvious ones.

[PR_GMR]

Why was this remade?

Oh.  Yeah.  Americans can't read subtitles in movies.

So you're bitching about a movie that appears to be a more faithful adaptation of the book?  Alrighty then.

Did you read the book? I didn't, and happen to think too that, yes, Americans are too lazy to read subtitles. The Swedish versions of the films are just fine. But will see the American one because it's directed by David Fincher, who's superbly talented.

[gangeli]

I've seen a lot of movies with subtitles in my time (used to date someone who was big into foreign films)

I'm split on subtitles.  On the one hand, it was kind of fun to be able to talk to people about the movie we were watching,
without having to "listen" to what was going on.

On the other, if you're busy reading subtitles, you're actually missing a lot of the movie.  Well, at least I am. 
I find it pretty hard to concentrate and read words while trying to follow facial expressions and action in the background.

[rickfc]

Why was this remade?

Oh.  Yeah.  Americans can't read subtitles in movies.

So you're bitching about a movie that appears to be a more faithful adaptation of the book?  Alrighty then.

Did you read the book? I didn't, and happen to think too that, yes, Americans are too lazy to read subtitles. The Swedish versions of the films are just fine. But will see the American one because it's directed by David Fincher, who's superbly talented.

Going off of TiLT's description of the Swedish movies, I'm happy they were remade in a way that was more faithful to the source material.

[rickfc]

I've seen a lot of movies with subtitles in my time (used to date someone who was big into foreign films)

I'm split on subtitles.  On the one hand, it was kind of fun to be able to talk to people about the movie we were watching,
without having to "listen" to what was going on.

On the other, if you're busy reading subtitles, you're actually missing a lot of the movie.  Well, at least I am. 
I find it pretty hard to concentrate and read words while trying to follow facial expressions and action in the background.

I agree.

I watched Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon in the theater with subtitles and loved it. When it came out on DVD, we watched it dubbed and it was horribly boring.

[pr0ner]

Why was this remade?

Oh.  Yeah.  Americans can't read subtitles in movies.

So you're bitching about a movie that appears to be a more faithful adaptation of the book?  Alrighty then.

Did you read the book? I didn't, and happen to think too that, yes, Americans are too lazy to read subtitles. The Swedish versions of the films are just fine. But will see the American one because it's directed by David Fincher, who's superbly talented.

Reading comprehension fail.

[PR_GMR]

Watched it tonight. I thought David Fincher did a very competent job with this American version. Rooney Mara was quite strong as Salander, and Daniel Craig did no wrong as Mikael Bloomquist. Trent Reznor's score is terrific. But, all in all, I prefer the Swedish version and the way it handled certain characterization and plot elements. I don't want to nitpick (and Im tired) so I'll spare the details. In general, if you read the book and have never seen any of the film versions, you can't go wrong seeing Fincher's one.

[disarm]

Unfortunately, there are already news stories circulating that are calling the new movie a flop because it had a very poor performing first weekend...only brought in $13 million.  Personally, I think it will improve now that the holiday is passed and people are actually more interested in going to the movies.  I know that I haven't seen it yet is because I had to pack on friday evening so that I could fly out of town on saturday, spent the Sunday holiday with family, and still had some family things to do today.  Once I get my holiday commitments out of the way, I'll be off to the theater, and I have a feeling many people have similar circumstances.  It also don't think it helped that it's a very dark, intense movie to have opened just a couple days before Christmas.  Time will tell...

[PR_GMR]

Why was this remade?

Oh.  Yeah.  Americans can't read subtitles in movies.

So you're bitching about a movie that appears to be a more faithful adaptation of the book?  Alrighty then.

Did you read the book? I didn't, and happen to think too that, yes, Americans are too lazy to read subtitles. The Swedish versions of the films are just fine. But will see the American one because it's directed by David Fincher, who's superbly talented.

Reading comprehension fail.

Book adaptation fail.  It turns out not even the American movie version is truly faithful to the book.

In general, adapting books into films requires making tough editing choices in order to produce the best film possible from the source material. I can see why both the Swedish and American movie versions cut particular corners from the book.

[pr0ner]

Why was this remade?

Oh.  Yeah.  Americans can't read subtitles in movies.

