The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

Daniel Perez6 said:Wait, how did he stay faithful to the books when they already made a movie based on the first one? 😬

You clearly haven't read the books. 😍

Sorry, but quit telling me I haven't read the books when I basically know them by heart.
Besides, where did I even say Fincher made the 2nd and 3rd parts?
I was talking about the Swedish versions of the 2nd and 3rd installments.
Meant the book, not the books—my bad.

Lisa Alvarez4 said:It’s not even a question—all three books are sitting right on my desk.
Guess we weren't reading the same books then.
In the novels, Lisbeth is described as someone who almost certainly has Asperger's, which Rooney Mara played way better than Noomi Rapace (not that Noomi is to blame, really; it feels more like the director wanted a more Lisbeth-aggressive version instead of the slightly autistic-vulnerable vibe she has in the books and how Rooney nailed it).
Plus, physically, Lisbeth is supposed to look like a pale, skinny fifteen-year-old boy, whereas Noomi looks much stronger, darker, and obviously older.

I said you obviously hadn't read them, not that you didn't own them. I can see the distinction. 🤷

Each sequel is its own part of the trilogy. I don't get how he claims, and I quote: he left everything else to the books., when he only filmed the first installment. The first one. One. Single book. 🙂

She isn't physically stronger; she's just muscular. Lisbeth is psychologically vulnerable, which drives her social detachment, but she's quite combative in the books too.

That whole bit about the biblical passages was changed.

Look, I’m not even gonna try to convince anyone on this forum that I’ve actually read those books—they're easily some of my favorite crime thrillers ever.
When I said "everything else," I was talking about all those little details from the first book where Fincher stuck much closer to Larsson's original than he did with that whole thing involving Michael's daughter. But whatever, it doesn't matter.
To me, the book version of Lisbeth Salander feels more like Fincher's vision than anything else, and that's just my take. It's all about those tiny nuances. If you don't agree, you don't agree.

In Fincher's version, some scenes drag out longer (like when Michael
is inside the house before Martin captures him). I’d say the original version was
more minimalist. Now I probably need to rewatch Fincher's cut just to
refresh my memory since it's been about a year since I last saw it.
Either way, I liked both, though the original might be slightly better 😍

Quote : Kyle Cruz

Carl Bennett4 said:In Fincher's version, some scenes drag out longer (like when Michael
is inside the house before Martin captures him). I’d say the original version was
more minimalist. Now I probably need to rewatch Fincher's cut just to
refresh my memory since it's been about a year since I last saw it.
Either way, I liked both, though the original might be slightly better 😍

I feel like the US gets all the credit sometimes! I actually went through this series in order—read the book, watched the movie, and repeated that whole cycle three times. Isn't it funny how much you can pick up on a replay?

Noomi totally won me over from the very first moment she stepped into the role of Lisbeth. Doesn't she just nail it? 😍

Carl Bennett4 said:In Fincher's version, some scenes drag out longer (like when Michael
is inside the house before Martin captures him). I’d say the original version was
more minimalist. Now I probably need to rewatch Fincher's cut just to
refresh my memory since it's been about a year since I last saw it.
Either way, I liked both, though the original might be slightly better 😍

Personally, I think the American version goes way too minimal sometimes. It makes all those side plots and characters from the books feel super shallow. To me, the American versions are missing a ton of context. Fincher stuck much closer to the book regarding the Wennestar scandal, how Henrik Vanger Mikael Blomkvist convinced him to take the case, and that whole cover story for why he’s even in Stockholm in the first place (writing Vanger's biography). Plus, the dynamic between Mikael Blomkvist and Erik Berger (who is huge for the first and subsequent books), or how Mikael and Lisbeth-aggressive actually met—that was a great scene in the book and the American movie, but they messed it up in the other version. Then there's that brutal detail about the cat Mikael looked after (totally gone in the American version), and honestly, tons of details that add layers to the tension. Not to bring it up again, but they also cut his daughter's character in the American version.
I just remembered that in the American version, Lisbeth doesn't really have feelings for Mikael beyond some physical attraction, whereas in the book she actually falls for him. Fincher captured that right at the end when she went to give him his jacket and got hurt seeing him with Erik Berger. That's massive for their relationship dynamic in the later books/movies.

Thanks 🙂

Daniel Perez6 said:I already sent you a message earlier this afternoon. Take a look. My postIt’s written in white. 😬

Look, I haven't actually sat down with the books, so I can't really weigh in on how accurate the adaptation is, but I've seen the movies. And honestly? Nobody is going to convince me that Fincher's version isn't just a blatant, run-of-the-mill remake of the original Swedish films. There are way too many similarities for my liking; the only real difference is that Fincher gave it that polished, glossy Hollywood facelift.
There’s zero evidence of some grand, unique vision from Fincher here, and frankly, you don't even need to be a film critic to see right through the charade.

Fincher's version is just superior. You don't even need to be some kind of film critic to see that, do you?

Kyle Cruz said:Fincher's version is just superior. You don't even need to be some kind of film critic to see that, do you?

On what grounds? Just because Fincher was behind the camera? Aside from that one little detail... everything else feels like typical Hollywood cookie-cutter stuff—you know, the kind of thing they always churn out whenever they try to remake an original story that didn't come from the States...

briskhound2 said:On what grounds? Just because Fincher was behind the camera? Aside from that one little detail... everything else feels like typical Hollywood cookie-cutter stuff—you know, the kind of thing they always churn out whenever they try to remake an original story that didn't come from the States...

Plus, the original production had a much smaller budget than Fincher's... 😲😲

Kyle Cruz said:Fincher's version is just superior. You don't even need to be some kind of film critic to see that, do you?

