Original or remake?
Should I watch this version or the American remake?
Last film watched: Princess Mononoke (1997)
Watch both. How about that? And its not a remake.
shareWhich do you prefer?
Last film watched: Princess Mononoke (1997)
American version - It was just an overall better film.
shareNo way was the Fincher version the better film. What, Mara talking in a fake accent? Yeah, let's have her do that throughout the entire film. No way does she come close to capturing what Noomi did in the ORIGINAL. The Swedish version is the better version because, it was made in Sweden and based on a Swedish novel with Swedish themes.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
If your whole argument is based off of accents and the fact that the 1st movie was made with Swedes by Swedes than there is no point in continuing this discussion with you because that opinion is as biased as it gets. I've seen the entire uncut millenium series and it is FAR from perfect. The 1st was great, 2nd was pretty good, third was COMA INDUCING.
Yes the 2011 version is better. Better productions values, better score, better choice of actors, better acting, better characterizations, more attention to detail, etc. I still like the 2009 version very much and I'm not blind to both movies flaws, but when I compare the two, the 2011 version is superior. Mostly due to the fact that I was emotionally invested in the characters. I didn't really care about anyone except for Lisbeth in the 2009 version.
If your whole argument is based off of accents and the fact that the 1st movie was made with Swedes by Swedes than there is no point in continuing this discussion with you because that opinion is as biased as it gets. I've seen the entire uncut millenium series and it is FAR from perfect. The 1st was great, 2nd was pretty good, third was COMA INDUCING.
Yes the 2011 version is better. Better productions values, better score, better choice of actors, better acting, better characterizations, more attention to detail, etc. I still like the 2009 version very much and I'm not blind to both movies flaws, but when I compare the two, the 2011 version is superior. Mostly due to the fact that I was emotionally invested in the characters. I didn't really care about anyone except for Lisbeth in the 2009 version.
I'm a huge Daniel Craig fan from back in the 1990s, but even he could't save this film for me. But what you said about the final part in the Millennium series, is what I feel for this totally needless remake. While the Millennium series may be far from perfect, it held my attention far more than this piece of crap did. Fincher didn't create anything 'better' he merely took what Opalev did and shot it virtually shot-by-shot. I'm reading the books right now and the description of Bjurman is exactly what it was in the Swedish film. The guy who played him in the Fincher version looked more like a history professor without all the menace Peter Anderssen. The Fincher version is not far superior. What, just because it has Fincher's name attached to it it's 'special'? I doubt it. AS for the cast in the Millennium series, they were so much more watchable. I cannot bring myself to even look at Rooney Mara because she doesn't have half the presence of Noomi Rapace. Mara spends most of her time standing there looking like she should stay out of big sister Noomi's clothes. I cared for Micke, Lisbeth, Harriett, Henrik and others. I could have cared less for any of the characters in the Fincher version. And one last thing, Eva Gabrielssen hates the Fincher version. That's good enough for me.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon share
Sorry but after your biased statement I can't take anything you say seriously. You pretty much set yourself up to hate the 2011 version before you even watched it. So there was nothing this movie could have done to make you like it. That's pretty obvious to me and anyone else who reads your comments.
shareSo I suppose you missed the part where I said I was a HUGE Daniel Craig and Christopher Plummer fan? Yep, thought so. However, they were hugely miscast in this film as was Rooney Mara who I really wanted to rip all those piercings out, tell her to wash her face and get back to junior high and stop wearing Big Sis Noomi's clothes. And I also suppose that if Eva Gabrielsson, Stieg Larsson's parter of 25+ years said she hated the Fincher version and totally embraced the Swedish version she's what, wrong or shouldn't be taken seriously? Noomi Rapace and Michael Nykvist will be the only Blomkvist and Salander that matter. Why? Because the one who was the muse of the writer and who knows this story and characters intimately said so.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
Can I get a link where Eva comments on the actual film and not Lisbeth's feminism or the marketing of the film?
shareLet me get this straight. Your basing you opinion based off what somebody else feels. Do you have any clue how dumb that is? Eva didn't like the 2011 version? Whoopty-Whoop! Now explain why her opinion has any effect at all in what you think of the movie. What, you can't think for yourself? It goes back to that old saying, "how long did you keep *beep* yourself before your momma had to start telling you to wipe your ass."
Liking an actor/actress does not automatically mean a movie is gonna be good or not, so I don't know what why you feel being a fan of Plummer and Craig makes a damn bit of difference.
I don't know why you bring up Fincher. Did I even mention any specific names? NO. I'm grading the movie as a whole not just certain aspects.
"The Swedish version is the better version because, it was made in Sweden and based on a Swedish novel with Swedish themes."
Your words. That's about as biased as it gets. Nothing about story, acting, etc. I say again, you went into watching the 2011 version without an open mind. You had a pre-conceived notion of what you wanted to see and most likely, from the opening sequence, spent the entire time comparing it to the 2009 version instead of grading it as a stand alone film. I don't know why you wasted your time even looking at it.
