The problem with modern audiences... - Män som hatar kvinnor (2010) Discussion

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

It's a shame that someone would rather not watch a great movie than read subtitles. It is really not that difficult, one can easily get used to it.

I'm glad you showed a good example to the salesman.

reply

[–] Passport-To-Pimlico 11 years ago

A pity you feel like that because David Fincher's adaptation is a much, much better movie.

Shame you're going to miss out on a proper film and instead settle for a drab looking made for TV movie.

Calvin Candie: You sir are a sore loser
Dr. King Schultz:And you are an abysmal winner

reply

[–] beja-4 11 years ago

Shame you're going to miss out on a proper film and instead settle for a drab looking made for TV movie.

Get your facts together before you state something as in your quote above. 'Män som hatar kvinnor' (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) was made as a theatrical film in 2009 and not for television.

Personally, I find Oplev's film to be the better and Noomi's performance better than Mara's who wasn't bad, but it's not Lisbeth to me. But I kind of like Fincher's version too.

reply

[–] Passport-To-Pimlico 11 years ago

Get your facts together before you state something as in your quote above. 'Män som hatar kvinnor' (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) was made as a theatrical film in 2009 and not for television.

Well, it had all the ambition and cinematic scope of a made for television film.

Calvin Candie: You sir are a sore loser
Dr. King Schultz:And you are an abysmal winner

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] beja-4 11 years ago

Well, it had all the ambition and cinematic scope of a made for television film.

No, it didn't have that ambition. And as almost always when it comes to Hollywood and remakes (I know that Fincher's was an adaptation of the book) it is spelled; $dollar$.

Choosing style over substance, which of course includes a budget. Which for 'Män som hatar kvinnor' was $13,000.000 and for Fincher's $135,000,000. (The numbers here on IMDb are not accurate) You wanna know the outcome? Okay;

Worldwide Gross for 'Män som hatar kvinnor' $104,239,692
Worldwide Gross for Fincher's Dragon Tattoo $233,157,523

Happy Halloween!

reply

[–] Passport-To-Pimlico 11 years ago

No, it didn't have that ambition. And as almost always when it comes to Hollywood and remakes (I know that Fincher's was an adaptation of the book) it is spelled; $dollar$.

We're talking Fincher dollars, here, not Michael Bay dollars. The Hollywood re-adaptation was a better film in every way possible. Just the opening credit sequence had more flair, creativity and style than the whole of the dull original film.

Choosing style over substance, which of course includes a budget. Which for 'Män som hatar kvinnor' was $13,000.000 and for Fincher's $135,000,000. (The numbers here on IMDb are not accurate) You wanna know the outcome? Okay;

Worldwide Gross for 'Män som hatar kvinnor' $104,239,692
Worldwide Gross for Fincher's Dragon Tattoo $233,157,523

And?

So what? Since when did box office takings say anything about the quality of a film?

"this is a very stuiped post and doesnt make any type of sens just ignor it" - mostfaalsnosy

reply

[–] beja-4 11 years ago

We're talking Fincher dollars, here, not Michael Bay dollars. The Hollywood re-adaptation was a better film in every way possible. Just the opening credit sequence had more flair, creativity and style than the whole of the dull original film.

Well, I'm not a fan of Bay, but just because he made Transformers 1-14, doesn't disqualify him as a director. I haven't seen any of them. But I actually liked The Rock and Armageddon.

Bay's dollars may mean 'style over substance'. If so, then Fincher isn't so far behind. Especially the intro in Dragon Tattoo, which I thought didn't fit at all. It's a nice piece, but it's like a music video. If Fincher had really understood the Swedish atmosphere, which is crucial when it comes to Larsson's Millenium, he would've chosen something else. I liked his film, and I like Fincher, he's a talanted director. But this movie is IMO not as good as Oplev's.

So what? Since when did box office takings say anything about the quality of a film?

Tell that to the Crème de la Crème in Hollywood, they seem to disagree with you. The only reason I brought up the numbers was to show you, that despite having a quite small budget, it's still possible to make a really good movie. And if the result is a flip at the BO, well, that's just a bonus. With those numbers for Fincher, I doubt that there'll be 2 more movies.

