David Fincher's Version - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

JP Liz V1 · 05-08-2010 11:10AM #1

http://www.frontrowreviews.co.uk/news/daniel-craig-signs-on-for-dragon-tattoo-trilogy/5593

Deadline has announced that Daniel Craig has signed on to star in David Fincher’s American adaptation of Stieg Larsson’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, a deal which could include the two follow up pictures, The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest. The bestselling ‘Millennium’ trilogy, written by Larsson has become a worldwide phenomenon, selling a total of 27 million copies as of May 2010. The stories of Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander were, unfortunately, halted by the death of Larsson in November 2004. But it is believed that half finished manuscripts of further stories do exist, and that a total of 10 were due to be completed.

The film is set to be released in December 2011

The top contenders rumoured for role of Lisbeth Salander are Ellen Page, Mia Wasikowska, Emily Browning, Sara Snook, Rooney Mara, Sophie Lowe and Carey Mulligan.

Evac105 · 05-08-2010 12:40PM

Hrm - the contenders for the role of Lisbeth aren't exactly impressing - none of them strike me as being able to portray her with the same hardness which Noomi Rapace gave the character.

Detour · 05-08-2010 06:46PM

Is there really a need for this film? The Swedish version is excellent, and it was only released a couple of years ago. Is a film not being in English that much of an obstacle.

In saying that I'll most likely go and see. Big fan of the books, and the movies to date.

mikhail · 05-08-2010 09:49PM

Detour wrote: »

Is there really a need for this film? The Swedish version is excellent, and it was only released a couple of years ago. Is a film not being in English that much of an obstacle.

In saying that I'll most likely go and see. Big fan of the books, and the movies to date.

So you'll give a financial incentive to studios to repeat a behaviour you argue is pointless? Nice.

johnny_ultimate · 05-08-2010 10:07PM

Detour wrote: »

Is there really a need for this film? The Swedish version is excellent, and it was only released a couple of years ago. Is a film not being in English that much of an obstacle.

Yeah the Swedish film is as good an adaptation as you'll get! If they spent more time on the

Wennerstrom affair

- which I thought was unfairly glossed over in the movie - I'd be interested, but at the same time adding more content would make it unwieldy. Genuinely see no need in this remake so soon, especially since the DVD has a dubbed version for those who are truly opposed to subtitles (and there are a lot of said people).

The reviews for the Girl Who Played With Fire haven't been as positive though, maybe they need a second go at that (haven't seen the Swedish one yet personally). I've finished the books now, and will watch the next two films out of curiosity, but don't know if I'd watch a second film, even with a talented director like Fincher. Only so much Salander and Blomkvist one can take - although Larrsson supposedly planned a ten book cycle :eek:

Detour · 05-08-2010 10:51PM

Going to see the second movie tonight. I'll let you know.

Mikhail - you are right, but i think the argument still stands. A remake is unnecessary, but with Fincher at the helm it'll still probably be good. Needless is all.

pixelburp · 06-08-2010 10:21AM

Detour wrote: »

Is there really a need for this film? The Swedish version is excellent, and it was only released a couple of years ago. Is a film not being in English that much of an obstacle.

In saying that I'll most likely go and see. Big fan of the books, and the movies to date.

Never underestimate some people's utter allergy to the notion of subtitles. Seriously: even in an American movie like Inception that had - what? - 2/3 lines of dialogue at the start in Chinese, some Dubliner behind me in the cinema noisily demanded of his mates "jaysus, this fooking movie's not in subtitles, is it?".

I'd actually be keen enough to see another adaptation of the first book because I seem to be one of the few that thought the Swedish movie was leaden paced & really glossed over some elements (I found the second movie even worse tbh). Most notably was the

Wennerstrom

, but Lisbeth's inclusion in the main plot wasn't as graceful and natural as in the novel. She just comes across as a total psycho, rather than a complex, damaged human being.