So you're bitching about a movie that appears to be a more faithful adaptation of the book?  Alrighty then.

Did you read the book? I didn't, and happen to think too that, yes, Americans are too lazy to read subtitles. The Swedish versions of the films are just fine. But will see the American one because it's directed by David Fincher, who's superbly talented.

Reading comprehension fail.

Book adaptation fail.  It turns out not even the American movie version is truly faithful to the book.

In general, adapting books into films requires making tough editing choices in order to produce the best film possible from the source material. I can see why both the Swedish and American movie versions cut particular corners from the book.

Reading comprehension fail.  Again.

[TiLT]

Book adaptation fail.   It turns out not even the American movie version is truly faithful to the book.

It's not, but it's way, way more faithful than the Swedish version. In a twist of irony, the American version is the more complex of the two, while the Swedish one appears dumbed down.

[Bullwinkle]

Why was this remade?

Oh.  Yeah.  Americans can't read subtitles in movies.

So you're bitching about a movie that appears to be a more faithful adaptation of the book?  Alrighty then.

Did you read the book? I didn't, and happen to think too that, yes, Americans are too lazy to read subtitles. The Swedish versions of the films are just fine. But will see the American one because it's directed by David Fincher, who's superbly talented.

Reading comprehension fail.

Book adaptation fail.  It turns out not even the American movie version is truly faithful to the book.

In general, adapting books into films requires making tough editing choices in order to produce the best film possible from the source material. I can see why both the Swedish and American movie versions cut particular corners from the book.

Reading comprehension fail.  Again.

Wow.  That is one of the most staggering examples or RCF I've seen.

[pr0ner]

Why was this remade?

Oh.  Yeah.  Americans can't read subtitles in movies.

So you're bitching about a movie that appears to be a more faithful adaptation of the book?  Alrighty then.

Did you read the book? I didn't, and happen to think too that, yes, Americans are too lazy to read subtitles. The Swedish versions of the films are just fine. But will see the American one because it's directed by David Fincher, who's superbly talented.

Reading comprehension fail.

Book adaptation fail.  It turns out not even the American movie version is truly faithful to the book.

In general, adapting books into films requires making tough editing choices in order to produce the best film possible from the source material. I can see why both the Swedish and American movie versions cut particular corners from the book.

Reading comprehension fail.  Again.

Wow.  That is one of the most staggering examples or RCF I've seen.

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

[PR_GMR]

Why was this remade?

Oh.  Yeah.  Americans can't read subtitles in movies.

So you're bitching about a movie that appears to be a more faithful adaptation of the book?  Alrighty then.

Did you read the book? I didn't, and happen to think too that, yes, Americans are too lazy to read subtitles. The Swedish versions of the films are just fine. But will see the American one because it's directed by David Fincher, who's superbly talented.

Reading comprehension fail.

Book adaptation fail.  It turns out not even the American movie version is truly faithful to the book.

In general, adapting books into films requires making tough editing choices in order to produce the best film possible from the source material. I can see why both the Swedish and American movie versions cut particular corners from the book.

Reading comprehension fail.  Again.

Wow.  That is one of the most staggering examples or RCF I've seen.

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

At this point, I don't think anyone knows what the point was. 

[Covenant]

Why was this remade?

Oh.  Yeah.  Americans can't read subtitles in movies.

So you're bitching about a movie that appears to be a more faithful adaptation of the book?  Alrighty then.

Did you read the book? I didn't, and happen to think too that, yes, Americans are too lazy to read subtitles. The Swedish versions of the films are just fine. But will see the American one because it's directed by David Fincher, who's superbly talented.

Reading comprehension fail.

Book adaptation fail.  It turns out not even the American movie version is truly faithful to the book.

In general, adapting books into films requires making tough editing choices in order to produce the best film possible from the source material. I can see why both the Swedish and American movie versions cut particular corners from the book.

Reading comprehension fail.  Again.

Wow.  That is one of the most staggering examples or RCF I've seen.

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

At this point, I don't think anyone knows what the point was. 

Anyone have a good recipe for beef stroganoff?

[stimpy]

What do you call a cow masturbating?

[pr0ner]

Why was this remade?

Oh.  Yeah.  Americans can't read subtitles in movies.