Maybe Fincher should get rid of his OCD when it comes to shooting every scene about 50 times or more. I'm quite sure he'd be able to reduce his budget.

reply

[–] Passport-To-Pimlico 11 years ago

Well, I'm not a fan of Bay, but just because he made Transformers 1-14, doesn't disqualify him as a director. I haven't seen any of them. But I actually liked The Rock and Armageddon.

Michael Bay has never made a good film. The Rock is his least bad film but I wouldn't say I liked it.

Bay's dollars may mean 'style over substance'.

There's nothing stylish or substantial about any of Bay's movies

If so, then Fincher isn't so far behind.

Light years of difference bewteen Bay and Fincher. Light years.

Especially the intro in Dragon Tattoo, which I thought didn't fit at all. It's a nice piece, but it's like a music video.

It's a sensational opening piece. Immersive, interesting, unexpected and great to look at.

If Fincher had really understood the Swedish atmosphere, which is crucial when it comes to Larsson's Millenium, he would've chosen something else.

By "Swedish atmosphere" you mean that which was in the book. Books retain an atmosphere that is impossible to capture in any film. You like the books? Fine. I've not read them, probably never will.

I liked his film, and I like Fincher, he's a talanted director. But this movie is IMO not as good as Oplev's.

Cool. This movie was IMO way better than Oplev's.

Tell that to the Crème de la Crème in Hollywood, they seem to disagree with you.

No they don't. If that was the case then The Avengers would have won Best Picture at the Oscars.

The only reason I brought up the numbers was to show you, that despite having a quite small budget, it's still possible to make a really good movie. And if the result is a flip at the BO, well, that's just a bonus.

There are countless movies, much better than the Swedish TGWTDT made on a much lower budget. Check out Primer or Timecrimes for example.

With those numbers for Fincher, I doubt that there'll be 2 more movies.

If we don't get two more, that's fine. If we do, then that's great. Just so long as they maintain the magic of the first film and keep the same team (director, writer, director of photography etc.).

Maybe Fincher should get rid of his OCD when it comes to shooting every scene about 50 times or more. I'm quite sure he'd be able to reduce his budget.

Naybe Niels Arden Oplev should develop some OCD when it comes to shooting and he might become a world class director like David Fincher.

"this is a very stuiped post and doesnt make any type of sens just ignor it" - mostfaalsnosy

reply

[–] beja-4 11 years ago

Michael Bay has never made a good film. The Rock is his least bad film but I wouldn't say I liked it. There's nothing stylish or substantial about any of Bay's movies

As I said before, I'm not a fan of Bay, and I haven't seen more than Armageddon and The Rock which I thought were decent films.

It's a sensational opening piece. Immersive, interesting, unexpected and great to look at.

Yes, like a music video.

By "Swedish atmosphere" you mean that which was in the book. Books retain an atmosphere that is impossible to capture in any film. You like the books? Fine. I've not read them, probably never will.

No, I don't mean the books. If you're going to make a film in Sweden, about Swedish characters, in a Swedish environment and even with Swedish accents, you better get the right feeling about it. I'm guessing you can't judge what that is, but I can.

No they don't. If that was the case then The Avengers would have won Best Picture at the Oscars.

Since when did Hollywood, the paradise of remakes and style over substance, stop caring about what the BO numbers said? That's a more accurate question to ask, that's also what I meant in my former post.

If we don't get two more, that's fine. If we do, then that's great. Just so long as they maintain the magic of the first film and keep the same team (director, writer, director of photography etc.).

You won't. Check out Fincher's Dragon Tattoo board, they're pretty updated how the project is coming forward, which is staus quo right now.

Naybe Niels Arden Oplev should develop some OCD when it comes to shooting and he might become a world class director like David Fincher.

Maybe Fincher should give his pal Soderbergh a call, and learn how to make films insanely fast, with a result of great, if not even better films. Soderbergh was also the first, besides Fincher, who read Zaillan's DT script.

reply

[–] Passport-To-Pimlico 11 years ago

Yes, like a music video.

