The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - American Version

[skizzerflake]

Why would this be the reason? Not everyone is a speed reader. Is that being ignorant?
By the way, the BD disc has dubbed English which is what I used.

May have to see the new one, after all.

Americans are notoriously bad, by all measures, in language skills, choosing to think that everybody from the ancient Greeks to the present spoke some form of English. Wherever they go in the world, they expect people there to speak English. In the case of movies, they miss a lot by being so insular. Subtitles are not hard and have a distinct advantage over dubbings, which lose the cadence, expression and vocal nuance of the original language.

[jonnythan]

No one watches dubbed movies. Maybe cartoons, but not movies. People who watch foreign films watch them with subtitles.

[skizzerflake]

No, it's because very few Americans are going to watch a relatively low-budget subtitled foreign trilogy of inconsistent quality.

There was (is) a ton of money to be made by adapting these novels in English for an American audience by a big-budget Hollywood studio with lots of star power and marketing money. That's why they're being made - because they're going to make an *** ton of cash.

That said, the movies are good. So why are you complaining?

I don't think the American version is bad business, I just prefer seeing an original to an obvious imitation (even used some of the same location shots). I don't think the Fincher version was bad, so much as just not better. I didn't think it had anything not in the Swedish version. As for lots of cash, we will see. So far it isn't a huge hit, just doing OK, but definitely way behind Sherlock Homes, Mission Impossible and also the freakin' Chipmunks...enough to make one cynical, but then when you're looking at the movie business you need to be cynical and mercenary or you just don't get it.

[jonnythan]

I don't think the American version is bad business, I just prefer seeing an original to an obvious imitation (even used some of the same location shots). I don't think the Fincher version was bad, so much as just not better. I didn't think it had anything not in the Swedish version. As for lots of cash, we will see. So far it isn't a huge hit, just doing OK, but definitely way behind Sherlock Homes, Mission Impossible and also the freakin' Chipmunks...enough to make one cynical, but then when you're looking at the movie business you need to be cynical and mercenary or you just don't get it.

The Swedish version isn't any more original than the American one.

The American version isn't a remake of the movie. They're both adaptations of a book.

[skizzerflake]

The Swedish version isn't any more original than the American one.

The American version isn't a remake of the movie. They're both adaptations of a book.

True, of course, but I still preferred the Swedish one. I don't have any negatives about the American version at all, but I like stories in the native language and hearing it in Swedish just worked a little better for me. Remake is a relative term, but it's hard to think that D Fincher didn't look at the Swedish versions. Considering that some of the site locations are the same in both movies makes it seem a little closer to a remake than an independent adaptation.

[Alex2507]

You almost need to see the original to be able to keep up with the pace of the remake and I'm glad I saw them both. I appreciated the differences and liked the remake better as a film but liked certain parts of the original better.

The opening scene alone was worth the rental, very cool.

[adk highlander]

I watched the American version Sat. night. I must admit that the 5 hours of drinking before may have influenced me but I liked the Swedish version much better. My addled mind found it confusing in the way it seemed to jump from one conclusion to the next without any clarification as to how they came to said conclusions. I do think the acting was very well done in the American version (almost equal to the Swedish) but feel the Swedish version was still a better story. Maybe after I watch it with a clear head my feelings will change.

[Alex2507]

I must admit that the 5 hours of drinking before may have influenced me ...

Unless you had to 'one eye' the movie you were probably fine ...

[indulger]

Unless you had to 'one eye' the movie you were probably fine ...

Freakin Hilarious!! I thought I was the only one who did that

[skizzerflake]

No, it's because very few Americans are going to watch a relatively low-budget subtitled foreign trilogy of inconsistent quality.

There was (is) a ton of money to be made by adapting these novels in English for an American audience by a big-budget Hollywood studio with lots of star power and marketing money. That's why they're being made - because they're going to make an *** ton of cash.

That said, the movies are good. So why are you complaining?

If you noticed, I was not complaining, just expressing a preference since I didn't dislike the Craig version. There really wasn't much of a difference in the production level between the American and Swedish versions, not in any way that counted (IMO). American studios like to throw money at a movie just because they can, but it didn't necessarily make a better movie (thinking about John Carter, am I?). I know the realities of movie financing, but aside from Daniel Craig as a known quantity, there really wasn't much a difference in the productions. In fact, both versions used several of the same actual sets in Sweden and were nearly shot-by-shot in some sequences. There's a lot to be said for a bankable face among the cast, so it's not hard to predict that a version with Craig will win the box office in the US. The cynical might predict that the only foreign hit movie in the US in recent history had to be silent (The Artist) because Americans can't deal with language without getting hostile. US audiences are really seriously jingoistic and that's their loss.