Characters in general were pretty thinly drawn & even some glaring plotholes presented themselves in the movie version (specifically:

the pressed flowers posted to Vanger were never explained; indeed, the person behind it in the novel was written out of the film's script completely so we never get any explanation

)

irish_stevo815 · 06-08-2010 07:59PM

Just finished reading the first book today and i really enjoyed it. Am gonna pick up ".........played with fire" over the weekend and watch the first movie as well. I was pretty surprised to read that they are being remade so soon but think Daniel Craig would be good as Mikael Blomkvist - he has the look anyway.

I also noticed that the movie version of ".........played with fire" is out August 27th in the cinemas. But was wondering if it will be released nationwide or just selected cinemas. I'm asking this becasue i dont remember seeing the first one advertised in any cinemas around.

irish_stevo815 · 06-08-2010 08:15PM

Looks like the role of Erika Berger in Fincher's version has been filled, Robyn Wright, who starred in State of Play & The Princess Bride is reported to star alongside Daniel Craig as Mikael Blomkvist's "occasional lover".

Link from IGN: http://ie.movies.ign.com/articles/111/1110799p1.html

johnny_ultimate · 06-08-2010 09:31PM

irish_stevo815 wrote: »

I also noticed that the movie version of ".........played with fire" is out August 27th in the cinemas. But was wondering if it will be released nationwide or just selected cinemas. I'm asking this becasue i dont remember seeing the first one advertised in any cinemas around.

First one got a pretty wide release due to the popularity of the book. Big release for a foreign language film in any case, so I'd say there'll be a good few screens showing it. Although I can't say for certain, my knowledge is limited to the Dublin area!

JP Liz V1 · 09-08-2010 10:20AM

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/08/07/fincher-dragon-tattoo-natalie-portman/

In the past few days, Robin Wright and Stellan Skarsgard have begun negotiating with Sony Pictures for crucial roles in the highly anticipated The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. (Wright, in particular, is perfectly cast as Erika Berger, Mikael Blomkvist’s editor-in-chief and longtime lover in author Stieg Larsson’s Millennium series.) But where is David Fincher’s girl? A second round of screen tests were conducted last week with four fairly unknown actresses who donned complete Lisbeth Salander garb to play the troubled heroine opposite Daniel Craig as Blomkvist. Fincher and Sony, however, have yet to make a decision.
Perhaps the whole idea of going with an unknown to carry such an important franchise is too big of a gamble for the studio. No one at Sony is talking, but an insider assures me that an unfamiliar actress will land the role. But rumblings around town suggest a different scenario: Natalie Portman, who was rumored to have been offered the role by Fincher and to have declined, may be back in the mix. Word is the studio is pretty high on the diminutive actress, who could slip into the role of the troubled antisocial hacker with relative ease, at least from a looks perspective. Evan Rachel Wood has also been suggested — another interesting choice considering the actress’ penchant for dark roles (see: True Blood).
Regardless of experience, Lisbeth Salander isn’t an easy role. Making it more difficult is the filmmaker’s current plan to have all the players speak with Swedish accents, a decision that could potentially prove distracting. Should the accents not be delivered flawlessly, the film’s stars could also be a potential target for ridicule.
It’s radio silence from the studio as to when a decision will be made. Sony had such good luck announcing Andrew Garfield as their new Spider-Man to the world without advance press interference that they are hoping to do the same with Tattoo. With so much attention on the project, there could be a concerted effort to spread misinformation. But with a release date already set for Dec. 21, 2011, one thing’s for sure: Time is running out.

speedboatchase · 09-08-2010 11:46AM

Lisbeth is such a difficult role to cast that a lot of the movies success or failure, at least critically, will depend on it. Have to say I baulked at the suggestion of Carey Mulligan until I saw An Education over the weekend - she was fantastic and could be a good fit. Although I like the Daniel Craig casting, I would've preferred Viggo Mortensen

johnny_ultimate · 09-08-2010 12:16PM

As much as I like Natalie Portman - and I most certainly like Natalie Portman - I don't know if she's right for the role. Or Carey Mulligan at that. They both sort of lack the edge that defines Salander, or they've excelled in roles that are often the polar opposite of what the character stands for. It just seems the whole casting hullaballo over this remake is redundant, considering we have a perfect Salander right here:

Beruthiel · 09-08-2010 02:17PM

Detour wrote: »

Is there really a need for this film?