And what's wrong with that? Fincher began as a music video director.

If you're going to make a film in Sweden, about Swedish characters, in a Swedish environment and even with Swedish accents, you better get the right feeling about it.

How was the "Swedish feeling" not captured?

It's an invalid criticism anyway. Was the feeling of Morroco captured in Casablanca? No, but it makes not a slightest bit of difference to the movie.

I'm guessing you can't judge what that is, but I can.

How can you judge it? What makes you so more superior that you can judge something like that?

I won't pretend to be an expert on Sweden and Swedish culture but I've seen a few Swedish films (five or so by Bergman, a couple of Hallstrom's, Let The Right One In and Orlev's lousy film which is by far the worst Swedish film I've yet seen).

Since when did Hollywood, the paradise of remakes and style over substance, stop caring about what the BO numbers said? That's a more accurate question to ask, that's also what I meant in my former post.

I'm genuinely confused. Why did you even bring up the box office and business numbers in the first place? What point were you trying to make?

The amount a movie takes at the box office should never, ever say anything about the quality of the film. Plenty of bad movies to very well financially and plenty of great movies have flopped, just as plenty of stinkers didn't do well and lots of great films were hits.

You won't. Check out Fincher's Dragon Tattoo board, they're pretty updated how the project is coming forward, which is staus quo right now.

Fine. I'm cool with that. At least we got one great film adaptation of Larsson's work. Fincher can be proud of that.

Maybe Fincher should give his pal Soderbergh a call, and learn how to make films insanely fast, with a result of great, if not even better films.

Why even bring Soderbergh into this discussion? I quite like his films but Fincher is in a totally different league to him.

You earlier mentioned "Hollywood, the paradise of remakes and style over substance", well Soderbergh has directed two remakes and two sequels but hasn't made anything to compare to Fincher's Zodiac or The Social Network.

Soderbergh was also the first, besides Fincher, who read Zaillan's DT script.

And?

"this is a very stuiped post and doesnt make any type of sens just ignor it" - mostfaalsnosy

reply

[–] beja-4 11 years ago

And what's wrong with that? Fincher began as a music video director.

Your post is certainley refreshing at Monday lunch. Ahh... well, what can I say that I haven't explained in my former posts? I like the intro, and I'm well aware that Fincher started out making music videos. If you think it fits as an intro in the film, that's fine. I do not. I think it's a bit like a goth MTV makeover of old James Bond credits. But I think it's a nice piece. End of story.

How was the "Swedish feeling" not captured?
It's an invalid criticism anyway. Was the feeling of Morroco captured in Casablanca? No, but it makes not a slightest bit of difference to the movie.

How can a feeling or an opinion be invalid criticism? That is of course my subjective perception, which I'm entitled to have. And why compare it to Casa Blanca? Never thought about why Casa Blanca never has been remade? Okay, let's not make any further sidetracks.

As I said more than once, I liked Fincher's but it hasn't got that special Swedish feelings about it. And yes, I'm an expert, definitely not superior but I should know being a Swede. Fincher has his brand, a very specific style; shots of icy expanses, camera moves, and is very good at building tensions. It's all very "Fincherish". The cinematography is great. But I miss the bluntly, raw emotional impact Oplev's film has. Fincer said himself that he wanted to please those 8-9 million people in USA who had read The Triology, and his film is very much "Americanised" to satisfy his primarely audience.

Why even bring Soderbergh into this discussion? I quite like his films but Fincher is in a totally different league to him.

Why post on this board at all, if one can't make a comparision? You've done it several times. See, I don't think he's in a totally different leauge. I think Soderbergh is an amazing director, who has the abilty to turn a film into gold, with often small means. A great indie director. I mentioned Soderbergh because he's the diametrical opposite to Fincher when it comes to shooting a scene.

You earlier mentioned "Hollywood, the paradise of remakes and style over substance", well Soderbergh has directed two remakes and two sequels but hasn't made anything to compare to Fincher's Zodiac or The Social Network.

Ha, I haven't seen Zodiac and I thought The Social Network was boring. See, we're very much different.