You felt the whole millenium series was better than the 2011 film. Now that's funny because that's proof to me that your standards aren't very high because the 2 sequels are widely known as being severely lacking compared to the 1st. But because of your nuthuggery you refuse to admit it. Fine, do you, but movies made by Americans does not automatically make them bad.
Are you some kind of phuking idiot or what?!
THE SWEDISH VERSION IS A BETTER FILM THAN THE HOLLYWOOD REMAKE, I your failure to grasp this very simple point discredits you on every single thing you feel and say about film, every single comment you've ever made about film is now meaningless and completely worthless. Say hi to Dante for me would ya, because you have undermined yourself to such an extreme you have sunk further than the depths of hell itself.
you have no business saying anything about film from now on!
What the hell are you talking about? I discredited myself by saying I feel the 2011 version is better than the 2009 version. I, at least gave my reasons. Where are yours? And you call me dumb? LOL!
shareQuote...but movies made by Americans does not automatically make them bad.End of quote.
I very much agree with that statement even though I love French and Swedish and British films as well.
Everybody praised the original Dutch version, but I prefer "The Vanishing" with Jeff Bridges, the later remake.
"Casino Royal" with Daniel Craig was very suspenseful which I cannot say about the 1960's original "Casino Royal".
I'm originally from Europe and love American movies.
Also I've watched many movies based on books that I had read before they were filmed and often enough I liked the movie versions better (most people state that the book is always better than the movie).
Swedish version for me every time tanks
I like cake! I LIKE CAKE!!!!
I have been reading the debates you have been having on which film is supierior and I have to say that your last comment is just retarded. To say that the Swedish version is better just because Stieg Larsson's partner says it was is about as dumb as you can get. That's like saying that Paul Mccartny is crap because Yoko Ono said so...
I have watched both versions of the film and to be honest I found Fincher's much better, that is not to say that I didn't like the Swedish version. I did enjoy it but I thought that Fincher's version was much tighter, with way better character development in both Blomkvist and especially with Salander. Fincher also did a much better job of creating suspense and tension.
Your comments on Rooney Mara are also insane, she did a tremendous job as Salander. Both actresses made the character their own in subtle different ways. Your comments about ripping out her piercings and to wash her face and go back to junior high...dumb....again no basis of why you liked one over the other.
Everyone can have opinions on which film they find better but your arguements are based on nothing but other people's opinions.
I am not here to change your opinion but you have no business trying to shred other peoples opinions when you can't even form one by yourself.
I have been reading the debates you have been having on which film is supierior and I have to say that your last comment is just retarded. To say that the Swedish version is better just because Stieg Larsson's partner says it was is about as dumb as you can get. That's like saying that Paul Mccartny is crap because Yoko Ono said so...
I have watched both versions of the film and to be honest I found Fincher's much better, that is not to say that I didn't like the Swedish version. I did enjoy it but I thought that Fincher's version was much tighter, with way better character development in both Blomkvist and especially with Salander. Fincher also did a much better job of creating suspense and tension.
Your comments on Rooney Mara are also insane, she did a tremendous job as Salander. Both actresses made the character their own in subtle different ways. Your comments about ripping out her piercings and to wash her face and go back to junior high...dumb....again no basis of why you liked one over the other.
Everyone can have opinions on which film they find better but your arguements are based on nothing but other people's opinions.
I am not here to change your opinion but you have no business trying to shred other peoples opinions when you can't even form one by yourself.
I'll shred whatever I like when I like. Fincher did a literal telling from the book, including all the things I hated including how really super womanish he made Lisbeth. What I loved about the original is that Noomi Rapace humanized Lisbeth in a way Fincher just told Rooney Mara how to act. Noomi Rapace took what Larsson created and made Lisbeth human, not retarded like Mara did with Fincher's guidance. Opalev did an excellent job in what he had and Daniel Alfredson completed well with the sequels. Right now, the definitive Lisbeth and Blomkvist are Noomi Rapace and Michael Nykvist. Rapace brought a growth to Salander with each film. Rooney Mara brought what Fincher told her to. It's clear she was Fincher's project. Noomi Rapace fought with Opalev to make Salander human and real. And this is the problem I had with Lisbeth in the books. She's too unreal, even comical. And yes, it does matter that the one who was with Larsson all those years while he was creating/writing the characters is the one who is most able to say which version is better and that one is Opalev's.
And I'll say whatever I like about ripping those piercings out of Skipper Salander. The reason I hated Rooney Mara is because she was a project of Fincher's and she did not understand one thing about playing the character, hence Gabrielsson's problems with her portrayal. Noomi Rapace fought to bring a human element to Lisbeth, sadly lacking in the books.
