The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (US) Pre-Release Discussion - Page 2

Edit:GAH DOUBLE POST!

I would argue she's sexualized, even if she's androgynous. And in the first movie, she's seen in bed with a female partner. Later she seduces Blomkvist. In the third movie, she takes another female lover (maybe the previous one, can't tell). Not a lot of sex. The point is the context.

First of all, clearly she isn't monogamous. Secondly, there's no reasoning for taking Blomkvist to bed, except as some sort of strategy. She does it so casually that it's clearly old hat to her at this point. And when she seduces her lesbian lover, it's clearly an open relationship of sorts, because she's also on her way out, leaving her the apartment. It would seem more serious if we got to know this character, but we don't, and she barely has any lines.

The issue with this is that Blomkvist is also depicted as a bed-hopper. But most of his sexual exploits are "tastefully" portrayed - the morning after, the secret whispers, the hand-holding. But every time Lizbeth gets naked, the camera lingers over her nude body. Her two big sex scenes are shot like erotic softcore Cinemax sequences. The film treats Blomkvist's sexual exploits as an afterthought, but Lizbeth is totally realized as a sexual creature.

Did someone raise the thermostat in here? It's getting kind of warm.

I don't recall her doing anything particularly super heroic over the course of those films. Maybe it's a failure of memory, but she seemed fairly grounded as far as action heroism goes 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

I would argue she's sexualized, even if she's androgynous. And in the first movie, she's seen in bed with a female partner. Later she seduces Blomkvist. In the third movie, she takes another female lover (maybe the previous one, can't tell). Not a lot of sex. The point is the context.

 

First of all, clearly she isn't monogamous. Secondly, there's no reasoning for taking Blomkvist to bed, except as some sort of strategy. She does it so casually that it's clearly old hat to her at this point. And when she seduces her lesbian lover, it's clearly an open relationship of sorts, because she's also on her way out, leaving her the apartment. It would seem more serious if we got to know this character, but we don't, and she barely has any lines.

 

The issue with this is that Blomkvist is also depicted as a bed-hopper. But most of his sexual exploits are "tastefully" portrayed - the morning after, the secret whispers, the hand-holding. But every time Lizbeth gets naked, the camera lingers over her nude body. Her two big sex scenes are shot like erotic softcore Cinemax sequences. The film treats Blomkvist's sexual exploits as an afterthought, but Lizbeth is totally realized as a sexual creature.

None of that seems terribly scandalous to me. If female characters are shown to have non monogamous sex, it is somehow a portrayal of a male fantasy? In terms of how the sex scenes were shot you may have a point Gabe, but that could partly be to do with the fact Blomkvist was portrayed by a kind of puffy faced guy with skin issues. I'd be surprised if the camera doesn't linger on Craig's impressive physique when we get the Fincher version

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

I've said this before, but as great as Fincher is, he doesn't elevate mediocre material. If you don't like the story of THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, which I don't, you're not going to like this film. It is likely to be an improvement on the Swedish film in the technical sense, but anyone expecting to have their minds blown by some radical re-working of the so-so source material is heading for a disappointment, I guarantee it.

An interesting point.  I watched the original Swedish film while the hype for it was going on strong, and I came away less than impressed: the first half of the film felt incredibly disjointed, focusing on  Mikael's Blomkvist dull search as to who murdered the girl, and Lis-RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE!!!!!!!!  

I guess I want to believe that someone like Fincher could take this material (as far as the original film is concerned.  I never read the books) and make it into the masterpiece people claimed the original swedish films were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

I would argue she's sexualized, even if she's androgynous. And in the first movie, she's seen in bed with a female partner. Later she seduces Blomkvist. In the third movie, she takes another female lover (maybe the previous one, can't tell). Not a lot of sex. The point is the context.

 

First of all, clearly she isn't monogamous. Secondly, there's no reasoning for taking Blomkvist to bed, except as some sort of strategy. She does it so casually that it's clearly old hat to her at this point. And when she seduces her lesbian lover, it's clearly an open relationship of sorts, because she's also on her way out, leaving her the apartment. It would seem more serious if we got to know this character, but we don't, and she barely has any lines.

 

The issue with this is that Blomkvist is also depicted as a bed-hopper. But most of his sexual exploits are "tastefully" portrayed - the morning after, the secret whispers, the hand-holding. But every time Lizbeth gets naked, the camera lingers over her nude body. Her two big sex scenes are shot like erotic softcore Cinemax sequences. The film treats Blomkvist's sexual exploits as an afterthought, but Lizbeth is totally realized as a sexual creature.