The amount a movie takes at the box office should never, ever say anything about the quality of the film. Plenty of bad movies to very well financially and plenty of great movies have flopped, just as plenty of stinkers didn't do well and lots of great films were hits.

I can't decide if you're a bit ignorant or if you're kidding. I thought that you were aware that most BB is not a BO flop. There're so many same films made right now, preferably in the space or in a distant future and they're all flips and a hit at the BO. Seems like the film goers have become a bit stupid than the they used to be. It's very much supply and demand, hence the bad films being made at all. If you happen to not be in that category, I'm relieved.

And?

You compared Oplev to Fincher, I compared Fincher to Soderbergh. Two best buddies, with totally different style.

reply

[–] Passport-To-Pimlico 11 years ago

O.K. No more sidetracks and I admit to neglecting those parts where you actually said that you liked Fincher's version.

Bottom line is - You like Oplev's film more than Fincher's and I prefer Fincher's more than Oplev's.

Fine.

Let us celebrate our differences!

P.S - Do at least give Zodiac a try. It's perhaps the best ever procedural investigation film I've seen.

"this is a very stuiped post and doesnt make any type of sens just ignor it" - mostfaalsnosy

reply

[–] beja-4 11 years ago

Bottom line is - You like Oplev's film more than Fincher's and I prefer Fincher's more than Oplev's.
Fine.
Let us celebrate our differences!

Oj... absolutely! It's really the differences which makes it interesting... or somthing like that!

I will give Zodiac a try. I do think it's a great movie, heard nothing but good about it. And Se7en is absolutely amazing, even if it scared me for life. I think I've avoided it for the simple reason that I remember reading about the real Zodiac murders in an old magazine as a kid in the 70's, and couldn't sleep for days knowing he was never found. But I'll give it a try, definitely.

reply

[–] ellisday-954-300919 8 years ago

There isn't '14' transformer films!!

reply

[–] beja-4 8 years ago

There isn't '14' transformer films!!

 What?! But what the hell, what have I been watching the last 14 years?!

Okay friend, seriously. I'm glad you took the time to read my post though, and unless you didn't get it, it's kind of a metaphor for being waaaay too many Transformers alike films out there.

reply

[–] Steve_Just_D_Stevenson 10 years ago

Personally, I found the original Swedish version to be the better film. The character of Lisbeth was compromised in Fincher's version, and I thought the original had a grit and reality to it that Hollywood just can't seem to get to. The performances were great, the film was great, but pales in comparison to the original in my opinion.

reply

[–] Passport-To-Pimlico 10 years ago

Personally, I found the original Swedish version to be the better film. The character of Lisbeth was compromised in Fincher's version, and I thought the original had a grit and reality to it that Hollywood just can't seem to get to. The performances were great, the film was great, but pales in comparison to the original in my opinion.

By "better film" are you talking about a better adaptation or as an actual better film? You mention the characterof Lisbeth being compromised, so I assume you're talking about the way the original text was adapted for the big screen in Fincher's version.

David Fincher is one of the best directors currently working in the entire world. His body of work is (mostly) amazing, ground-breaking memorable films. He has a whole style of his own and is especially skilled in the genre of crime. His movie version of the book was, in every way possible, a better looking, more creative and far more accomplished film than the Swedish original - Which had all the cinematic ambition and scope of a made for TV movie (clumsy story telling techniques such as flashbacks and voice-over narration).

This thread was entitled "The problem with modern audiences". The real problem with modern audiences is that there's an automatic assumption that anything with subtitles from a non English speaking country is automatically superior - See tripe like The Crimson Rivers, Mesrine for example. Any time I've criticised them the automatic response is "You just didn't like because it had subtitles". See also the vastly over-praised Pan's Labyrinth - An arthouse film for people who don't like arthouse.