As for those other people's opinions, the only reason I've found from the many I've seen on the may forums I've read from is that Fincher's was a literal scene-by-scene re-enactment of the book. There was no reinvisioning things according to the dictates of the cinematic world. And Fincher re-ill-conceived two scenes. The first being Bjurman's rape of Lisbeth. He created his to be titillating rather than a brutal violation of a woman. He made it so that Lisbeth had no fight in her, unlike Opalev/Rapace who made Lisbeth FIGHT for her life. How Rapace got up on her knees to kick out at Bjurman was empowering as a woman. The other scene was the scene where Lisbeth goes to Blomkvist and has sex with him. In the Opalev version he kept Lisbeth on top throughout the entirety of the scene. Fincher had Blomkvist take Lisbeth and roll her over to the traditional missionary position thusly removing Lisbeth's control over the scene. There was an article online that says Fincher declawed Lisbeth, and it was right. Opalev/Alfredson kept Lisbeth's claws and more. They humanized her and with Noomi Rapace's independence of mind, made Lisbeth a far better version than the Fincher/Mara robo-Salander.
So there are my reasons for hating Fincher's version. And I usually like Fincher's films and I'm a huge Daniel Craig fan. So it hurts me to not like this film. But I do. But Opalev's version made me a huge Noomi Rapace and Michael Nykvist fan.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon share
I agree with you about the Swedish version being better but I really don't get why you think the author's widow's opinion bears any weight on the matter. I believe you even say something yourself in this thread about how Noomi's character is better than the one in the book because she humanizes her so it would seem you agree that fidelity to the book isn't decisive.
I haven't read the book and don't think I ever will after seeing the Swedish films all in a row before discovering the Millennium cut, loving it, and now the American adaptation. Plus, I've kind of decided to almost never read a book of a movie I've seen or vice versa going forward. There are simply too many films and books to get to everything.
I will offer one argument that is decisive for me. I grew up devouring the novels of Stephen King as soon as they hit the shelves and love his book "The Shining". That said, his book doesn't hold a candle to Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" and it is famous that Stephen King hated the movie and wrote the screenplay for the television adaptation which he endorses. The television version is more faithful to the book but it is terrible. Kubrick made lots of changes and his movie is an all time great classic--most of the scenes and shots that have been become iconic are absent from King's novel. King's stance on the issue is rather funny than actually speaking to the quality of the respective works.
Now, to me this case is so flagrant that it proves an author has no real authority to judge one adaptation from an another and his wife or widow wouldn't have any more right to such a position than the author.
I agree with you about the Swedish version being better but I really don't get why you think the author's widow's opinion bears any weight on the matter.
I think one has to be aware of Larsson's backstory to rightfully quote his partner, and prometheus does.
Eva Gabrielsson, Larsson's fiancé and life long partner was very much involved in Stieg's writing process. They pretty much wrote it together. Stieg Larsson's writing style apparently changed with Millenium, some even says Eva was the one holding the pen, but that's just a rumour though. Most people in Sweden are aware of this, and wouldn't dream of arguing. Because Eva knows, the first book in the Triology (it was suppose to be 10) is sort of their baby.
They story line, the different facts about misogynists as well as the social phenomena at the time, they created it together during the summer of 2002. This is from a Swedish article about it;
"– We rented a cottage on an island in the Stockholm archipelago, and I was suppose to write there. Stieg was out of humour and I urged him to get his writing going as well, something freely, from the heart, something fictional.
It ended with that the couple spent the entire summer writing – each on their own creations, but as two communicating vessels.
- We were lying on the sofa, head to foot. He wrote, I read and made comments on his text. Then we analysed together eventual intrigues and actual phenomena in society. We listed factual scandals which could be useful, she describes how the work with the tensed atmosphere surrounding Lisbeth Salander, took shape." share
You quote my comment but it doesn't seem like you read all of it.
I made it clear that even the author himself shouldn't have any sway regarding which film is better. It doesn't matter to me whether she's even a co-writer in terms of judging the two film's quality.
As they say: look to the work, not the author.
I will offer one argument that is decisive for me. I grew up devouring the novels of Stephen King as soon as they hit the shelves and love his book "The Shining". That said, his book doesn't hold a candle to Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" and it is famous that Stephen King hated the movie and wrote the screenplay for the television adaptation which he endorses. The television version is more faithful to the book but it is terrible. Kubrick made lots of changes and his movie is an all time great classic--most of the scenes and shots that have been become iconic are absent from King's novel. King's stance on the issue is rather funny than actually speaking to the quality of the respective works.
Now, to me this case is so flagrant that it proves an author has no real authority to judge one adaptation from an another and his wife or widow wouldn't have any more right to such a position than the author.
Okay, so you are comparing Larsson's Triology to a Stephen King novel? Really? Maybe I'll start by saying that Eva Gabrielsson wasn't the only one objecting Fincher's movie when it premiered here in Sweden. There were articles written en masse. And most of them thought that Fincher's version didn't only cut the claws of Salander, but the feministic perspective, the one Gabrielsson and Larsson held closest to their hearts was gone.