No. There isn't.
It's an awful shame that so many people allow subtitles put them off watching the original film.
It's a rare thing that an english remake out does the original.

Playboy · 09-08-2010 02:35PM

Well its not an original movie .. its an adaptation of a novel. The swedish version was ok but certainly not brilliant. David fincher is an excellent director and with more money and resources will potentially make a better movie that the swedish version. I really dont get why people get the knickers in a twist over remakes. If you dont want to watch it then dont go see it .. simple as. Its not like noone can ever watch the original again because it has been remade. I watch plenty of world cinema but there are plenty of occasions where the remake has been better than the original or just as good.

billymitchell · 09-08-2010 02:45PM

Watched the 3 films there recently. Have to save, none of them me away. This is coming from a person who hasnt read the books.

First one was good, but I wouldnt say that it couldn't have been done better. 2 and 3 were poor, stories were all over the place, but that could have just been the way the stories are in the books.

TBH, I am usually not a fan of Hollywood remakes, but I would be interested to see how this one turns out. It may be worse than the original, but lets wait and see.

irish_stevo815 · 09-08-2010 02:49PM

billymitchell wrote: »

Watched the 3 films there recently.

I thought only the first movie was releases thus far, with part 2 out in a couple of weeks?? Or is this just the worldwide releases and the movies have only been released in Sweden already?

pixelburp · 09-08-2010 03:15PM

irish_stevo815 wrote: »

I thought only the first movie was releases thus far, with part 2 out in a couple of weeks?? Or is this just the worldwide releases and the movies have only been released in Sweden already?

They're already out in Sweden, out on DVD too if I recall. I watched the second part about 3/4 months ago so it's been about at least that long.

billymitchell · 09-08-2010 03:16PM

irish_stevo815 wrote: »

I thought only the first movie was releases thus far, with part 2 out in a couple of weeks?? Or is this just the worldwide releases and the movies have only been released in Sweden already?

Movies were released in Sweden last year. So I managed to get my hands on part 2 and 3(subtitled).

I havent read the books, so I cant say what the films are like in comparison to the books. But compared to the first film, they pale(sp?) in comparison. The stories dont really flow that well, action is a bit poor, character development is shoddy. They really do lack the impact of the first one, but maybe thats not a bad thing.

johnny_ultimate · 09-08-2010 03:37PM

The problems with the 2nd and 3rd film (haven't seen them yet) I'd imagine are at least partially a result of the source material. They're both far more meandering books than the first. The first plays out far more like a standard thriller, with a tight focus and a comparatively limited cast of characters. Without spoiling anything, the next two books up the scale and character count, which loses a lot of focus IMO. They still have plenty of good ideas, but there are so many people involved and the plot has grown so complex that they both lack the more adaptable narrative of the first. The structure of the second and third books jumps perspective an awful lot, and the second book doesn't even feature Salander for the middle third or so. The third is even more unwieldy, and while I loved the heavier focus on Millennium activities, the core plot could indeed have done with a far heavier edit, which alas is possibly a result of the author's death.

I definitely don't think the first was an amazing film or anything, and having seen it a few days after finishing the book meant it seemed unremarkable at the time. However, as an adaptation it was as loyal as you could've got - bar the absence we've already mentioned. I looked on it as serviceable without being inspired - although I sometimes looked at the books that way too, until there was another moment of excitement or plot development that kept you turning the pages!

billymitchell · 09-08-2010 04:24PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The problems with the 2nd and 3rd film (haven't seen them yet) I'd imagine are at least partially a result of the source material. They're both far more meandering books than the first. The first plays out far more like a standard thriller, with a tight focus and a comparatively limited cast of characters. Without spoiling anything, the next two books up the scale and character count, which loses a lot of focus IMO. They still have plenty of good ideas, but there are so many people involved and the plot has grown so complex that they both lack the more adaptable narrative of the first. The structure of the second and third books jumps perspective an awful lot, and the second book doesn't even feature Salander for the middle third or so. The third is even more unwieldy, and while I loved the heavier focus on Millennium activities, the core plot could indeed have done with a far heavier edit, which alas is possibly a result of the author's death.

