MovieChat Forums > Millennium (2010) Discussion > I hate the changes made, I stopped watch...

I hate the changes made, I stopped watching the movie - SPOILERS

posted 13 years ago by alebalderas
6 replies | jump to latest

I agree that a movie made from a book is not going to contain everything, that is obvious. But why so many changes?? Stieg Larsson whould be really angree with the movie.

1. Anita died??!! come on!! she was the way to find Harriet.
2. Mikael remembers Harriet as baby sitter??, he was 2 years old!! and with those remebers, he got clues to solve the case.
3. Lisbeth never sent an email to Mikael, NEVER!!, my favorite part in the book is when she meets Mikael, she does not expect it, in the movie they just destroy that scene.
4. Martin Vanger commit suicide, it was not an accident (I jumped to the end)
5., 6, 7, 8 .. ad so on.

It is incredible, but Hollywood version will be better for sure.

[–] luke_whitt_luke 13 years ago

you picky bastard. stop comparing books to films. its incredibly irritable. they had to change certain aspects for the sake of pacing in a film. i dont think anyone would have wanted to sit through any further states of investigation. as well as they worked in the book, some things do not translate as well onto the screen.

i felt that the film and the entire adapted trilogy over all was absolutally sublime from start to finish (and i will gladdly jam forks into my eyes if i ever have to state those words again). not only was it brilliantly cast, scored and directed with vision, the pacing and translation of events to screen worked to a much greater extant than i could have hoped. As far as films them selves go it still felt slightly flawed at times (particulally "hornets nest"). also, Martin Vangers death was not a suicide in the film. he was hit by a passing truck similar to the book, only he survived the collision, and Lisbeth chose not to save him as his car burst into flames.

[–] laura9819 13 years ago

all though I disagree with your analysis of the film, which I loved by the way. I can completely understand your perspective. It's never easy to sit silently back, while watching one of your favorite books deteriorate right before your eyes. I felt the same way about Memoir's of a Geisha. I loved that book to death and was so excited, and proud to see it adapted to screen. That is, until I a actually saw the movie. I was disappointed with every aspect of that movie, right down to the director. I didn't like his pick for the leading character, I didn't like how the movie begin, how it progressed, or even how it ended. I felt the director and screen writer had virtually destroyed my favorite book.
With This movie-Men who Hate Women or Translated for American consumption The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, the books are so long, and heavily detailed that the screen writer didn't have a choice but to edit some of the story. I did feel that the male lead character was a wrong choice, but other then that I loved the Swedish take on this film. I have all three books and love them all, so if I would have just a big a tiff as you do, but I don't.
I felt Noomi Rapace was Lesbeth Salander, and did a remarkable job as that character, and really should have been given the proper acknowledgement for her role in this film, that wouldn't have been the success that it was, were it not for her performance. Also, I don't like Craig Daniel, unlike some women I am not captivated by his so-called-good looks, or sex appeal. I don't find him to be sexy, or interesting, or engaging as an actor. Rooney is just starting out, She did fine in the Social Network, but she wasn't this big scene stealer as some are saying, she was good, she kept my attention but not enough to acknowledge her as a scene stealer. This movie is supposed to be her break out performance her introduction into Hollywood, good luck to her she's going to need it.

[–] Malgorzata64 13 years ago

It is incredible, but Hollywood version will be better for sure.

I sometimes wonder if some of us will perhaps have a good laugh at all those "book purists" when Fincher's version comes out. What if it makes more changes than the Swedish version?

[–] bellatrix318-1 12 years ago

The Hollywood version sucked. Long live the Swedes.

[–] riddlebox1789 12 years ago

I bet the reason the guy who started this hasn't said anything was because he's seen the Hollywood "superior" version and found it was even less faithful to the book than the Swedish version was.

People really need to deal with the fact that it's pretty much impossible to make a film based on a book that's 100% accurate, things need to be changed in order to make it all fit into a set amount of time, if they had included every single detail of the book, it would've been far too long and they would've been forced to either cut stuff out entirely, or re-shoot it so it was shorter.

Things have always, i repeat ALWAYS been like that with novel based films, look at the Harry Potter movies, the Twilight movies, Jaws, any movie based on a Stephen King novel, even R.L. Stine's Goosebumps series has many differences from book to movie.

[–] SolitaryCZ 12 years ago

Actually many Stephen King's movies (those which he personally cooperated on) are almost complete adaptations... there is Stephen King's The Shining, which is 4h30m long (3x 1:30) and it was created as response on Kubrick's version which King actually disliked or Stephen King's The Stand, which is 6h long (4x 1:30), I am not sure about Stephen King's Rose Red as I did not read it, but the format is basically the same as previously stated films, so I expect accurate adaptation, but it's only a guess... They are usually low budgeted TV series, but are faithful to the original story almost word by word.

I am not saying this is the best format for adaptation, but it can be done... problem is that each movie can't be viewed as standalone and it's almost unbearably long and people probably want easier way out, story with shortcuts and good pacing... and I get it, people want to watch a MOVIE, not reenacted book.