The Millenium Triology has a very feministic/political agenda, and it would be truly ignorant to disregard Larsson's intentions when writing the Triology. Fincher didn't see the Swedish version (at least that's what he said) but he read the first novel. And adapted it into something Gabrielsson didn't recognise as Larsson's. It's pretty frustrating, if you ask me. Fincher once said that he wanted to please "his" audience, the 8-9 million people in USA who had read the Triology. If he's not gonna be true to the source material, why not make a whole different film?
Eva Gabrielsson and Stieg Larsson were both left wingers and both feminists, working with women who had been abused. Her life long partner is dead, and she shouldn't have the right to object? Of course she has the right to say whatever she likes. Most people in the journalistic world said the same, at the time. It is an adaptation after all, people will believe that this is what Larsson wrote, and she feels it's not. She has all rights in the world preferring the Swedish version, because it didn't lack the essence of what her life long partner had written.
Here's a link to Aftonbladet, a daily paper in Sweden. Run it through the Google Translator, and you'll get an idea of how she feels about it.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article14102734.ab
share
No, I'm not comparing Larsson's trilogy to a King novel. For one thing, as I said, I didn't read Larsson's books or rather book--since our conversation only regards the two adaptation's of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". It sounds like you're putting down King and while I think he's a pretty great author, I'm not going to bother to defend him as the quality of author had nothing to do with my point. For your benefit though, since that seems to be somehow important to you, I'll go a little to a lot more highbrow with two examples.
Stefan Zweig's "Letter From an Unknown Woman" provided the source material for Max Ophuls' "Letter From an Unknown Woman" which I happen to regard as one of the two dozen or so perfect films that could stand as the greatest film ever made. Now, Ophuls' radically transformed Zweig's work to foreground issues of feminism and gender that weren't even present in Zweig and completely dropped its dominant tones of cynicism and sentimentality. Zweig might not approve if he saw it but I could care less.
If Zweig isn't highbrow enough for you let's move to Shakespeare. Of the hundreds of films that use Shakespeare's plays as a jumping off point, some of which are slovenly faithful, some of which take radical departures, I would claim Akira Kurosawa's "Ran" and Throne of Blood" as the two best films and they make many changes, don't incorporate the bard's great poetry and relocate things to feudal Japan. This is not to say these adaptations of "King Lear" and "Macbeth" respectively are the best representations of Shakespeare since any boring and uncinematic filming of a staged play that remains true to the text would be truer to Shakespeare. My only point is that Kurosawa's films are the greatest films that have used Shakespeare's work for source material.
Now, I never said anything like Gabrielsson didn't have a right to her opinion but rather said it didn't bear any weight in terms of me deciding for myself which film is better. I did say that I much prefer the Swedish film but I would judge each film on its own terms and don't care about fidelity to source material. Her attachment is also not my own since I have no attachment.
Just so you don't think I'm completely insensitive to the issue, I'll offer another example. Along with Stephen King, I also grew up reading and rereading "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy and it will always have a special place in my heart. I wouldn't be able to enjoy Peter Jackson's adaptation if fidelity was very important to me as I don't feel they represent the books very well or stay true to their tone. However, I do enjoy the films and regards them as Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings", they are of a piece with the director's other work, and not J.R.R. Tolkien's. Similarly, I do regard Fincher as something of an auteur, if not one of the best, and, as such, I'd rather expect him to conform any source material he uses to his own aesthetic and ideas than the other way around. Truly great directors express themselves and not the writers and source material they employ.
You asked why Fincher didn't just make a completely different film if he wasn't going to be true to the source material and this is largely the reason. Another is that he is not a writer. To go back to Shakespeare though who was a writer; Shakespeare only wrote a couple of original plots ever and almost always used source material. However, Shakespeare felt no need to stay true to his source material and, like any great auteur working in film, changed the source material and its tone however he wanted to express himself.
It sounds like you're putting down King and while I think he's a pretty great author, I'm not going to bother to defend him as the quality of author had nothing to do with my point. For your benefit though, since that seems to be somehow important to you, I'll go a little to a lot more highbrow with two examples.
I'm not sure what it is you are trying to accomplish by taking some sort of "highrow way" when comparing your examples with what I told you about Larsson.
I just want to clarify one thing. I'm definitely no culture snob, as little as I'd criticizing Stephen King as a writer. King has written amazing stories in the horror genre, and is loved all over the world. You seem to believe that Stieg Larsson has been playing in some sort of cultural league when it comes to the Swedish authorship, which is completely wrong. I don't think there're many who would describe Larsson as a man of the word, rather many words, as in more quantity than quality. But he was fantastic at creating a dense atmosphere, great at describing characters and social phenomena. And somehow he made most readers glued to his books. And of course a good storyline. But I think most would agree that his literary talent was mediocre. He was therefore no Shakespeare, one doesn't have to be a culture snob to percieve that. I'd suggest you google Larsson so you get a better view of who he was.