Wait, you haven't read the books?  All this time that's what I thought we were talking about.  I'm not defending the Swedish films.  Like I said, I liked the first one, thought the second and third ones were TV-movie level bad.

What do you mean by sexualized?  My earlier point is that she's sexualized to the point of exploitation in the marketing campaign, not necessarily in Fincher's film.  As depicted in the books, she's a sexual person, who acts on her sexual impulses when she has them, and I don't see how that's a problem, but she's not the type to pose tantalizingly to sell things, which is what bothers me about the marketing.   Like this, for example:

This and other magazine campaigns really bugged me because they seem antithetical to the character as written and seem a totally bad way to sell a movie like this.  The character is nobody's plaything.
 

If you haven't read the books, you really should.  That's the character I'm talking about in this discussion.  I'm hoping Fincher captures the character as she is in the books, and based on the amazing 8-minute trailer, I'm thinking he may have succeeded.

I was referring to the original movies, of which I found so odious that I might just even skip Fincher's version.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

 

Wait, you haven't read the books?  All this time that's what I thought we were talking about.  I'm not defending the Swedish films.  Like I said, I liked the first one, thought the second and third ones were TV-movie level bad.

 

What do you mean by sexualized?  My earlier point is that she's sexualized to the point of exploitation in the marketing campaign, not necessarily in Fincher's film.  As depicted in the books, she's a sexual person, who acts on her sexual impulses when she has them, and I don't see how that's a problem, but she's not the type to pose tantalizingly to sell things, which is what bothers me about the marketing.   Like this, for example:

 

 

This and other magazine campaigns really bugged me because they seem antithetical to the character as written and seem a totally bad way to sell a movie like this.  The character is nobody's plaything.
 

If you haven't read the books, you really should.  That's the character I'm talking about in this discussion.  I'm hoping Fincher captures the character as she is in the books, and based on the amazing 8-minute trailer, I'm thinking he may have succeeded.

It's just a way that they, sadly, have to get everyone else into the theaters to see this.  I don't think Hollywood thinks Fincher's name is enough to draw crowds (despite Social Network's success), and they're trying to make the character into an alternative sex symbol.  It doesn't necessarily bother me as it doesn't seem to carry into the final product.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

I was referring to the original movies, of which I found so odious that I might just even skip Fincher's version.

You found the first movie odious and yet you still decided to see the second, which you also found odious yet still decided to watch the third? But from your reaction to those movies you feel you may avoid a new production from a different filmmaker?

Is there something you're not telling us Gabe? I mean, I ain't no Swedish detective, but something just ain't adding up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

I was referring to the original movies, of which I found so odious that I might just even skip Fincher's version.

Really?  Wow.  Well, like most of Fincher's movies, it's probably not for everyone. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Oreo 

It's just a way that they, sadly, have to get everyone else into the theaters to see this.  I don't think Hollywood thinks Fincher's name is enough to draw crowds (despite Social Network's success), and they're trying to make the character into an alternative sex symbol.  It doesn't necessarily bother me as it doesn't seem to carry into the final product.

I think you're right.  In the trailer, Lisbeth seems very true to the character in the book, but still, these pictures, ugh. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucho 

You found the first movie odious and yet you still decided to see the second, which you also found odious yet still decided to watch the third? But from your reaction to those movies you feel you may avoid a new production from a different filmmaker?

 

Is there something you're not telling us Gabe? I mean, I ain't no Swedish detective, but something just ain't adding up.

It was my job. I can't always avoid movies I don't want to see.

Oddly enough, I might be all alone in extremely disliking the first movie, thinking the second was an improvement, and feeling the third film was somewhere in between. The second and third ones aren't so goddamned rapey, so I was mostly content with them, but the second movie is over-the-top ridiculous, and about half of the third movie happens in court, and it's dreadfully boring.

Look, guys, you want to read a novel that does everything Laarson tried to do, has a lot of really interesting things to say about perceptions of women, misogyny, and isn't patronizing, read Christa Faust's Money Shot. 

The movies of FIRE and HORNETS NEST should have been combined into one movie.  They're parts one and two of the same story and don't work as standalone films.  Regardless, I'm with yt on this: they're TV movie-of-the-week in quality.  

Noomi is great in all three, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

It was my job. I can't always avoid movies I don't want to see.

Oddly enough, I might be all alone in extremely disliking the first movie, thinking the second was an improvement, and feeling the third film was somewhere in between. The second and third ones aren't so goddamned rapey, so I was mostly content with them, but the second movie is over-the-top ridiculous, and about half of the third movie happens in court, and it's dreadfully boring.

