The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo-An Unnecessary Remake?

[Edward]

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."

Heh. It'll be interesting to hear how it does for you by comparison - I'm assuming your venue is the sort of place that draws a regular audience in itself moreso than a big multi-plex which might draw very different audiences for different productions? (Crudely expressed, but do you follow?).

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

True, every reinterpretation will take it farther away from the source material..... The difference is of course that while it is necessary to translate the book from Swedish to English for an English speaker who does not understand Swedish, subtitling a Swedish movie will get you closer to the original experience than remaking it in English. Which begs the question: which is closer to the original book experience - an English translation of the printed word, or a Swedish film? Hmmnn.....

 

[Stray Cat]

Which begs the question: which is closer to the original book experience - an English translation of the printed word, or a Swedish film? Hmmnn.....

Oh, I know.. I know.. it's the English translation of the printed word, with the slightly changed form, due to translator's view on the subject.

 

[Edward]

Heh. I've often wondered how much difference that can make, but never been confident enough that I had sufficient mastery of any two languages to do the comparison (I did do it with a few Asterix books in my time, and it was interesting how some of the actual substance of the word gags and so on were changed in order to maintain the same basic joke in another language). I do have this notion of a translator hard at work in the King James Bible turning round and saying "I don't care whose son he is, he's not using that language in my book.... "brood of vipers" will have to do..." lol

 

[Tomasso]

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". (

You're taking a big leap in your interpretation. Maybe he means that more UK film companies should follow the lead of Carnival Films , which produces profitable quality films.

 

[Edward]

You're taking a big leap in your interpretation. Maybe he means that more UK film companies should follow the lead of Carnival Films , which produces profitable quality films.

Maybe so - I certainly hope I'm wrong, but in context it came across to me (and seemingly, a lot of people who actually work in that industry, which I don't) as an appeal to set aside any notion of art and set out specifically to produce the kind of product that it is known will turn a profit. I'd like to be proven wrong...

 

[filfoster]

I started this thread out of sadness and frustration that so many potential viewers will not see a good foreign film because of the tedium of subtitles. Many posts also point out the added commercial horsepower 'big names' like Daniel Craig, provide. I think we can all concede that movies are a business and these sorts of remakes are primarily commercial enterprises, that 'art' or entertainment is really only an incidental requirement to producing the profit. OK.
It remains a source of sadness and an arguable contention that watching a movie, properly subtitled, in its intended language and location is a qualitatively better experience. Think of these 'Girl' movies, German movies/TV productions like 'Heimat', 'M', 'Das Boot', the original 'All Quiet on the Western Front', or any of the Bergman films, Fellini. You can name others. Even the recent German film 'The Lives of Others', not threatened with any English remake, seems immutably German. Just a lament.
Dubbing is a completely different aesthetic discussion and who will not admit enjoying the sound versus sight of actors speaking in the cheesy Japanese horror films of the '60's? Come on, be honest.

 

[Cicero]

I just saw Män Som Hatar Kvinnor Aka The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo the dubbed version on computer!
Must say i really did enjoy it.

Next movie will be the remake.

 

[Red Diabla]

I started this thread out of sadness and frustration that so many potential viewers will not see a good foreign film because of the tedium of subtitles. Many posts also point out the added commercial horsepower 'big names' like Daniel Craig, provide. I think we can all concede that movies are a business and these sorts of remakes are primarily commercial enterprises, that 'art' or entertainment is really only an incidental requirement to producing the profit. OK.
It remains a source of sadness and an arguable contention that watching a movie, properly subtitled, in its intended language and location is a qualitatively better experience. Think of these 'Girl' movies, German movies/TV productions like 'Heimat', 'M', 'Das Boot', the original 'All Quiet on the Western Front', or any of the Bergman films, Fellini. You can name others. Even the recent German film 'The Lives of Others', not threatened with any English remake, seems immutably German. Just a lament.
Dubbing is a completely different aesthetic discussion and who will not admit enjoying the sound versus sight of actors speaking in the cheesy Japanese horror films of the '60's? Come on, be honest.

I understand your general point, as it's one I share most of the time. However, the US version of GWTDT turned out to be better than I expected...I was pleasantly surprised! Sometimes the exception proves the rule.

RD

 

[Rathdown]

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...