And you mentioning Max Ophüls, it's the same as I'd mention Mauritz Stiller. I'm not familar with his work, so I can't comment. Shakespeare I do know of course, as well as Kurosawa, I've seen most of his movies. Kurosawa is simply amazing. Love his work.
I did say that I much prefer the Swedish film but I would judge each film on its own terms and don't care about fidelity to source material. Her attachment is also not my own since I have no attachment.
I really don't care if you're insensitive or not. But somehow I think you are. I'm just speaking from MY heart, and if that's going to bother you, then I can't help. As simple as that. I can't speak for Eva Gabrielsson, but if I was allowed, I'm sure she would agree with me. You given me a dozen examples won't change my mind. And you will probably never change yours.
I have no problem whatsoever with a good adaptation, as long as the director is good. Fincher is, no doubt, I think he's very talanted. There are too many remakes coming from Hollywood though. I think the reason that I'm defending Larsson's work, is that there're not many books that have been read from a contemporary author, by so many people worldwide, around 65 million, and only one from Sweden. And it IS a depiction of my country, albeit a small country with 9 million inhabitants. I truly cherish what Larsson wrote and also that it'll reamain Swedish. I don't want any big budget Hollywood director barging in and partially cover the tracks of Larsson. I guess there's some pride in it, and it's about respect. If you do not understand it, it's nothing I can do about it. share
I'm sorry but i read the books, Lisbeth is supposed to look much younger than she actually yes. So when you say those things about Rooney, that's the whole purpose, she has to look younger, she has to look like a teenager. And Noomi just doesn't have that quality, she looks like she's 28 or 29.
I also prefer Daniel Craig as Mikael because Mikael is supposed to be some sort os playboy, a quiet one. He sleeps with a lot of women without any commitment and he's handsome, good looking. So Daniel Craig has more of those features while Nykvist doesn't.
Actually what you read was not what Steig Larsson actually wrote - what you read was a poorly translated, edited-to-hell, trunkated "American" English edition. The changes the editors made entirely changed many of the details of what Larsson actually wrote in his characterizations. I think you have some catch up reading to do - I suggest The Tattooed Girl: The Enigma of Steig Larsson. There's an entire chapter on the botched English translations and how the translator himself even refused to have his name attached after he saw what the editors did. Even the tattoo itself was completely changed. Seriously, read it - you'll be surprised. They're by people who were actually involved and informed by Steig while he was alive and writing the novels and give surprising insite on the background of the Millennium trilogy.
I'd also recommend reading The Girl With The Sturgeon Tattoo. It's a parody on the trilogy by a truly informed person who pokes fun at the supposed 'fourth' novel, how Mikeal's character is actually a schlubby 40-something "every man" with a gut who somehow gets the women (exactly as Nyqvist portrayed him), etc.
I'll stick to the Swedish; they more closely portray what the author actually wrote. They're also what Eva Gabrielson prefers - you know, Steig's long-time companion who collaborated with him...
I do not care for trolls. I ignore them. They mean nothing and have no place here.
I'm sorry but i read the books, Lisbeth is supposed to look much younger than she actually yes. So when you say those things about Rooney, that's the whole purpose, she has to look younger, she has to look like a teenager. And Noomi just doesn't have that quality, she looks like she's 28 or 29.
Well, I'm reading the second book now and I can tell you, I hate the Lisbeth in the books. She's not sympathetic whatsoever and that Larsson based this character after his niece who was a ninety pound nothing at age 14, I'd say that the Lisbeth in the books and Rooney Mara's version are so unbelievable. Noomi Rapace had to fight to bring some realism to the character who largely is a comic book character at best in the books. That scene at the beginning of "The Girl Who Played With Fire" where Lisbeth went out in the hurricane to save that Forbes woman was laughable. Given the wind gusts Lisbeth in both the books and Mara would have been blown away in an instant. My guess is that is the reason that scene was cut from the Swedish film version due to the idiocy of a young woman weighing that little trying to go out in a hurricane. I want to like Lisbeth in the books, but I'm really not caring about her. I care for Noomi's Salander. Not the one in the books and not that sulky thing Rooney Mara plays.
I also prefer Daniel Craig as Mikael because Mikael is supposed to be some sort os playboy, a quiet one. He sleeps with a lot of women without any commitment and he's handsome, good looking. So Daniel Craig has more of those features while Nykvist doesn't.
