The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo-An Unnecessary Remake?

[filfoster]

Is the commercial challenge of subtitled movies the only reason for doing this? I am a slack-jawed Yank but 5 minutes into the Swedish version, you forget the subtitles. What could be better than these original productions, set in Sweden and spoken in ....wait for it....Swedish? These original productions convey an authenticity or fidelity to the original story that any other language remake really cannot.

This is not to take away from the new US version, which I have not seen and am happy to concede may be excellent, as reviews claim. My only question is 'Why?'

 

[m0nk]

I haven't seen the original, though I've heard it's very good and I plan to take a peek. The US version was very well done and I truly enjoyed it, as I'm a fan of Daniel Craig. I'll see about a comparison after watching the original, though I do agree that there is nothing wrong with watching foreign movies with subtitles as I also watch a lot of flicks coming from Hong Kong...

 

[AmateisGal]

I wonder why they had to do a remake, too. I watched all three Swedish films and I plan to watch the new Daniel Craig version. I guess money undoubtedly motivates some of it, too. I'm sure the Daniel Craig version had a bigger budget, plus more star power behind it.

 

[Tomasso]

I'm sure the Daniel Craig version had a bigger budget

$90m vs $13m.

The reason for remakes is that the overwhelming majority of English speaking film goers will not watch subtitled films; plain and simple.

 

[DJH]

I would have thought that money was the motivation for any film being made - it is a business after all.

I enjoyed the Swedish films and also liked the new version. I think both do a decent job of bringing the book to life.

 

[vintage68]

$90m vs $13m.

The reason for remakes is that the overwhelming majority of English speaking film goers will not watch subtitled films; plain and simple.

I agree. U.S. movie goers just won't pay to "read" a movie. I've seen both versions and actually thought the U.S. version was slightly better, probably because certain characters like Lisbeth received more attention, and the cinematography was just delicious.

 

[Stray Cat]

I loved the Swedish version; it had just the right hint of morbidity and main characters insanity. :crazy:

 

[Edward]

$90m vs $13m.

The reason for remakes is that the overwhelming majority of English speaking film goers will not watch subtitled films; plain and simple.

Sadly that is correct. Same as was the case for Let the right One In. I think in some cases it can be justified artistically. For example, The Ring: in some ways I preferred the Hollywood remake over the Japanese original. The latter had an unsettling, creepy factor that the Japanese do so well and that Westerners so rarely match, however, I found the narrative flow sat micu hbetter with me in the former. I suspect this had something to do with diverging cultural approaches to narrative. With these Swedish films, I don't see much point in a remake other than for commercial gain. I'm still curious to see the Craig version, though: encoruagingly, the look of Lisbet is pretty true to the original, where I had feared they'd just drop in some conventionally pretty Hollywood dolly du jour via a wardrobe trip through Hot Topic. That at least bodes well.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Yes. It happened many times. Scandinavia makes some of the best movies in the world


I see the point with asian horrormovies. Their plot/timeline with many flashbacks is often so confusing that I just lose interest.[huh]

 

[Edward]

Yes. It happened many times. Scandinavia makes some of the best movies in the world


I see the point with asian horrormovies. Their plot/timeline with many flashbacks is often so confusing that I just lose interest.[huh]

Yes.... my big problem is here in the UK they tend to put them on silly late at night when I'm too tired for anything vaguely intellectual and really only ready for some Hollywood popcorn fluff!

 

[MikePotts]

Bums on seats dears, bums on seats........

 

[Atomic Age]

The original version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (based on the novel) was directed by Niels Arden Oplev, and while he is a solid filmmaker, I'm sorry but he is just not in the same league with David Fincher who is one of the top 4 or 5 directors of the last 40 years. There is just no contest here.

Add to that a cast that no one outside of Sweden knows, and you have a movie that not only will Americans not see, but they also won't go to it in Asia, South America, China etc. (To be fair it did quite well, making about $100 million) You put Daniel Crag in it and suddenly you have a movie that is going to gross upwards of $400 million once video sales are added in. That and the promise of 2 more films to come.

One more thing. The Swedish version was made by a small company called Music Box Films. Sony isn't making a dime off of that film. They own re-make rights so if they want to make some money on their investment, they have to make their own version.

Doug

 

[O2BSwank]

I read the books great story, but Ghastly! I saw the original Swedish film and liked it but yes, The American version will really rake in the bucks.

 

[Edward]

The original version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (based on the novel) was directed by Niels Arden Oplev, and while he is a solid filmmaker, I'm sorry but he is just not in the same league with David Fincher who is one of the top 4 or 5 directors of the last 40 years. There is just no contest here.