But in what way? Honestly, Craig just doesn't fit that whole exhausted investigative reporter vibe... plus, there’s this total lack of atmosphere and mystery... 🙂

For instance—that black-and-white photo of the missing girl in the original film, you know, like in "Mona Lisa," really does wonders for the mood... whereas in Fincher's? There's nothing...

I guess what's good is that it stays more faithful to the source material, though I wouldn't say that's necessarily an advantage... the original movie cut out the fluff and focused the action right where it mattered most...

Also, the alternative take on Lisbeth is pretty interesting... still, either way, I'm leaning towards Noomi Rapace, even if some people claim she was closer to the book version in Fincher's take...

Oh, and yeah, Fincher's opening sequence isn't bad at all... 🙂

Just finished the second installment and here’s my two cents #5945

Does anyone else feel like Larsson's writing style is actually pretty similar to Dan Brown's?

I mean, I've been digging through some Brown books lately and honestly, the vibes are super similar.

So, I finally finished the trilogy, and honestly? I’m with the majority here—the first one is leagues ahead of the other two. The sequels felt kind of... naive? And like so many people have pointed out, they just weren't all that convincing. In the first book, it felt like pure coincidence that brought these two fascinatingly weird protagonists together, which worked so well. But in the rest of the series, it feels like they're trying way too hard to force everything into one big connected web. Honestly, it might have actually been better if Zala had no connection to Lisbeth at all—just let them be two separate, strange lives crossing paths by chance.

It really makes you wonder why the author even took that turn after starting off with such a killer premise.

How would they even be connected then? They wouldn't.
Michael is essentially a journalist, not some private investigator. The first part makes sense because he was basically blacklisted and stepped away from his reporting job just to focus on this case and wait for the heat to die down. 😉

Larsson nailed the second part by making Lisbeth the most wanted woman in the country almost by accident. That whole thing with the fingerprints was pure luck. The only thing that really bugs me is how Zal, she just gets lucky and escapes without much effort. 🙄

By the way, I keep seeing people complain that the American version lacks certain details. Honestly, I think that’s impossible given how incredibly dense the book is—not to mention the massive cast of characters. Even the movie is quite long, and there are plenty of subplots left out simply because they don't drive the main story forward.
American films usually rely heavily on soundtracks, but I realized too late that these versions barely have any music at all. The plot pulls you in so deeply that you don't even notice things like that. At least, I didn't. 😁

Kyle Cruz

Daniel Perez6 said:How would they even be connected then? They wouldn't.
Michael is essentially a journalist, not some private investigator. The first part makes sense because he was basically blacklisted and stepped away from his reporting job just to focus on this case and wait for the heat to die down. 😉

Larsson nailed the second part by making Lisbeth the most wanted woman in the country almost by accident. That whole thing with the fingerprints was pure luck. The only thing that really bugs me is how Zal, she just gets lucky and escapes without much effort. 🙄

By the way, I keep seeing people complain that the American version lacks certain details. Honestly, I think that’s impossible given how incredibly dense the book is—not to mention the massive cast of characters. Even the movie is quite long, and there are plenty of subplots left out simply because they don't drive the main story forward.
American films usually rely heavily on soundtracks, but I realized too late that these versions barely have any music at all. The plot pulls you in so deeply that you don't even notice things like that. At least, I didn't. 😁

Coincidence? Give me a break. They used those fingerprints specifically to pin it all on her—to set her up and make her life a living hell. That’s exactly how I see it. 🤷

Kyle Cruz

Daniel Perez6 said:How would they even be connected then? They wouldn't.
Michael is essentially a journalist, not some private investigator. The first part makes sense because he was basically blacklisted and stepped away from his reporting job just to focus on this case and wait for the heat to die down. 😉

Larsson nailed the second part by making Lisbeth the most wanted woman in the country almost by accident. That whole thing with the fingerprints was pure luck. The only thing that really bugs me is how Zal, she just gets lucky and escapes without much effort. 🙄

By the way, I keep seeing people complain that the American version lacks certain details. Honestly, I think that’s impossible given how incredibly dense the book is—not to mention the massive cast of characters. Even the movie is quite long, and there are plenty of subplots left out simply because they don't drive the main story forward.
American films usually rely heavily on soundtracks, but I realized too late that these versions barely have any music at all. The plot pulls you in so deeply that you don't even notice things like that. At least, I didn't. 😁

Look, let's be real—it felt a little cheap, didn't it? And honestly, some of those action sequences were just straight-up garbage. Total letdown.

The whole cat murder thing 😲
I completely blanked on that, plus there’s a ton of other little details
that just aren't in the original version from Stockholm.
Honestly, I should probably go back and rewatch Fincher's take
just to run a side-by-side comparison. But from what I recall, Fincher
did a solid job and doesn't fall behind the original much at all.

Look, nobody’s out here saying Fincher's movie is trash, far from it
I actually keep my copy on the shelf, but honestly? It feels totally redundant.
It was rushed through production so fast that it just ends up being a carbon copy of the original.
Some of those shots are straight-up rip-offs.

I wouldn't go as far as saying there's actual frame-for-frame copying happening—people are really overhyping that whole argument. Honestly, every single remake involves some level of shot imitation. Take *The Next Three Days*, for example. It's just part of the process.

It really doesn't even matter—the movie was clearly rushed through production. To those of us who have seen the Swedish version, that's obvious. But honestly? Most Americans won't care. They aren't going to go out of their way to watch a foreign film anyway.

It's pretty obvious that the producers couldn't care less about what some folks in those tiny, backwater countries think. 😁

Jerry Martinez50 said:, child trafficker

😁

Alright, let’s not get too off-topic here. I’m not exactly an expert on the whole Prometheus situation, but honestly? I think it could have been way better...🙂