> > If you like americanised movies...
>
> That's irrelevant to me. It's just a better film and a
> clearer representation of the author's words.

Its just a matter of taste. I prefer so-called european movies over americanised movies.

sure by what is considered attractive by the general poulation doesn't have to be attractive to all. I'll give you that much.

I personally found the woman playing her in the Swedish movies a hot chick, and I don't care much for the one that's playing her in the American movie(s). Personal taste eh?

As far as the books are concerned, I never read them so I can't compare them to the movies. If people say the American movie is more true to the books, it could well be possible. To me it seems that each individual interprets the book in their own way, so that's why it's hard to make a movie based on a book. Because when a 1000 people read one and the same book, a 1000 visions are created of that story. For a director I think it would be hard to cater all those visions.
I'll give the movie a try, but I think I'd still prefer the originals.

saying is true to a point, but what I am getting at about following the book is more a chronological representation of what was written and not altering the story in a factual and detailed sense. It's more about omissions than interpretations. If that were the case I may be more inclined to say I liked the Swedish version, because I tend to prefer films in their rawest form and the American version is definitely polished over.

Doesn't that statement leave a bad taste in your mouth?
There are a lot of films in Europe done by American diretors and writers and vice versa.

American cinema is as diverse and creative as any country in the world. Enough so that to box it into a geographical category over one based on the actual craft and art being produced is strictly ignorance and laziness. Which I find ironic because it tends to be how Europeans categorize Americans.

Darren Aronofsky
Steven Speilberg
Woody Allen
Christopher Nolan
Jason Reitman
Wes Anderson
Sophia Coppola
Stephen Soderberg
Martin Scorcese
Frank Darabont
Miranda July
Francis Ford Coppola
Spike Jonze
David Lynch
The Coen Brothers
Terrence Malick
Tarantino
Paul Thomas Anderson
Ron Howard
Clint Eastwood
Gus Van Sant
David Fincher

The similarities of the above film makers start and end with geographical location.

I didn't say that I don't like American cinema at all. I don't like americanised movies. I thin you understand what I mean when I Say americanised. The blockbuster type of movie with lots of special effects and enhancement afterwards with computers, big ad campaings because it has to sell sell sell, the remakes, the spinoffs, the ongoing idea of making money rather than a good movie and have an original idea etc. The US version of The girl with the dragon tattoo had a budget of 80 million dollars and the swedish version (Män som hatar kvinnor) had a budget of 13 million dollars. I guess there is a difference one should take in account when viewing and rating a movie. At least much more than just what you see. I like to see movie making as an art rather than a moneymaking business.

and the American
> version is definitely polished over.

> I didn't say that I don't like American cinema at all. I
> don't like americanised movies. I thin you understand what
> I mean when I Say americanised. The blockbuster type of
> movie with lots of special effects and enhancement
> afterwards with computers, big ad campaings because it has
> to sell sell sell, the remakes, the spinoffs, the ongoing
> idea of making money rather than a good movie and have an
> original idea etc. The US version of The girl with the
> dragon tattoo had a budget of 80 million dollars and the
> swedish version (Män som hatar kvinnor) had a budget of 13
> million dollars. I guess there is a difference one should
> take in account when viewing and rating a movie. At least
> much more than just what you see. I like to see movie
> making as an art rather than a moneymaking business.

Do you think European filmmakers do that out of desire or necessity? I doubt there are many European directors out there that would actually turn down $80 million to produce a film. Or do you think writers, or directors like the ones I mentioned previously let money interfere with their art? The American version is polished over and did have a large marketing campaign, but you can't pay off a large budget without marketing, especially in the current state of illegally downloading films. The money needs to be made back at the theater.

The opening credits were the entirety of that Immigrant Song cover done by Trent Reznor and Karen O with this special effects scene that really made no sense. It was the best music video I've ever seen at the beginning of a movie. The problem is I don't want to watch a music video at the beginning of a movie. The first or second scene of the movie had Daniel Craig asking for a pack of Marlboro Reds (product placement).

There are definitely some things about the movie that were a bit over the top in my opinion, but it's also my opinion that if you are trying to recreate the work of the recently deceased that you try and do it in the most literally accurate way as possible and I felt like David Fincher and Steven Zaillian did the superior job in that respect. Not just representing Larsson's words, but also the setting. I'm sure the increased budget aided in that. The Swedish version changed more aspects of the book, the settings weren't as believable and I got the impression that some of this was due to time and budget constraints.

I'm sure I can blame some of my opinion on having to read subtitles through the film as well, but not to an extent that would render my opinion totally off base.

Money isn't always a bad thing when it comes to producing films. Money allowed certain aspects of this film to flourish and take on a more accurate alignment to the book. It's not like it was a movie like Real Steel or Armageddon where it's a stupid premise, bad story and shitty movie covered up by a large budget and special effects.

I would never use polish as a reason to dislike a good story, good acting, good dialog, good cinematography, good soundtrack, good setting.

:( I want to see Real Steal

that looks like canned poo.

> I would never use polish as a reason to dislike a good
> story, good acting, good dialog, good cinematography, good
> soundtrack, good setting

Polish is just one characteristic for americanised movies

It looks really sweet!! It reminds me of these old films my dad used to watch with me when I was a kid lol

I agree some americanised movies are horrible & I can understand why some people would be against them, especially the americanised japanese movies i.e The Ring, The Grudge. But if you get the right director & right cast it can really make a movie all the better, personally based on actors I found the american version of Let The Right One In better than the original, saying that the original was amazing too just the female actor in the movie annoyed the crap out of me! If done right you get two movies with two different adaptions to enjoy so I don't see the big deal.

> Do you think European filmmakers do that out of desire or
> necessity? I doubt there are many European directors out
> there that would actually turn down $80 million to produce
> a film. Or do you think writers, or directors like the
> ones I mentioned previously let money interfere with their
> art? The American version is polished over and did have
> a large marketing campaign, but you can't pay off a large
> budget without marketing, especially in the current state
> of illegally downloading films. The money needs to be made
> back at the theater.

You don´t need 80 million dollars or more to produce a good, original movie. And yes money does interfere with the art of making movies. How can you say it doesn't? Do you think the movie companies just give 80 million dollars and say good luck with it, we'll see the movie when you finish it? Thats quite naive thinking.

The swedish version was a good movie, there was no need to do a remake. The only reason they did do a remake was money, nothing else. Btw there is nothing wrong with making money.

To me remakes are a waste of money and a lack of creativity and originality.

Most of the time they remake the movie because most American won't bother their arse to watch the Swedish version so they're bringing it to a whole new audience who would never have seen it.

> Most of the time they remake the movie because most
> American won't bother their arse to watch the Swedish
> version so they're bringing it to a whole new audience who
> would never have seen it.

You think they just spend 80 million dollars because most americans don't bother to go see the movie because it has subtitles? Nah I think they just wanted to maken money.

Of course their going to make money that's a no brainer they'd make money on any movie they make!

> The only reason they did do a remake was money, nothing else.

What about the fact that too many people don't watch movies in which the actors do not speak English?

Dubbing over a movie is even more horrible than doing an English remake...

It's not just the Americans, same thing applies for almost anywhere in the world.

A lot of European countries even dub all their movies in cinemas...