Add to that a cast that no one outside of Sweden knows, and you have a movie that not only will Americans not see, but they also won't go to it in Asia, South America, China etc. (To be fair it did quite well, making about $100 million) You put Daniel Crag in it and suddenly you have a movie that is going to gross upwards of $400 million once video sales are added in. That and the promise of 2 more films to come.

One more thing. The Swedish version was made by a small company called Music Box Films. Sony isn't making a dime off of that film. They own re-make rights so if they want to make some money on their investment, they have to make their own version.

Doug

Clearly it's all about following the money. it depresses me, though, that there are so many people in the world who won't go and see something if it has noone they recognise in it. This only serves to perpetuate a Hollywood culture in which established names are no longer permitted to be actors. Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, whoever the big names are today... they're rarely hired to play a role: rather, they're just cast to play a version of their public persona, a brand that sells. Yay capitalism.

 

[Doublegun]

I don't think the average US movie-goer has the intellectual capacity to appreciate a movie that isn't spelled out for them. I have seen far too many incredibly well made foreign films that were clearly dumbed-down when re-made for US audiences. Two relatively recent releases come to mind: "Death at a Funeral", an absolutely hilarious British movie and "Don't let the Wrong One In" a Swedish film and perhaps the best modern vampire movie ever made.

I saw all three of the Swedish DWTDT movies and the subtitles were not distracting. They were very well movies that kept a good pace and were suspenseful throughout. I plan to see the American version later this week.

 

[Atomic Age]

Clearly it's all about following the money. it depresses me, though, that there are so many people in the world who won't go and see something if it has noone they recognise in it. This only serves to perpetuate a Hollywood culture in which established names are no longer permitted to be actors. Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, whoever the big names are today... they're rarely hired to play a role: rather, they're just cast to play a version of their public persona, a brand that sells. Yay capitalism.

Sure but that has ALWAYS been the way in Hollywood, because the public knows what they are going to get when Bogart is in a film, or Betty Davis or John Wayne. The same with Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt. The studios put these actors in their films because thats what people want to see, and its not just Americans. American films make more than half of their money in Foreign boxoffice.

In the early days of silent movies, the studios often didn't credit the actors, one because they thought that it would ruin the audience's suspension of disbelief if they knew that the person on the screen was an actor and not the character they were playing, and two because they didn't want the actors to have that kind of power. They didn't want a star system. But the audience was able to find out who the actors were anyway, and the star system developed in spite of the studios best efforts to keep it from happening.


Doug

 

[Connery]

I saw the Swedish trilogy and it was well done, true to the books and kept me where the director wanted me to be....at the edge of my chair. I am looking forward to the versions done in the US. I want to be entertained, that is why I see any film to begin with.

 

[Edward]

Sure but that has ALWAYS been the way in Hollywood, because the public knows what they are going to get when Bogart is in a film, or Betty Davis or John Wayne. The same with Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt. The studios put these actors in their films because thats what people want to see, and its not just Americans. American films make more than half of their money in Foreign boxoffice.

In the early days of silent movies, the studios often didn't credit the actors, one because they thought that it would ruin the audience's suspension of disbelief if they knew that the person on the screen was an actor and not the character they were playing, and two because they didn't want the actors to have that kind of power. They didn't want a star system. But the audience was able to find out who the actors were anyway, and the star system developed in spite of the studios best efforts to keep it from happening.


Doug

Oh, yeah, I know. That's how the system operates, it's a capitalist world. Doesn't make it any more palatable, though. As I type this, in my mid is a story from this morning's paper which recounts the current UK PM calling on the UK film industry to make more "commercially successful" (his words) films and make the sector "even more dynamic and entrepreneurial" (his swords). In other words, "don't worry about artistic integrity or quality, lads - just churn out a bunch more crap like Richard Curtis and we'll all be minted". I don't expect money-heads to understand art, but even so...

 

[LizzieMaine]

Around here we're calling the American remake "The Girl With the Temporary Dragon Tattoo." The original trilogy did very very well here, and a lot of people who came to see it were horrified at the thought of a remake -- I think the main purpose of it is as a sop to the philistines who don't like subtitled movies because they "didn't pay $8.50 to sit there and read for two hours."

 

[Noirblack]

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo-An Unnecessary Remake?

Yes, strictly speaking it is unnecessary. But you could say the same thing about translating the books from Swedish into English. And you could say the same thing about turning the books into movies in Swedish. I read the books and saw the first set of movies. I liked both the books and the movies, but the books were better. By making the books into movies, the audience for the stories was increased to include people who either aren't readers or who never got around to the books. Likewise, the movies produced in English will increase the audience even more. That's what storytelling and creativity are about. I can't see anything wrong with that. And they'll make some money at it too. I have no problem with that.

But if they do a 3-D animated version in 2013 that will be too much