While I don't hate the first film, I don't think it's a great film in any way.  The problem with the first film is that Lisbeth's rape drama felt like scenes from a completely different movie, and didn't exactly mesh well with the actual mystery. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Oreo 

While I don't hate the first film, I don't think it's a great film in any way.  The problem with the first film is that Lisbeth's rape drama felt like scenes from a completely different movie, and didn't exactly mesh well with the actual mystery. 

I like DRAGON TATTOO, but I can totally agree with your statement.  They could have excised (or truncated) the rape element quite easily as it really has very little to do with THAT MOVIE.  It has everything to do with HORNETS NEST, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

 

It was my job. I can't always avoid movies I don't want to see.

Oh is that right Gabe? Just like it was the Nazis' job to do what Hitler told them to do? Just like it was George W Bush's job to do what Cheney and Rumsfeld told him to do?!?! Just like it was the Son Of Sam's job to do what that dog told him to do?!?!?! ARE YOU JUST MISUNDERSTOOD GABE?!?!?!?!?!?!

You make me sick.

This was a nice touch.

Wonder Fincher had a hand in making this.

Is the reporter for the story the dude who played Radzinsky on Lost!?

The second and third movie WAS a TV production. After the succes of the first movie they decided to edit the TV miniseries into 2 movies.

Just curious. But based on the clips you've seen, how do you find Rooney's version of Salander over Rapace's version?

Footage looks gorgeous.

I read that piece earlier today.  I just LOVE Fincher's matter-of-fact words on the situation.  He's towing the company line, certainly.  But he does it in a totally sensible manner while getting his digs in at the marketing machine at the same time.

I got the soundtrack today. 3 hours of music! I have only listened to a few tracks so far, and I'm digging it.

The "Immigrant Song" Video by Fincher.

Apparently he'll be using this in the opening credits. I dig it.

DC adapting "Dragon Tattoo Trilogy" in March 2012.

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

The "Immigrant Song" Video by Fincher.

 

Apparently he'll be using this in the opening credits. I dig it.

So good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

The "Immigrant Song" Video by Fincher.

 

Apparently he'll be using this in the opening credits. I dig it.

Yeah, these are the opening credits. They look a LOT better on the big screen. Who knew David Fincher wanted to remake Tetsuo The Iron Man?

Now that embargo has ended, I can conclusively state I have disliked all eleven hours I have spent with Lisbeth Salander. These last three were probably the best, but not by much.

This movie will bomb...badly. Firstly, the original movie is grossly overrated, TV movie style shit. Secondly, fuck the character of Lisbeth Salander who is every fucking cliche of Goth/Emo chicks imaginable. "Ohhhh, she's covered with tattoo's, piercings and fucks other girls! How transgressive!", yeah, if you've spent your entire life living Amish. Sorry but women who make themselves up like that only do so because they want to delude themselves into thinking that putting ink and metal all over your body, while dressing like a scumbag, makes you an individual, it doesn't, and you're just like millions of other people who do the exact same thing. You are not special. The other reason is that they want attention. They want people to notice them and, in Salader's case, she's just another skanky wench who acts cold and detached to cover for the fact that she's screaming on the inside for people to notice her pain which she externalizes with her costume, which is what it is.

Anywho, spending 100 million on a 3 hour remake of this (and yes, REMAKE, as it's adapted from the same book and doesn't look drastically different from the original) is a massive fucking mistake, especially when you consider that the original only cost 13 million and only made 104 million worldwide. Of course I'm not surprised that the remake cost 100 million as Fincher is in his Kurbrick phase of shooting 100 takes of everything whether he needs to or not. But then this also doesn't surprise me either as Rooney Mara is a horrible fucking actor and only got the part because she is most likely fucking Fincher, which explains the hundreds of takes.

So, a three hour serial killer movie that cost 100 million with a shitty actress in the major role along side Daniel Craig who has ZERO box office outside of Bond, Directed by Fincher who isn't a sure thing. My assessment....

It sounds like you're personally offended Tax Master.  This thing isn't going to bomb, despite your bias. 

Tax Master, take no offense from this, but no one cares.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Tax Master, take no offense from this, but no one cares.

Shouldn't you be stalking Faraci's sister?

Fresh material, I love it!

I didn't much care for the original. The biggest disappointment for me wasn't the main character being cliché, but rather the killer being that way. The whole movie was building towards the reveal of him, and when it finally showed who he is, what he's done, and how he's done it, everything felt very old hat to me. Trying way too hard to be 'shocking' with excessive misogyny and gruesomeness on the part of the character and his actions. Standard grotesque serial killer stuff. I also thought the mystery was way too dull and drawn out.

