David Fincher Remaking The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
English language version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is coming!
And this U.S. remake of the hit 2009 Swedish film will be directed by the man we all remember from movies like Se7en or Fight Club or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button… Yes, we’re talking about David Fincher!
If you had a chance to watch this Swedish film, then you definitely know it is a very heavy movie, an epic tale of serial murder and corporate trickery spanning several continents.
This is an award-winning crime novel by the late Swedish author and journalist Stieg Larsson, and the first in his Millennium Trilogy.
For those who aren’t so familiar with the whole project, we’re going to remind you what the basic story is actually about: “16-year old Harriet Vanger disappeared without a trace, on September 29th 1966. Nearly forty years later, a journalist gets contacted by an industrial leader who wants him to write the history of the Vanger family. The family chronicle is just a cover for the real assignment: to find out about what really happened to Harriet.”
What’s also interesting is a fact that the native title (Män som hatar kvinnor) is Swedish for ‘men who hate women‘. It was directed by Niels Arden Oplev, starring Noomi Rapace, Michael Nyqvist, Sven-Bertil Taube, Peter Andersson, and Peter Haber.
So we guess you wonder exactly the same thing – who will be playing the female lead in the American version and is it possible that Fincher asks Noomi Rapace to reprise her role?
We already heard some rumors, and looks like Carey Mulligan‘s name has been on a wishlist for the pivotal role of Lisbeth Salander (played by Noomi Rapace in the Swedish film) but she has recently said that she isn’t formally part of the film at this point.
On the other hand, there are some rumors Fincher wants an unknown for that one, but there’s also possibility that Brad Pitt or George Clooney get the lead male role. So, as you see, nothing is sure at this moment, but with Fincher seems like everything is possible…
Anyway, it would be interesting to see will this remake be the good choice for David Fincher, but since we all know the novel was released to great acclaim not only in Sweden but also in many European countries, we guess it can not be big mistake.
So, stay tuned, because we’ll be back soon with more information about this project!
the only remarkable thing about the first Dragon Tattoo is the lead female
since she is not along for the remake I wont be seeing it
Garbage piled on Garbage…
Fincher is decent
not half as dull as Mann anyway so maybe he could pull something together, ehhh
This is old news, but there are at least half a dozen things that could be improved. Granted Fincher on anither murder mystery is kinda redundant.
The lead has gone to Rooney Mara, who was Erica Albreight in Fincher’s THE SOCIAL NETWORK.
Also, Daniel Craig is playing Blomkvist; Robin Wright is Berger; Christopher Plummer is Henrik Vangar; Stellan Skarsgard is Martin Vangar.
Will probably be Hollywood and garbage, but then again… David Fincher is capable of great things and just might preserve the darkness of the series and Swedish original. After all, this is the man who made SE7EN, ZODIAC, and THE SOCIAL NETWORK… three films I love.
Rooney Mara in costume: http://www.accesshollywood.com/the-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo
Lance Henrikson has tweeted that the script is amazing. Looking forward to it.
Is this some kind of guerilla marketing tactic by ‘paid fans’ to promote upcoming films?
I heard about this when I was at the New York Film Festival in September. David Fincher was being interviewed by someone from I think it was Indy Wire and then the audience had a Q and A with him. He was promoting the Social Network then and had to leave early because he was going to be boarding a plane to Sweden to talk about remaking the Girl With The Dragon Tattoo over there.
I don’t see why he’s doing this. Also, the lead female in the original wasn’t anything special to begin with so…yeah.
“David Fincher is capable of great things”
What? Is this a marketing campaign in the name of Fincher, the new hipster boy? IT’S A FUCKING REMAKE OF A RECENT NON-ENGLISH LANGUAGE SUCCESS, WAKE UP, IT’S P-R-O-F-I-T!!!! NO ARTISTIC VALUE!
“the lead female in the original wasn’t anything special to begin with”
Noomi Rapace is actually one of the best Swedish actresses working today, far better than most of those Academy-centered nominated bitches and I believe that the Dragon Tatoo series / role will ultimately hurt instead of advancing her career. (just look at all the Hollywood contracts she’ll be receiving)
Maybe I’m saying all this because I have a SurrealMoviez account but I don’t care, haha.
I’ve only seen her in Dragon but I saw nothing special at all. Just a very average film with some very average performances.
after the Social Network, I’m convinced Fincher has the ability to not only craft one masterwork time and again but to take any subject material, be it something undeniably profound or superficially trivial, and turn it into a spellbinding tour de force of cinema and engages each sense with a unique combination of thematic import emotional clout and visual allure.
Yea, after Benjamin Button I could hardly wait for his next film. Too funny!
The hate-ade is so strong people are drinking right now the films don’t even have to come out?
I was pretty disgusted when I heard this, look for some new material ffs not just a guaranteed bums on seats remake. It was a sub par vastly overrated film anyway.
Actually the Swedish film had some problems with pacing and editing in my opinion. This source material will definetely benefit from Fincher’s style.
You can have Fincher and Larsson. I’m looking forward to the cinematic Norwegian Wood whenever it comes to town. Curious how Tran Anh Hung translates this deeply internalized book onto the screen.
Another absolutely redundant english language remake, yay….
Let’s wait for the damn movie to come out before we judge. Everyone thought a film about Facebook would be complete trash.
^ Ummm…who said that Facebook film is good anyway?
I spoke to Fincher the other night at massive media-launch party for “The Social Network” DVD at Spago. He showed me a picutre of Rooney Mara in full make-up and costume on his ipad.
Looked good to me.
