Scottie B says
Brrrrrrr
Snowee l says
I know. I don't want to shower because it means removing my jacket.
I think it's time to discuss the Millennium movies
Scottie B says
ok
Where do you want to star?
or start?
first movie?
Snowee l says
This is where we say SPOILERS so don't read if you care. This is also the part where I specify that we are talking about the three Swedish films that make up the Millennium series called (in US) The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played With Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked A Hornet's Nest, respectively.
I think we may end up jumping around a bit, but let's start with this. The movies were much better than the books. They took a lot of the extemporaneous information and threw it out of the window, plus they took a lot of the contrived plot points and revamped them to give better motivations. Overall, worth your time, unlike the books
Scottie B says
I totally agree, I am also one who isn't overly fond of subtitles, but for some reason it worked for these films.
Back to the movies. It is correct most of the contrived plot points have been removed from the films.
Snowee l says
One of the best ones is that instead of Blomqvist's daughter appearing out of nowhere - only to disappear completely even from underlying subtext - in order to tell him that the clues were scriptural, they had Salander hacking his computer to find them and have that be the catalyst to bring them together.
Now, I didn't have a particular problem with the way they came together in the book, but having them come together over that clue was definitely more interesting.
Scottie B says
More interested and bridged the gap of why Salander would even show up in the first place. It also provided a more realistic approach to start their relationship. Lizbeth was able to prove what she could do and Blomquist was able to professionally appreciate her talents. Even if he didn't agree to her methods.
It set the stage for the relationship to be more normal other than the way it was presented in the books.
Snowee l says
Definitely. They left out almost every word of the Wennestrom affair and didn't try to explain the business aspect any more than an intelligent person would already know.
Scottie B says
Agreed. It was a starting point to briefly explain why he would go on a sabbatical and accept a research job away from people. They also moved his stay in prison to the end of the movie instead of in the middle of the story. Which made more sense in the grander scheme of the stories.
That made the movie move a long more smoothly without abruptly interrupting the story and have a short prison stay. Just another way the movie makers were able to gloss over the whole trial part without giving it too much attention as in the books.
Snowee l says
Imprisonment for journalists in Sweden is quite pleasant, yes?
Scottie B says
Yes, I want a prison stay at club med'
Ooh and they don't go into all of the detail about the lost girl in the movie. Blomquist finds her, goes to her, and then brings her home. There isn't the huge network of hackers that have to help locate her, her history on why she doesn't want to go back, and her over protective son at the sheep farms. Just got to the point and moved on.
Snowee l says
Which allowed them to make the story about why she ran away instead of about the fact that she had gone missing. It was a different focus, but I didn't mind taking time on the whole "finding" thing in the book... although the part about him tracking down and finding clues in the photos was tedious in the book and in the movie, they portrayed it more effectively.
Scottie B says
The flow of the movies were better overall. It stayed true to the general feeling of the books, but allowed to move some of the story around to make more sense or removed things that didn't make sense. Unfortunately they failed in the second movie. Like the book the showed Lizbeth traveling and acting out of character. I wish that the script writers could have come up with a way to correct
that issue for me also. Alas they didn't.
Snowee l says
No, they didn't. It was slightly better. I don't recall them suddenly having her care so much about her appearance, but her behaviour still felt untrue. Maybe they were going for "erratic" but a person's core belief doesn't change and that will always affect their overall decision-making.
Scottie B says
Its true, a person behaves in a way that stays true to their base personality.
The biggest thing that I liked about the movie was they took out Blomquists partner at the magazine's leaving and going to another paper. They also took out where she was being stalked by an old highschool person that had a grudge towards her.
Instead the stalker was the society of cover-up people that we trying to kill the story. It made more sense this way. Instead of a complete side story that didn't have an effect on the overall story arcs what so ever.