The other problem with modern audiences is that if there's any change or difference from the source material that they cherish so much, it becomes a point of criticism. That should never be the case.

reply

[–] Johnny_Wrong 9 years ago

Fincher has been on a slide since Zodiac. I say that as a huge fan of his early work. Benjamin Gump, Facebook: The Movie and (the inferior) Dragon Tattoo had glossy style but no personality whatsoever. They all seemed like the work of just another journeyman director, albeit with a top-end DoP. Gone Girl, thankfully, was a step back toward what made his early work so interesting.

reply

[–] Steve_Just_D_Stevenson 10 years ago

Män som hatar kvinnor translates as Men Who Hate Women. Which was the original title of the book. It was changed to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo for America. And, for me gives the film more depth and texture as well as spells out the real theme of the story.

reply

[–] beja-4 10 years ago

Män som hatar kvinnor translates as Men Who Hate Women.

Yes, that's the original title. I'm always pleasantly surprised when someone has replied to me from this board. I first thought you were Swedish, since you used the letter ä. But then I read your other posts and you're not.

Why weren't you on Fincher's Dragon Tattoo board at the time the movie premiered? Because your thoughts about depth and texture as well as the real theme of the movie was exactly what we discussed on the board at the time. I'm from Sweden and I realised pretty soon that very few did understand the original title. They thought it sounded weird, but that's not so odd really, since Fincher actually sidetracked the theme. Larsson's focus is not on a girl with a dragon tattoo, Larsson's focus is on misogyny. But with a female protagonist. And that's a BIG difference. But being one of few Swedes on the board, it was hard to argue for the cause.

I read some of your other posts and again, you're right about certain aspects of the film; the sex scene, how Lisbeth asked permission etc. Larsson himself was personally involved with women who had been abused and Oplev depicted the book more accurate. I think I've already said it in this thread; Fincher himself said he wanted to please people in the US who had read The Triology, so his version is very much "Americanised" to satisfy his primarely audience. Which honestly is very sad.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

I liked both films but preferred the original as I think Michael Nyqvist's and Noomi Rapace's characters are much closer to those depicted in the books. I also liked seeing the Fincher film, but thought it ironic that the producers found it necessary to spend so much extra money courting the North American audience, only to end up with a commercial failure.

reply

[–] beja-4 10 years ago

Yes, talk about irony. Fincher is a thorough man and Mara was here for months before starting to shoot the film and yet it was as you said a commercial failure. Sort of bites you in the ass, haha.

I actually rewatched Fincher's a couple of weeks ago and this time it didn't get me hooked the same way it did when I first watched it. That's never happened with Oplev's with Nyqvist and Rapace.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

Sort of bites you in the ass, haha.

Well it does and you're right. Fincher's was a $100 million production coming only a couple of years after the very successful world wide original release, which had a far smaller budget. It had to be a very big hit to make money. Ironically 2011 did better overseas than in the Finch admitted target of North America. It was probably people like you, me, many of the posters on these boards who are fans of the original, who went to see how his interpretation compared to that of Niels Arden Oplev, rather than those who don't like Swedish sub-titled films. As you note above, it's a little hard to stifle a giggle.

reply

[–] ficoce 9 years ago

I had the same experience with not being hooked by the '11 version. This really surprised me, too; the Fincher version had, well, Fincher, big names, and a budget. Why did it just seem to be hitting the marks, and that's it? I watched both films again.

What hit me the most was while the original film had a low budget, a great amount of effort and soul were put into it toward details. One example is the cottage set. The original '09 cottage interior had paperwork and photos plastered all over and just general clutter - subconsciously I was made to believe the characters spent hour upon hour in that room. The '11 Fincher? It was like, "Hey, we're doing this scene in the bedroom and the dining room wall is framed through the doorway - someone stick up a dozen photos to fill up the dead space."

Another aspect was lighting, I thought Fincher's lighting was too perfect. This is a gritty film and the dull lighting of the original just added to the feel. Again, Daniel Craig is in the cottage with perfect light streaming in the window back lighting him and his features were fore lit; pretty much any frame of that scene could have have been glossy printed for marketing. This didn't work for me. If I go to someone's house and they pull out the dreaded album - I'd much rather see candid photos of real people doing real things that tell a story, than sitting through staged class photos with shoulder tilt and perfect lighting.

Yeah, the '11 version did better the money shots; over the top action, but too many corners were cut to get to the action.