The Mikael Nyqvist plays is a playboy too. And since when is Daniel Craig considered 'good looking'? That was one of the problems when it was announced he was playing Bond. There was a site opened called CRAIGISNOTBOND due to the fact they didn't think Craig was not considered handsome enough to play out Bond's charisma. I'm a huge Daniel Craig fan from back in the 90s, so it would be believed I would have embraced Daniel as Blomkvist, but I don't. He's wrong for the part. Nyqvist is perfect for the part. He's supposed to be almost enchanted with Lisbeth and Nyqvist plays that perfectly. And also neither Craig nor Plummer look Scandinavian enough to believably play these characters. And again I'm a huge Christopher Plummer fan. But the actors who played the parts in the ORIGINAL Swedish versions ARE the characters to me. The guy who plays Bjurman in the Swedish version looks exactly like how Bjurman is supposed to look in the books, not a rotund guy who looks more like someone's father. All the actors who played Morell, Frode, Harriet, Erika, Christer, Malin, all of them looked the parts from the books.
When I watch a film based on a book made from the home country of the same, I want to be transported to that mindset and that geographical location. I don't want to have to see Western actors trying to play a mindset they don't know about. It would be just like seeing China trying to remake "Gone With The Wind" with Gong Li as Scarlet, Donnie Yen as Ashley Wilkes and Takeshi Kaneshiro as Rhett. Fincher did nothing original that Nils Opalev didn't accomplish perfectly well in the ORIGINAL.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon share
To me, Craig is so much better looking than Nyqvist. I haven't seen the second film yet but I personally dislike Noomi as Lisbeth. I sort of feel that the first film is not well put together and there's a lot of things that are not like the book.
About the thing with the hurricane, well, Lisbeth is supposed to be really different, she practiced boxe for years, she can kick anyone's ass, so yeah, I don't know, maybe that's the idea that Larsson wanted.
To me, Craig is so much better looking than Nyqvist. I haven't seen the second film yet but I personally dislike Noomi as Lisbeth. I sort of feel that the first film is not well put together and there's a lot of things that are not like the book.
The first film in the Millennium series was quite well put together. Fincher's is way too slick for the subject matter. I love Schumacher's "8MM" because of the grittier nature than Fincher's "Dragon" movie and I love Opalev's version by far because quite frankly, it's a better film. Noomi is magnificent as Lisbeth and Eva Gabrielsson's favourite. I have to agree with what she said about Rooney Mara's obliviousness at the role she was playing. What I also hated about the Fincher film was how Fincher declawed Lisbeth. The 'love' scene between Blomkvist int he Fincher version is the reason I detest that version. In the original with Nyqvist and Rapace, Lisbeth remains on top throughout and once she's done, she leaves. IN the Fincher version Blomkvist rolls her over to more or less pin her to the velvet making it impossible for her to leave. Also there is no her getting up and leaving him. The scene fades to black. The entire Millennium series is quite well put together and you'd see it if you'd get your head our of your arse enough to see the entirety as the works of art they are.
As for the differences between Nyqivst and Craig. Nominal at best. Both are craggy looking and both are not what one could call conventionally handsome. Yet Nyqvist brings more to Blomkvist. If you'd take the time to watch the rest of the Millennium series, the scene where Blomkvist finds the video Lisbeth recorded of the Bjurman rape, Nyqvist's reaction is one of the reasons I feel he IS Blomkvist. That and the part where Blomkvist finds Lisbeth at Zalachenko's farm. For crying out loud, find the Millennium series and WATCH them before you actually write Nyqvist off.
About the thing with the hurricane, well, Lisbeth is supposed to be really different, she practiced boxe for years, she can kick anyone's ass, so yeah, I don't know, maybe that's the idea that Larsson wanted.
Really different? Really? Truly? There are sometimes when I'm reading the books that I'm thinking Lisbeth is on a different planet than the rest of the characters. Blomkvist, Berger, Harriet, Henrik, Martin, Bjurman, Telaborian, Armanski et al are all written as real life. Larsson I think was way to infatuated with his niece to actually know how to write for Lisbeth with any kind of humanity as well as realism. The very notion that she weighs 90 lbs soaking wet and didn't get pulled away in that hurricane is absurd. If the Forbes man was found miles away in the airport parking lot weighing as much as he likely did, then Lisbeth should have been carried away and found somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico. I don't think Larsson had a clue as to who Lisbeth really was or else he'd have written her as believably as the rest of the characters. That's why Noomi Rapace had arguments with the director of the first film because she felt the character was too much of a comic book superhero. If that was Larsson's intention, he should have written two separate stories. As I'm reading the books I'm finding I want to hurry and read past Salander's parts to get to Blomkvist's or any of the other characters because I find HIS Lisbeth so damn boring. Noomi's I find fascinating because she actually put flesh on Lisbeth's bones and made her fit in with the rest of the story. I want to like her in the books, but the more I'm reading of her I'm growing to dislike her more and more and don't seem to care what happens to her. Blomkvist, and as I'm reading I'm envisioning Nyqvist, is fascinating as is Berger and Malm. Even Bjurman and Plague are better defined than Salander. By far she is the weakest link in the books. But as Noomi played her, she was the strongest along with Blomkvist. Which is why when I watch the films I really root for these two. In the books, I'm only rooting for Blomkvist and can see why he'd prefer Berger over Lisbeth because Lisbeth is so damn immature. Noomi gave her purpose and a gravitas that Rooney Mara couldn't quite fathom because she is after all, Fincher's concoction and spouts the same drivel he does about the character she doesn't even understand. Noomi, understood her perfectly and wanted to put meat on her bones.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon share
"you'd see it if you'd get your head our of your arse enough to see the entirety as the works of art they are."