Snowee l says
I won't say it made more sense that way, but it added to the suspense of the storyline and made it necessary. As a side story with no connection whatsoever, I feel it is a waste of time to put into a story, but woven in as they did in the movies, it became important. Thank heavens someone in the process of the conversion understood that!
Scottie B says
Welcome back
Snowee l says
I won't say it made more sense that way, but it added to the suspense of the storyline and made it necessary. As a side story with no connection whatsoever, I feel it is a waste of time to put into a story, but woven in as they did in the movies, it became important. Thank heavens someone in the process of the conversion understood that!
Scottie B says
It made more sense in the continuity of the film to remove the change of jobs and focus on the actual overall story arc which was the bad guys and the guys that are tying to cover for the bad guys.
Snowee l says
Yes, exactly. A story can have subplots, but his subplots were a little too "important"
Scottie B says
The last main thing that I think the movie did well was they removed a lot of the information about Lizbeths sister. Who was mention several times in the book, but it didn't add to the story at all. The lack of focus on this mythical sister was a good move.
Snowee l says
Oh, right. Another good point. See? They deftly removed everything that didn't need to be there.
Scottie B says
This is why I would suggest the films over reading the book. I cringe to see what our American film makers decide to do with the films. It could go either way. Mostly because the average American fan seems to respect the movie more - the more that it stays true to the book. Every agonizing detail.
On the plus side if you really enjoyed the character of Lizbeth the actress that played the part did exceptionally well. It was as if the character from the book stepped out of it and entered the film itself. Great acting and directing on that respect.
Snowee l says
I felt she was very true to the part. Small frame, dainty features, but decorates herself in a way that most people would miss the attractiveness. That's how I felt she was in the books. Actually, the part in the movies was a little different, but in a good way. She brought life to a character who was a little flat and one dimensional.
The scenes at the end of the second movie were far more intense than in the book because she actually made me care and her expressions were more vivid than had been described.
I know it's a lame hang-up, but I still have issue with her being buried alive. In the book it describes an air pocket created by her hand that made it almost plausible. In the movie, her arms were in the wrong place for that and the time seemed to leave her under dirt longer. She's not a superhero or alien creature who doesn't require air!
Scottie B says
I have the same issue with her being buried alive also. And yes the movie made it seem less plausible that she would have been able to dig herself out.
eyes
Snowee l says
Third movie has the now-iconic mohawk. I dig that.
Scottie B says
Me too
The main issue that I had with the third movie was some of it was too closely related to the book.
The court room scenes and how they win the whole trial was just as terribly portrayed in the movies as it was in the books. Too contrived and convenient so that are superhero wins in the end even though she was guilty of some of the crimes that she committed.
But I did like that they spent less time on her half brother in the movies than they did in the books. He was there just enough and didn't get entire chapters dedicated to him. Again they stuck with the parts with the tall blond guy that mattered the most.
Snowee l says
They remembered that if it does not move the story along, it does not belong. I agree about the trial. Courtroom scenes bore me, though, and at least those were at least a bit less tedious than they often are in movies.
Yet there is no accountability for the part where she was guilty.
Was there much to the third movie other than her recovery and the trial?
Anything about her recovery worth mentioning? They got through it much more quickly and efficiently.
Scottie B says
No not much on the third. I still think that book 2 and 3 could have been one book and if they had a removed enough of the crap they could have made movie 2 and 3 into one movie also and got the point across just as well.
Snowee l says
Agreed.
Scottie B says
Hour one - she is framed, hunts her dad, then almost dies. Hour two - she recovers, found innocent, and lives happily ever after with her stolen money, her family all dead, and well the end.
Snowee l says
Perfect. Done. Finis.
Next up, The Hunger Games. I am going to finish it tomorrow, I swear!
But only book one because I have no desire to read 2 and 3. Perhaps that will change when I've reached the very last page, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it
Scottie B says
Yay, that will be fun since you are reading Hunger Games now and it has been a few months since I have.
Let us see how much I have forgotten.