So in 100 words or less, how would you make the British film industry more "commercially successful" without being more "dynamic and entrepreneurial"?

 

[BigFitz]

Ok, I've got my nomex on so here goes. Are we sure this is a remake of the film or an adaptation of the book? Maybe some basic research could answer that for me but apparently there are enough people here that could answer this. Isn't the "original" movie an adaptation of the books and not a pure screenplay? Either way, some might say "Did they really have to go make a movie based on my favorite book? I hate when they do that." My 19 year old niece said this about "The Lovely Bones" when it came out. Doesn't she have a point as most movies never equal(in my opinion) the book?

I've seen the American version as it was at the time the only version I was aware of. It looked like something I wanted to see so I went to the movie. I enjoyed the movie very much and was very satisfied that I didn't waste my time watching it. Now I'm reading the books which I'm sure makes the author happy. Eventually I'll get around to watching the "originals" but of course that will be after I read the books, and then I can form an opinion as to whether any screenplay was necessary at all.

 

[AntonAAK]

Ok, I've got my nomex on so here goes. Are we sure this is a remake of the film or an adaptation of the book?

I'm glad I'm not the only person who makes that distinction. If a film is made from an original screenplay, then another film based on that same story is a remake. But if they are both different treatments of the same novel? I'm not so sure. It would be perfectly possible to make this movie entirely from the original source without having seen the Swedish movie, so how would that count as a remake? The people who made the first film did not originate the story or characters and I think we may be giving them undue ownership of them.

I am talking about film in general here as I have seen neither of these films.

 

[Edward]

Ok, I've got my nomex on so here goes. Are we sure this is a remake of the film or an adaptation of the book?

Good point. Not entirely sure - I don't know enough about it. It clearly was a marketing decision, but I don't know from which they drew more extensively.

 

[Edward]

I'm glad I'm not the only person who makes that distinction. If a film is made from an original screenplay, then another film based on that same story is a remake. But if they are both different treatments of the same novel? I'm not so sure. It would be perfectly possible to make this movie entirely from the original source without having seen the Swedish movie, so how would that count as a remake? The people who made the first film did not originate the story or characters and I think we may be giving them undue ownership of them.

I am talking about film in general here as I have seen neither of these films.

This came up in the context of the Gatsby thread, with reference to the new film currently in production and previous takes on the book. To the best of my understanding the notion of a "remake" first arose when talkies arrived and a lot of silents were remade by the same studios as sound pictures. I supposed that established the notion that a laterv version of the same story is a "remake" in the popular mindset, but I agree it is not always so.

 

[filfoster]

I'm glad I'm not the only person who makes that distinction. If a film is made from an original screenplay, then another film based on that same story is a remake. But if they are both different treatments of the same novel? I'm not so sure. It would be perfectly possible to make this movie entirely from the original source without having seen the Swedish movie, so how would that count as a remake? The people who made the first film did not originate the story or characters and I think we may be giving them undue ownership of them.

I am talking about film in general here as I have seen neither of these films.

The distinction is noted. Would this be like the many productions of Shakespear that use novel sets and costumes for an 'original' or at least different interpretation of the material? I get that. I have not seen the American film but I understand from a review in the WSJ that it is nearly scene for scene the same, and the two principal characters very closely resemble the Swedish production actors. This seems to be a 'remake' to wring some cash from audiences who will not see a subtitled foreign film. Not an immoral or 'bad' thing except it's just unnecessary in the sense that the original was very good and the Swedish language and venue conveyed authenticity, whatever that is.

 

[AntonAAK]

The distinction is noted. Would this be like the many productions of Shakespear that use novel sets and costumes for an 'original' or at least different interpretation of the material? I get that. I have not seen the American film but I understand from a review in the WSJ that it is nearly scene for scene the same, and the two principal characters very closely resemble the Swedish production actors. This seems to be a 'remake' to wring some cash from audiences who will not see a subtitled foreign film. Not an immoral or 'bad' thing except it's just unnecessary in the sense that the original was very good and the Swedish language and venue conveyed authenticity, whatever that is.

In which case it would appear that it is a remake of the first movie. I wonder if the original screenwriters are credited, if it is a near scene by scene recreation, or if it is pretending to be based solely on the novel.

 

[Atomic Age]

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...