Seriously? Just because someone has a diffent opinion from yours, you start insulting them?
I'm not even going to comment about the rest because it's completely unnecessary since you obviously don't care about my opinion.
Seriously? Just because someone has a diffent opinion from yours, you start insulting them?
I'm not even going to comment about the rest because it's completely unnecessary since you obviously don't care about my opinion.
I care only to the point that you're willing to actually sit down and WATCH the other two Swedish films BEFORE concluding that Fincher's version is THE ultimate version. I did what you did with the original. I decided I hated the remake until I'd actually watched it. When I did I saw the flaws and how really badly Fincher wants us to believe this Swedish version doesn't exist. So I'm giving Fincher about the same amount of consideration he gave Oplev/Danielsson when he decided to REMAKE a recent film. So until you're willing to view the Swedish version and ALL the films in their entirety, I suppose this discourse is over because you obviously don't care about my feelings or my opinions.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon share
It's not even a remake. He wanted to do a new version that was based on the book, because he thought that the first film wasn't following the book properly. At least, that's what I heard. But it's definately not a remake.
shareIt's not even a remake. He wanted to do a new version that was based on the book, because he thought that the first film wasn't following the book properly. At least, that's what I heard. But it's definately not a remake.
Well, Fincher didn't even follow the book that religiously, as he seemed to want to. In that scene where Salander went to Blomkvist and had sex with him, in the Swedish version it is done EXACTLY as it was done in the book. The Fincher version made it according to the Western Mentality of having the man as the dominant one in the scene. He had Craig flip Mara onto her back on the mattress. Unlike the Swedish version Rapace got on top of Nyqvist and never was turned onto her back on the mattress. After it was over she got off of him and left. Fincher's comment about Oplev not following the book properly is crap when he didn't even follow it himself. Oplev made certain changes and integrations because it happens any time a book is adapted into a film. It happened with "Blade Runner" when it was adapted from Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". Hell, Dick even co-penned the script. Same thing has been happening with George R. R. Martin with the adaptation of his "A Song of Ice And Fire" into "Game of Thrones". He's even co-producer. When Eva Gabrielsson who was Larsson's partner during the time he was writing the Millennium series says she dislikes Fincher's version because she doesn't feel he captured the spirit of the characters she helped craft and that Rooney Mara is a daft git because she doesn't understand the source material and has embraced Noomi Rapace's version, that says something. The Fincher version is almost a shot-by-shot remake of the Oplev film. The only difference is that he didn't do it very well with all the money he had at his disposal. And the opening title credits were almost like watching the opening of a Bond film. Did he think that was going to slip our attentions? Also that opening credit sequence is almost exactly like a video from the Canadian band Rush. Fincher directed music videos. Did he again think it might slip our attentions?
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon share
Yeah, I think that's the new thing for directors to use in order to justify making an American version of something. Just say you're basing it on the book and fans will just be fine with it. I've gotten to the point that I just ignore remakes. If they can't create something of their own then Hollywood might as well not make anything at all.
The book was fantastic and I thought the Swedish film made a good companion to it.
Yeah, I think that's the new thing for directors to use in order to justify making an American version of something. Just say you're basing it on the book and fans will just be fine with it. I've gotten to the point that I just ignore remakes. If they can't create something of their own then Hollywood might as well not make anything at all.
The book was fantastic and I thought the Swedish film made a good companion to it.
Thank you for your insight. I agree totally. I mean Hollywood is considering a RoboCop remake. How many Spiderman, Superman, Batman reboots have we had now? I saw the Fincher version because a friend asked me to and because as I've been saying I love Daniel Craig and Christopher Plummer. However, I really can't get into this film because I've seen it before and better.
I'm on the second book right now and I'm understanding the reasons why Noomi had issues with Lisbeth. The character Larsson created is unreal unlike the rest of the characters who are very real. I loved all the Swedish films and will enjoy reading the third book.
Again, thanks for understanding my reasons why I don't like the remake...because face it, that's what it is....and not a very good one either.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon share
Okay, let's get some things straight here. Fincher's film is neither a remake, nor anything original. What it is is a film version of the poorly translated English version of the novel, including all of the flaws in the translation. It's a decent adaptation of the English translation, but as we all know the English translation was edited to hell by the publishers and completely changed Larsson's vision and characters.
