Jesus. Not sure where else to post this without starting a new thread, so here's the first look at Rooney Mara for David Fincher's American remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo:

http://www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/20 ... ss#slide=1

Whatever your thoughts about the need for this remake, and there are certainly many reasons to continue to be skeptical, at least it's looking like the character of Lisbeth Salander won't be compromised.

Startlingly, I think it will probably be a well made and well acted movie. I still don't know if Fincher is shooting a remake of the movie or a new adaptation of it's source material. My criticism still stands because I feel there is simply no point. As I've said before, would anyone agree with remaking/re-adapting the Godfather? Definitely not. I'm attempting to be a little more restrained on the topic than I have done previously, mostly because it's fruitless but also I seem to be rather outspoken when it comes to the raping of world cinema.

I hope the new actress can act because she doesn't look as good as Rapace, by any stretch.

To which I say, so what?

A just response to anything anyone says, ever.

Damn, I can't even post one words here.

(Cena sadface)

I on the other hand just saw it the other day and I do deem it to be 4-star worthy. Best movie I seen probably since Inglourious Basterds!

But a response still open to an answer, if there is one.

Okay... so what? Well there was once a time when people disliked the concept of a remake, even of a movie that was over a decade old. But still, so what?

To me, it's a cultural battle. Hollywood has green lighted remakes of most popular Japanese movies. Not to feed the ignorant subtitle-phobics but to make dollarz. Simple. In the process, they have pretty much undermined Japanese cinema with a "here, let the grown ups show you how it's done" attitude.

Now the dollarz hungry retards need a fresh cash cow to milk dry. It can't be the UK as there isn't a language barrier. There is a culture barrier but nobody would buy into that much bullshit. No, it's far easier to target the national institution of a country where English isn't the native tongue, even if it is spoken more eloquently than in Hollywood itself. Countries like Sweden have contributed greatly to world cinema and especially to Hollywood, mostly with individual actors and directors of Swedish origin. In terms of actual movies, they have been on the back burner in terms of mass media exposure. Now that their exports are getting exposure, however, it's only natural that Hollywood should feel threatened and try to use money to ensure that it remains the alpha male.

Other than that, so what? So what nothing. I've studied art and media long enough to recognise the difference between integrity and sensationalism. With The Social Network, Fincher has managed to score big with both. That isn't a trick you can repeat twice in succession, especially given his record.

First: I'm usually against remakes and would greatly prefer if Fincher did something instead of Dragon Tattoo.

And, of course the remake has only been greenlit because Hollywood thinks it will be profitable. But why do you think the Swedish adaptation was made? To borrow one of your words: "Dollarz". So I have a difficult time understanding your disdain at the Hollywood studio's greed. How is this different from the Swedish movie studio? And no, the Swedish studio didn't spend its money to create something original. The books were already a massive financial success and they absolutely knew that the movie adaptations could be incredibly profitable (and they were).

The Millenium trilogy is nothing but above-average mystery with a compelling lead character. There's nothing artistic about it. It's a Hollywood film presented in a foreign language.

Ed I think this is a very good point. I'm more angry at subtitle-phobic audiences, since (as you say) there's nothing particularly "arty" about these films and Americans would love them.

They certainly did, and they did a pretty good job. I once heard that something shouldn't be fixed if it isn't broken. I won't cry racism but the implication of inferiority certainly is present in what Fincher is doing. If people don't want subtitles, change the dubbed language. If that isn't possible, go and watch The Dillema.

Maybe I sound like I care TOO much but let me reassure you, I actually don't. It just bothers me that credit is being given to those who cannot think for themselves. Anyone remember Taxi? (movie, not TV show)

Well Taxi was a slightly different case, because unlike Dragon Tattoo, the original Taxi and it's sequels were never officially released in the U.S., so there was no way for people to see the films without owning a multi-region DVD player, therefore the remake somewhat made sense, and there are plenty of people like myself who CAN think for themselves who are genuinely interested in seeing Fincher's take on the novel.

When you wrote this statement did it seem to be in any way, shape or form rationale? Because in reality its completely ridiculous. I don't want to seem overtly negative of your posts (the last one starting some discussion and doing exactly what I wanted it to do) but where did this one come from?

Yes, it feels completely rational to observe that Fincher may, even unintentionally, be implying that an English language conversion of the same story will be somehow better than it's Swedish equivalent. By saying 'here is how I would do it', you sort of imply that the original isn't up to scratch. That's all I'm getting at with the statement.

Or maybe he just wants to a different take on the novel, the key being DIFFERENT not BETTER, like how some people viewed the Coens True Grit, that's how I imagine some will view Fincher's take on the novel, at least that's how i'll view it.

I would argue perhaps than that you mean ethnocentrism? I say that because Fincher and Niels Arden Oplev are both Caucasian but of different cultures.

However remakes of foreign films have more to do with a number of factors, such as illiteracy of movie going audiences and the desire to make as much money off of a proven idea or concept. I'm not sure racism/ethnocentrism is really a huge factor, other then on the part of audiences who refuse to see foreign films in the first place, thus opening the door for Hollywood to make remakes.

I offer up for example, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon which was relatively widely seen when it was released in theaters. On the other hand Let the Right One In found a small niche audience that could be called a cult following, but was never very widely seen. Which one was remade?

-Jeremy

You're entirely right. Let the following cinematic greats be remade using the same point of view:

The Godfather
Goodfellas
Gettysburg
Lord Of The Rings
Any or all of the James Bond movies
Silence Of The Lambs
Minority Report (a great movie to me, anyway)
Jurassic Park

I could go on but I don't wish to TL;DR myself.

Also I'm aware that people might not view all these as 'greats' however that's not my point.



That sounds like a better term to use! It's just the impression I get, however.

You make a valid argument but I think CTHD was left alone for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the story cannot be set in any other culture, given the theme and setting. Secondly, the style of movie greatly appeals to the masses (thus it's success) and has no reason to be 'commercialised' as such. Let The Right One In is filmed in a typically Swedish style; lengthy shots, slow pacing etc and is more 'arty' than is acceptable in mainstream cinema. I haven't seen the remake and am in no rush to do so, as a fan of the original. However this could also be a case of a 're-adaptation', as has been said about the Millennium Trilogy.

Aren't the two dozen James Bond films mostly just remakes of themselves anyways?

It has nothing to do ethnocentrism, and there is nothing wrong with a filmmaker going, "Well, this is how I'd go about it." A film isn't remade because the director or the studio doesn't like the country its from, but because they like the project and/or it should make a lot of money. Did anyone call out any of the retellings of Shakespeare's plays because, "Well, you can just read the original work?" No, because they're good stories and they're profitable. Let the Right One In was an excellent movie, and I was initially skeptical about whether or not the remake would be any good. Nearly everything I've heard about it has been good, so I'm going to view it and give the film a try. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was not an excellent film but a well made one, and there is the potential in the material for Fincher to make a great film out of it (as he has proven in the past he is more then capable of doing). I'm not a supporter of all remakes, but I find the extent of your stance to be at times misthought and extremist to a fault.

Right, therefore the titles I listed ought to also be remade.

It's hardly misthought, it's a stance that's been shared by many people about many movies. Why should I be told I'm wrong in this instance?