Having seen both films and remembering only bits and pieces about the remade version, I wonder if it's worth revisiting the Fincher take or they're actually similar plot wise ?
shareIt’s definitely worth revisiting, the overall plot is the same but with enough subtle differences (some not so subtle), to make the viewing of each version well worth it.
No. Fincher didn't understand the story. Yet Oplev who directed the first in the Millennium Trilogy understood it completely given he's a Swede. The one scene on Hedeby Island where Lisbet mounts Blomkvist is where the two ideologies are vastly different. In Larsson's book Lisbet remains on top. Same with Oplev's version. However, in the Fincher version Blomkvist rolls her onto the bed adopting the missionary position in a male-dominant orientation. There was a reason Lisbet remained on top was due to what Bjurman did to her earlier in the film. Fincher clearly didn't understand that scene was perhaps the most important of the story. That trust she put in Blomkvist was important to the rest of the series. And I thought Michael Nykvist and Noomi Rapace understood that completely.
shareReaching for the stars on this one Prometheus, aren’t we?
Goodness gracious, they’re both excellent films in their own right.
Mara’s performance alone is worth the viewing.
Not according to Steig Larsson's partner, Eva Gabrielsson. According to her she thinks the whole thing, Fincher and particularly Mara were ill informed. She said Noomi Rapace was perfect. Gsbrielsson should know. She is THE GIRL. She cited that scene I mentioned as one of the reasons Fincher's film fell flat.
sharei agree with boots, that this is splitting a hair. the first film may have had some literary veracity weight to it, but that didn't make up for the differences in the way the film was presented, handled.
fincher's film is a masterpiece of presentation, so maybe we can cut him some tiny slack on a few of the extreme minute nuances only a hardcore fan would pick up on anyway. i think the fincher film is brilliant in every way, and engaging/electricfying to watch, whereas a 'correct story' version could very well come off as a bore because, news flash: film is its own art form! A--it is valued on different criteria from books, and B--it (moreover) has permission to take literary license when necessary to alter the product to better it for consumption (as a film)
my .02
I don't mind when remakes does things differently. But it is a bit odd that Fincher's version is far more accurate in terms of the narrative, but he misses on something like this. Your hyperbolic applause for this movie aside, I see why Prometheus wouldn't want to cut Fincher any slack on a very significant part of the main character's thematic development.
In fact, I'd say her being on top there is far more important than the closing scene of the book (where Lisbet is upset), which Oblev removed, but Fincher kept lol. So go figure.
The rest of your comments about a correct story being boring and literary license is kind of irrelevant because we're talking about specific creative choices here. We don't have to speak generally.
But as I am sure you are aware we sometimes speak in generalities as a means to add specificity. (as I just did right there)
but just for clarity's sake, I wasn't being general; I was specifically referring to the boring as FUCK swedish version, but I was trying to do it in a way that was non-offensive to the people who loved that version.
And now that is all ruined. Thanks!!!
Question: Are you a man or a woman? The answer does matter.
shareI am a man.
shareAnd there is why you'll never understand why Fincher's take on that scene is inherently bad for women and women in particular who have been sexually assaulted, raped, or molested. Fincher holds a very Western mindset of man on top, woman on bottom missionary position traditional role. Opelev filmed the scene as Larsson wrote it because it was very important to Lisbet who'd just endured appealing behaviour by Bjurman. The issue here between Lisbet and Blomkvist was trust. Lisbet needed to know she could trust him. And that scene was integral to the furtherance of that trust.
I am a woman. Not only a woman, but a woman who was raped at 13. What the Mara/Craig scene did was say to a woman like me, "Your agency doesn't matter. Nothing about what happened to you matters because it's only how a man defines you." That was what Fincher did. He didn't allow Mara to read the books to know Lisbet's mind and her agency. Opelev gave Lisbet that agency and also Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist understood the reason for the scene and filmed it thus.
Add to all of this, Eva Gabrielsson who was Stieg Larsson's long term partner was incensed by the amount of ignorance Mara and Fincher showed for the work. She was openly against Mara's "portrayal" as Mara clearly didin't understand the character due to Fincher telling her not to read the books. Gabrielsson's preferred casting was Noomi Rapace as Rapace actually got the character.
excuse me but i really don't understand your gripe. (aside from your patronizing comment about me being a man)
you are complaining because craig got on top in the sex scene at the cabin? i really don't get it.
now, just curious, what would you think if i in turn made some unflattering comments about females and their tendency towards overvaluing subjectivism over logic, facts, thought?
moreover, who said the film was made for rape victims' approval? it was made to be viewed by many various types of individuals, and you should not make assumptions about them the same way they shouldn't about you. maybe your incident, and i am very sorry that happened, makes this film too close to home for it to really be of value to you? that happens sometimes.
and, moreover moreover, i think fincher went to quite great lengths to paint an exceedingly graphic and HORRID portrayal of the sadistic nature of some men in the film, right down to the shit stains on the sheets from lisbeth revenge anal raping the man who raped her. so let me get this straight: you are actually complaining that the film is too soft on condemnation of women's history of being rape victims? smh
Narratively, it's a much closer to the book. I wouldn't say it's a waste of time to watch the Fincher take. But I don't think as an adaptation that's required viewing. I much prefer the Swedish version, even as an avid fan of the original books. I rewatch that one. I have no interest in rewatching Fincher's.
shareI have read the books multiple times, I own both film versions and in my mind, Fincher's take is closer to the book.
shareShaved armpits?? 🤭🤭
share