So you're bitching about a movie that appears to be a more faithful adaptation of the book?  Alrighty then.

Did you read the book? I didn't, and happen to think too that, yes, Americans are too lazy to read subtitles. The Swedish versions of the films are just fine. But will see the American one because it's directed by David Fincher, who's superbly talented.

Reading comprehension fail.

Book adaptation fail.  It turns out not even the American movie version is truly faithful to the book.

In general, adapting books into films requires making tough editing choices in order to produce the best film possible from the source material. I can see why both the Swedish and American movie versions cut particular corners from the book.

Reading comprehension fail.  Again.

Wow.  That is one of the most staggering examples or RCF I've seen.

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

At this point, I don't think anyone knows what the point was. 

Hence, reading comprehension fail.

[hepcat]

1 lb. beef sirloin cubes, raw
1 sm. onion, chopped
1 clove garlic, minced (or equal amount of garlic powder)
1 can cream of mushroom soup, undiluted
2 tsp. Worcestershire sauce
1/2 of 4 oz. can sliced mushrooms, drained
8 oz. sour cream

Combine all ingredients except sour cream in crockpot. Cook on low for 8 to 10 hours. Stir in sour cream until well blended. Serve over rice or noodles.

[D.A.Lewis]

I've been on a bit of a Millennium-binge lately. I started reading the first book 2 1/2 weeks ago and finished the last one this last Sunday. Also watched the Swedish movie, and I just now came back from watching the American version at the theater.

First of all, I was a bit disappointed in the Swedish movie. . . .

Tilt, did you see all the Swedish movies? They made one for each book. I liked the orignal movies a lot, but obviously not as much as the books. Its sorta sad that we only got to experience 3 books from this very gifted writer. I plan on seeing the American version this week - thanks for the comparison/review. 

[TiLT]

I've been on a bit of a Millennium-binge lately. I started reading the first book 2 1/2 weeks ago and finished the last one this last Sunday. Also watched the Swedish movie, and I just now came back from watching the American version at the theater.

First of all, I was a bit disappointed in the Swedish movie. . . .

Tilt, did you see all the Swedish movies? They made one for each book. I liked the orignal movies a lot, but obviously not as much as the books. Its sorta sad that we only got to experience 3 books from this very gifted writer. I plan on seeing the American version this week - thanks for the comparison/review. 

I'm planning to see the two other movies soon.

[disarm]

I finally saw this last night and think it's a great movie...very faithful to the book, although it does make a few minor changes that don't really affect the outcome.  All of the performances are solid, with Rooney Mara's take on Salander easily being the highlight of the film.  It's clear that she threw herself completely into the role and manages to truly become a very difficult character from start to finish.  My only complaint about Fincher's version of Salander is that rather than being a product of a very troubled past, she comes across as having a serious mean streak without much reason for her actions.  In an already long film, I just don't think there was enough time to make someone new to the story feel any sympathy for Lisbeth.  Instead, she just comes across as very troubled and the type of individual who probably should be a ward of the state...different than I viewed her with the additional backstory presented in the book.  That said, I really enjoyed the film and really hope it's successful enough to warrant finishing the series.

[TiLT]

The book is the same in that regard. It's only with the two following books that Salander's backstory is dealt with in any way. Both movies (the Swedish and the American) actually take and use a part of the story from the second book (the burning) to give her a bit more nuance, though not enough that it isn't still a mystery.

[kathode]

Saw the movie on opening day and really enjoyed it.  I had never read the books and only had a vague sense of what the story was about, so I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.  The soundtrack especially serves to heighten the tension in a lot of the scenes.

Unfortunately heard that it kind-of bombed at the box office.  They were talking about shooting the next two films back-to-back, Lord of the Rings style, so I hope those can still get made.

[kratz]

I saw it a couple days ago... I thought it was really, really great.  I honestly not only liked it better than the Swedish movie, but better than the book.  I think that both Fincher and Mara 'got' who the character was intended to be better than what Larsson interpreted her as through whatever color glasses he envisioned this person to be... if that makes sense.  Mood was perfect, performances and casting were perfect... the only imperfections came straight from the source, I felt.  Loved it.  Wanted to go see it again immediately.