One movie showed a film crew that came together and worked with passion, the other film crew had a job they were bound determined to knock out and move on to the next one. One worked well and one just worked with ten times the budget - you can't buy love.

reply

[–] beja-4 9 years ago

I don't really know either, why Fincher, despite a good eye to how a movie should be filmed, didn't manage more than hitting the marks, as you say. It provides everything a movie should, but in a rather charmless way, and it didn't touch me the same way as Oplev's.

It may have to do with the book's translation into English, which has been criticized, and that several of Larsson's richness of details, were apparently simplified. It's been discussed many times. But to be honest, I don't think it's of no decisive importance, because Fincher has his very own special style.

Oplev's version did capture the soul and your example of the cottage is spot on, I've thought about that as well. Fincher is so incredibly thorough with the way the light falls during specific scenes, and the different camera angles, it's almost becomes annoying. It's just... stilted and lacks soul.

Agreed, the lighting was too perfect. I sat one evening after having seen Fincher's and watched clips on YouTube. There's a scene in the cottage where Mara's sitting in front of her laptop on the floor, it's filmed from behind and sweeps up over her head and further down to her face, from the front. And if one likes these "camera glides", (for lack of a better word) then it's an amazingly shot scene. But it adds absolutely nothing to the story and not to the atmosphere. And it took him days to shoot the scene!

Yes, this is a gritty film, and it's the grittiness that makes it far better, at least I think so. As I've said earlier in this thread; the bluntly, raw emotional impact Oplev's film has, is not to find in Fincher's.

One movie showed a film crew that came together and worked with passion, the other film crew had a job they were bound determined to knock out and move on to the next one. One worked well and one just worked with ten times the budget - you can't buy love.

This is so true. And very wise, you definitely can't buy love 

reply

[–] sfrsez 9 years ago

;made for tv' is a very apt description

reply

[–] reclame_nl 11 years ago

Look at it from the bright side: the sales person was only trying to help (and he probably has ample reason to assume you accidentally picked the 'wrong' version), and he did apologize.

Where I come from, sales persons are usually not helpful, and rarely apologize. ;-)

I hate my job as a career adviser.

reply

[–] zap644 10 years ago

I think he was just reacting to the fact that a lot of people don't want to bother with subtitles. Perhaps he could have handled it better. (e.g "You realize this is the foreign version with subtitles?")

It probably gets tiresome to have people come in and complain that a movie is not the version they expected.

I just watched the Swedish version earlier and now I'm eager to watch the American one to compare and contrast. I'm one of those people who sometimes finds subtitles tedious. (What? I gotta read and watch at the same time?)

Yet in this case I was pleased with doing so.

reply

[–] synikk 10 years ago

I saw the swedish version before the american version was even in existence. I have to say that I prefer rooney mara so much more as Lisbeth. I can somewhat agree the american remake had a bit more content and detail, but it really wasn't much of an improvement, in any way.

I felt the same way about let the right one in / let me in. In that case, I did see the american let me in first and I do feel it is SLIGHTLY better than the original, but those 2 films are even more identical than the dragon tattoo remakes.

All in all, both remakes were unnecessary and did not add much at all. Dumb american audiences will prefer the hollywood versions because americans are lazy and cannot handle subtitles. Yes the production values are higher on the remakes, but the originals were good enough to begin with.

reply

[–] BulmaPunkRocker 10 years ago

That's sad indeed. You'll lost a lot of the actor emotions through dubbing.
It's ok for TV films I guess, but If you're buying the original DVD, you should be able to have the option to choose original language with subtitles.
If you're not used to subtitles, it may distract you.
Here in my country, dubbed films broadcasted in theaters are mainly for children audiences (who can't read, or read very slowly).
Most movies come only with subtitles. So we are used to it. In Chile, our native language is spanish. Most of us enjoys films and tv series on their original language (english/french/japanese, etc.). Of course people with some kind of troubles on their sight may prefer dubbed versions (like my mother, she's 62, has presbyopia, so she prefers dubbed movies on tv).

I guess it's a cultural thing.

Please excuse my terrible redaction, english is not my native language.

reply

[–] maxi-foo 10 years ago

So sad.

reply