The original Swedish Millennium series had Larsson's own words to go by. That is why I prefer the Swedish; it's truer to what the author actually wrote. My favorite is the extended Millennium series because it expands upon and explains so much more of that's detailed in the novels. For me, that's the most enjoyable and accurate version.
I do not care for trolls. I ignore them. They mean nothing and have no place here.
The original Swedish Millennium series had Larsson's own words to go by. That is why I prefer the Swedish; it's truer to what the author actually wrote. My favorite is the extended Millennium series because it expands upon and explains so much more of that's detailed in the novels. For me, that's the most enjoyable and accurate version.
I applaud this entire statement. I own the Millennium series as well and the entire series is flawless. In its entirety the film is amazing and I think that's why I hate the Fincher adaptation. There is no quality in it in terms of the actual meaning of the words and the actions. In the Oplev version it speaks to me in a way the Fincher version doesn't.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon share
The swedish version is better cause of the darkness and fear in the background makes the settings feel much more realistic together with the characters.. Also Lisbeth is meant to be a strong woman which is attracted mostly to women and hates men who abuses women.
shareThe american version is better because it used Trent Reznor's genius to perfection to create a great mood. Swedish film doesnt have a good soundtrack to create this creepy mood.
shareThe original Swedish Millennium series had Larsson's own words to go by. That is why I prefer the Swedish; it's truer to what the author actually wrote. My favorite is the extended Millennium series because it expands upon and explains so much more of that's detailed in the novels. For me, that's the most enjoyable and accurate version.
Unfortunately, not everyone is going to be able to read the authentic Swedish version. I tried, I really did, but in the end caved and switched to the Finnish translation. I haven't read the English one, but if I had a guess I think the Finnish one might be more faithful to the Swedish origins, because we don't have the habit of sugarcoating or sensationalizing.
I admit, I haven't seen Fincher's movie, so I'm not able to judge which one is better. I just know I really like the Swedish film, although it's not an "original" of anything. It's like saying Game of Thrones is "an original". It's not, it's an adaptation. I'm waiting to see if Fincher ever finishes the series, since I must say I was anything but impressed with the filming of Luftslottet som sprängdes. The focus I think was off, and it wasn't really about the luftslottet (castle in the air, the Swedish society) which was my favorite part in the book.
#3seasonsandathankyou share
The opening credits are supposed to be Salander's thought/fears from what I've read and it makes sense. But I did think they were very Bond-ish, even if Craig wasn't in the film I would have thought that.
Anyway, I have not seen the original trilogy (yet) but have read the books and they have become my favorite books of modern time. I'll admit I'm haven't read as many book as films I've seen so I'm sure there are much better ones I just really like them and now hearing you say the Swedish books are better sucks because I can't read Swedish. All that said I thought the US film was good but no where near as great as the translated books. I guess I should watch the original trilogy now. Question though, is there any way to read the books or listen to them in English more closely translated? I thought the ones I read where just like the Swedish ones only in English. I know some things get lost in translation but if what you say about the translator saying he was that unhappy with them is true then I am pissed I didn't get the real story as Stieg wanted to tell it. And I love the story so much I will read/watch ever version I can.
Although if you're opinion is only based on that of this girlfriend of Lieg's I think you my be letting someone else make up your mind for you. Have you own opinion.
You got the jist of the stories from the American translations. I'd suggest reading The Tattooed Girl: The Enigma of Steig Larsson to get the rest of the story, particularly the chapter on the translations. Unfortunately, there is not a complete, direct English translation, but the chapter in "Tattooed Girl" is very comprehensive and gives numerous examples of translation and editing flaws along with direct translation examples; it's very revealing and a real eye opener. It basically shows how the American/English 'version' is really watered down and therefor that translated directly to the American film.
I do not care for trolls. I ignore them. They mean nothing and have no place here.
Sorry my friend but Tag, your are wrong i think.
While the US version did in many ways follow aspects of the book closer it lacked sense of humour and while dark and gritty was, well a little stale in places for me. Do not get me wrong i love slow, thoughtful movies but by stale i mean it seemed to me that it tried too hard to follow aspects of the book that it failed to let go at times and become a little more fun.
Watch both close together and the Swedish version gets the feel right but misses some aspects of the computer hacking which IMO were needed. However, i prefer the Swedish film and it captured the feel of the book far better than the US version did which was too calculated and concerned with getting it right rather than letting it flow
Gareth
Specifically which aspects are you talking about?
shareRemake or not, the Daniel Craig version was also filmed in Sweden:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/locations
BTW I still would like to know WHY it's not a remake?
No way.
All in all good thriller but cant be compared to the original...
[deleted]
I have a nasty habit.
I never waste time on people whos IQ is lower than their shoe size...
Interesting view.
Without spoiling either one, how is it not a remake?
Or do you mean they are both interpretations of the same work?
I agree with tag1981. Totally.
share