Anyone who says that movies are art is fooling themselves. Moves are far too expensive to make to be art. They have to appeal to a wide audience. I'm sorry but its just the way it is. Everyone who ever started out to make movies as art, failed because you eventually run out of money if you aren't making a profit.

There are films that rise to the level of art, but it is almost always by accident. Coppola had no idea he was making art when he made The Godfather. In fact he didn't want to do the film. He thought it was selling out, but American Zoetrope was deeply in debt, so Lucas talked him into making the film and taking the money.

Anyway movies are not now nor have they ever been art. Thats why its called show BUSINESS.

Doug

 

[Atomic Age]

Heh. It'll be interesting to hear how it does for you by comparison - I'm assuming your venue is the sort of place that draws a regular audience in itself moreso than a big multi-plex which might draw very different audiences for different productions? (Crudely expressed, but do you follow?).



True, every reinterpretation will take it farther away from the source material..... The difference is of course that while it is necessary to translate the book from Swedish to English for an English speaker who does not understand Swedish, subtitling a Swedish movie will get you closer to the original experience than remaking it in English. Which begs the question: which is closer to the original book experience - an English translation of the printed word, or a Swedish film? Hmmnn.....

As a filmmaker, I find subtitles to be a double edge sword. On one hand they allow you to hear the original performances of the actors (as apposed to dubbing) But on the other hand, film is a visual medium, and if I'm spending almost half of my time reading subtitles, I'm missing huge amounts of visual story telling, which is in some ways more important than the dialog.

Doug

 

[Atomic Age]

I started this thread out of sadness and frustration that so many potential viewers will not see a good foreign film because of the tedium of subtitles. Many posts also point out the added commercial horsepower 'big names' like Daniel Craig, provide. I think we can all concede that movies are a business and these sorts of remakes are primarily commercial enterprises, that 'art' or entertainment is really only an incidental requirement to producing the profit. OK.
It remains a source of sadness and an arguable contention that watching a movie, properly subtitled, in its intended language and location is a qualitatively better experience. Think of these 'Girl' movies, German movies/TV productions like 'Heimat', 'M', 'Das Boot', the original 'All Quiet on the Western Front', or any of the Bergman films, Fellini. You can name others. Even the recent German film 'The Lives of Others', not threatened with any English remake, seems immutably German. Just a lament.
Dubbing is a completely different aesthetic discussion and who will not admit enjoying the sound versus sight of actors speaking in the cheesy Japanese horror films of the '60's? Come on, be honest.

But to be fair, the American release might very well lead some to seek out the original film out of curiosity. Its not like the situation with 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, where Walt Disney bought up all the previous versions of the film and locked them away in a vault.

And also its not like the original "Girl" didn't do well. Its made a little over $100 million at the box office. Thats damn good business for an obscure $13 million dollar film with no stars.

Doug

 

[BigFitz]

As a filmmaker, I find subtitles to be a double edge sword. On one hand they allow you to hear the original performances of the actors (as apposed to dubbing) But on the other hand, film is a visual medium, and if I'm spending almost half of my time reading subtitles, I'm missing huge amounts of visual story telling, which is in some ways more important than the dialog.

Doug

I'm not a filmmaker but I typed pretty much the same sentiment in my first post but was afraid to be seen as a philistine so I deleted it. Thanks.

 

[Atomic Age]

In which case it would appear that it is a remake of the first movie. I wonder if the original screenwriters are credited, if it is a near scene by scene recreation, or if it is pretending to be based solely on the novel.

Or did both movies follow the novel so closely that they have very similar scenes?

Really I just see it as the American version of the film being for an English speaking audience, which is MUCH larger than the Swedish speaking audience.

Add to that, there is a long tradition of film remakes, that are at least as good as the original if not better. A Star Is Born is a perfect example. 12 Monkeys is another. I have no problem with remakes in principle, particularly when it is an adaption of a book.

I'd rather wait and see the film for myself and see if its worth while before knocking it.

Another thought about this particular story, is that it may have a large, but limited audience. Both the original and the American films seem to be capped at about $100 million at the box office. Sony may have over estimated the appeal of the books. They spend something like $70 million on production, and probably another $60 to $70 million on advertising. Now it will probably make up the difference on Home Video, but I think it unlikely that there will be American versions of the other two books.

Doug