The one thing that appealed to me was the lead actress. I liked her character, her performance, and the look she adapted to play the character. I don't care if the character can be handily classified as a 'type' of person that can be found readily in the world. Even if her surface characteristics weren't unique, the way Noomi Rapace played her was, as far as I'm concerned. I found her screen presence, her way of delivering dialog, her body language, and even the way she wore her "costume" to be fascinating and novel. It may not be the most original look, but I can't remember the last time a movie character made it feel fresh by wearing it so well.

Since her look and performance were the movie's only highlights for me, I see a re-make as the definition of unnecessary. Noomi Rapace was perfectly cast in the role. I have no interest in seeing someone else's interpretation of it. This is what I'd call one of those examples of someone getting a role they were 'born to play'. "The Social Network" was my favourite David Fincher movie yet (I've seen and enjoyed all of them except "The Game" and "Benjamin Button", of which I've seen parts), but I'm skipping this one.

Pretty sure Mara isn't fucking FIncher. Cean Chaffin would have his balls.

And yes, this will do pretty good business. The books are huge, and many haven't seen the original films.

And Fincher isn't in his "Kubrickian phase." Fincher has been that way since he started. He was that way on Alien 3. And from personal experience, you will go through all those takes until he sees what he wants. And sometimes he does so many takes for a reason, such as getting the actors into the state he wants them in. And at least with Fincher, you know he is trying to make a great movie.

And please, take your sexism elsewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casey Moore 

Pretty sure Mara isn't fucking FIncher. Cean Chaffin would have his balls.

 

According to Empire there was definitely something Hitchcockian between Fincher and Mara, at least.

And I can't believe I didn't watch the video clip until now. It is the best thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casey Moore 

Pretty sure Mara isn't fucking FIncher. Cean Chaffin would have his balls.

 

And yes, this will do pretty good business. The books are huge, and many haven't seen the original films.

 

And Fincher isn't in his "Kubrickian phase." Fincher has been that way since he started. He was that way on Alien 3. And from personal experience, you will go through all those takes until he sees what he wants. And sometimes he does so many takes for a reason, such as getting the actors into the state he wants them in. And at least with Fincher, you know he is trying to make a great movie.

 

And please, take your sexism elsewhere.

No. This is Fincher saying "I'M DAVID FUCKING FINCHER AND YOU WILL JUMP THROUGH MY FUCKING HOOPS!!!" just like Kubrick did. There is absolutely ZERO fucking reason for shooting 100 takes of anything and I can't stand it when people say "oh but he's searching for perfection". FUCK! OFF! Lesser mortals have made better movies than anything Herr Fincher or Herr Kubrick have ever done without resorting to egomaniacal and unprofessional bullshit like that.

When you make a movie, there's this thing called REHEARSALS. First there's usually a table reading of the script that happens for two or three days. This lets actors roles the script around and for everyone to make changes as people come up with idea's. Then you move onto stage rehearsals where you start working on the physicality of the script as the Director starts blocking scene's. The final stage is dress rehearsals where you get the actors on set, preferably in costume, and the Director fine tunes everything before shooting. This process should take at least two to three weeks and by the end of it the Director should have exactly what he wants in his mind while keeping himself open to good things that happen on the way.

So there is no need, what-so-ever, to shoot 100 takes of anything unless you're either a sloppy movie maker or just a fucking asshole who gets off on exerting authority and wasting time.

Jeez, guys, Fincher's dick is innocent until proven guilty, right?

I've actually heard a lot of bizarre double-speak from insiders about Mara on this flick. While I bet she's probably a handful on this role (and Fincher's a noted taskmaster), it's probably nothing more than a bunch of male assholes in Hollywood.

Also, if this is Fincher in "Kubrick mode" then I don't think I want to be a Fincher fan. I don't necessarily worship at his altar, but he usually doesn't disappoint, and this is my least favorite movie from him. The first two hours are very nearly a shot-by-shot remake. The ending is different (surprise- IT MAKES SENSE!) but the arc they give Lisbeth put a rotten taste in my mouth. Mikhail Blomkvist remains a giant, boring asshole.

Also, the serial killer listens to Enya. I couldn't think of a reason for this other than a dumb Scandanavian har-de-har.

I don't post a lot, but I read a lot, and Tax Master is easily the most annoying new poster in this joint.

The embargo is evidently over.  Here is an excerpt from the brilliant review at http://www.awardsdaily.com/2011/12/finchers-dragon-tattoo-what-it-feels-like-for-a-girl/

Dying to see this.