I definitely don't think the first was an amazing film or anything, and having seen it a few days after finishing the book meant it seemed unremarkable at the time. However, as an adaptation it was as loyal as you could've got - bar the absence we've already mentioned. I looked on it as serviceable without being inspired - although I sometimes looked at the books that way too, until there was another moment of excitement or plot development that kept you turning the pages!

I agree with your comments on the first, that it does standalone as a thriller in itself. And it was expansive enough to leave room for a sequel.

I though the second book did introduce some new characters, but not an amount that would have you scratching your head. I thought the story was boring TBH. It just seem to go off on a tangent that you didnt care about for most of the film. Then right at the end, it got back on track. But it was all over the place that film.

Number 3 is just like an episode of "This is your life" with the characters from the film. Very unwieldly piece of work as well.

paddyismaddy · 10-08-2010 04:29PM

they should cast an unknown as Lisbeth Salander

pixelburp · 10-08-2010 04:36PM

They should just hire Noomi Rapace to play the role again; I mean she is Swedish afterall, likely bilingual and probably has better English than most Americans anyway & she's clearly a great fit for the character.

PhiloCypher · 10-08-2010 04:58PM

pixelburp wrote: »

They should just hire Noomi Rapace to play the role again; I mean she is Swedish afterall, likely bilingual and probably has better English than most Americans anyway & she's clearly a great fit for the character.

I read an interview with her In Empire a month ago she says she has zero interest in playing the same role again for another 3 movies no matter who the director is .

Rumour has it Emma Watsons newly cropped hair is down to her pushing for the the Role .

speedboatchase · 16-08-2010 06:37PM

Rooney Mara cast as Lisbeth Salander. No idea who she is either

http://www.deadline.com/2010/08/rooney-mara-gets-lisbeth-salander-role-in-dragon-tattoo/

filmfan · 16-08-2010 07:32PM

She recently starred in the Nightmare on Elm Street re-boot and will star alongside Daniel Craig

Sad Professor · 16-08-2010 07:43PM

She has a small but important role in Fincher's next film, The Social Network, as well. In the trailer, she's the girl talking to Zuckerberg at the beginning.

JP Liz V1 · 19-08-2010 10:52AM

speedboatchase wrote: »

Rooney Mara cast as Lisbeth Salander. No idea who she is either

http://www.deadline.com/2010/08/rooney-mara-gets-lisbeth-salander-role-in-dragon-tattoo/

Jorioz · 22-08-2010 10:28PM

I think she has a quirky look which would suit the role of Salander. I also think its far better to cast an unknown, Carey and Emma would be bad in the role, too cutesy but you can see how they want to get out of their comfort zone and not be typecast... tricky for Emma Watson. She might suffer from being forever Hermione. Im going to see the 2nd one when it comes out at the weekend, interested to see how they have interpreted the book.
I do think it is a case though that Hollywood want to jump on the franchise bandwagon of the trilogy.

Renn · 23-08-2010 10:32AM

Thought the original was a bit pants myself. Tbh, I thought the book was well overrated. It's okay but just not as good as everyone was making it out to be - maybe it was a translation issue, or the length of it (could have been 100 pages shorter imo), or the constant plugging of various Apple devices - I dunno. The film didn't really give any depth to the characters and I felt the acting was pretty sub-standard. It was far too by the numbers for me.

speedboatchase · 23-08-2010 10:57AM

Renn wrote: »

Thought the original was a bit pants myself. Tbh, I thought the book was well overrated. It's okay but just not as good as everyone was making it out to be - maybe it was a translation issue, or the length of it (could have been 100 pages shorter imo), or the constant plugging of various Apple devices - I dunno. The film didn't really give any depth to the characters and I felt the acting was pretty sub-standard. It was far too by the numbers for me.

Absolutely. The second book reads like a TV miniseries, certainly not worth the high stakes of a blockbuster sequel, while I don't see how anyone could turn the third book into an entertaining film?

David Fincher's Version - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Comments