I’m enjoying the whole attempt by Zuckerberg to avoid taking Facebook public. The deal Zuckerberg is negotiating with Goldman Sachs sounds rather fishy.
@ Dimitris Psahos - would you say it is complete trash?
I agree that this remake is almost certainly a shameless money-grabbing exercise by a Hollywood that seems to believe it is utterly devoid of ideas — I can guarantee there are good ideas being trod upon every day in that town. That aside, how can you judge a film as having no artistic value without actually having seen it? If a film is produced and marketed in the hopes of turning a profit is it by default lacking in artistic merit? I’m sure the makers of Casablanca threw financial caution to the wind, only hoping to open in limited release because breaking even and paying your financiers puts a bullet in the brain of art.
Look, I get where you’re coming from (at least I believe that I do). My first response to remakes is always and will always be one of cynicism. But I won’t resign myself to believe that a remake will always — without fail — be artistically bankrupt. Give filmmakers a chance.
“But I won’t resign myself to believe that a remake will always — without fail — be artistically bankrupt. Give filmmakers a chance”
I do but c’mon!!!! This fucking trend of Hollywood remaking every single commercial success of non-English language material has gotten extremely preposterous!!! Did we really need any remakes of Ring, Insomnia, Funny Games and Quarantine, regardless of the artistic class of their predecessors? No! Do I respect the auteurs’ intentions? For sure but I don’t give a rat’s ass about artistic class when profit comes into play, not even when a Haneke name appears in front of the bulletin board!
“I’m sure the makers of Casablanca threw financial caution to the wind, only hoping to open in limited release because breaking even and paying your financiers puts a bullet in the brain of art.”
That’s marketing conversation, beyond the proportions of remakes and renditions (because Ring, Let Me In and Fincher’s new “idea” are basically renditions) and this example is usually applied in terms of the respective country’s / production’s demands or future prospects, correct?
Not to sound way too shabby but there’s also a big difference when two remakes appear hand in hand, adaptations or not and another when Maltese Falcon is released in 1931 and then its remake 10 years later! Man, there is a fucking difference, remake or not! So aye, I CAN judge the film AND the policy of it notwithstanding the profiting success of it. Oh, sorry, eclectic success I should say, Fincher is an “acclaimed” director, he’s not Matt Reeves alright.
“would you say it is complete trash?”
The film or Zuckerberg? Biopic or not, the film is cute. No, not trash and I’m indifferent abut any awards but the critical praise is in short…a joke.
yawn You still haven’t seen a fucking frame. Judgmental much?
Not to burst the bubble of bullshit being thrown but stretching the term remake here anyway. Fincher is adapting the BOOK here not fucking doing another version of a film. So a book is getting 2 films from it, so fucking what. There’s books which have had upwards of 10 adaptions. We as an audience have benefited from different visions and interpretations along the way.
We should be thankful, not whine like little babies that ANOTHER film is being made for a great book. FFS
" Biopic or not, the film is cute. No, not trash and I’m indifferent abut any awards but the critical praise is in short…a joke"
@ Dimitris Psahos — Yes, Hollywood should be taken to court for their behaviour and possibly sent to the gallows. This remake-fever is extremely — I’ll use the word again because that is what it is — shameless on their part; particularly the fact that they have zero qualms about remaking a film while it is still only a theatrical release in some countries. I won’t even bother disagreeing with you on this point because, frankly, I don’t. Not only is it transparently profit-hungry, it’s sort of disrespectful to the makers of the films being remade. It implies that they didn’t do a decent-enough job, when the job they in fact failed to do was to dub it in English. What I can’t quite comprehend is your ability to judge an as of yet unseen film.
“Ring, Let Me In and Fincher’s new “idea” are basically renditions”
Let Me In is a rendition of Alfredson’s film. Just watching the film, it is obvious Matt Reeves saw, loved and wanted to emulate Let The Right One In, sometimes shot for shot. It might not be Van Sant’s version of Psycho, but it is pretty faithful to the Swedish masterwork. Reeves remade an adaptation. On the other hand, we HAVE NOT seen Fincher’s version yet. We have no idea how similar it will be to Oplev’s film. How can it be a rendition?
I know I’m going to piss you off when I say this, but I think the “rules of remaking” don’t really apply when the original source material is not itself a film. Fincher’s version of the series is not a remake. It’s an adaptation that has been greenlit suspiciously close to the heels of a financially successful Swedish-language adaptation. Until the film is released, the benefit of the doubt rests with Fincher and his production team — here’s hoping, nay, praying that they produce something interesting and somewhat original to counteract the general laziness of what their doing. Similarly, the Coen Brothers’ True Grit is not a remake of the ‘69 version, even if it appears to be, which it doesn’t. If they consulted the book as their source material, it’s an adaptation in its own right. Luckily there was also a 40-year gap in this instance.
On the topic of Zuckerberg and his universe, The Social Network is a good film, and I really like it. But it’s definitely receiving too much praise. Probably because people are surprised that it is not complete trash.
“What I can’t quite comprehend is your ability to judge an as of yet unseen film.”
I have the right to judge anything when I’ve seen enough Hollywood trash, sorry.
I"f they consulted the book as their source material, it’s an adaptation in its own right. Luckily there was also a 40-year gap in this instance."
That’s my argument with original materials being remade in short because what Smokey above you doesn’t realize is the unabashed Americanism these recent releases tend to possess: why the need for any Reeves to exploit a European success or for any Nic Cage performing in an East Asian success and not even a decade had passed for fuck’s sake!!!
“So a book is getting 2 films from it, so fucking what.”
Do you know what the word profit means Smokey? Oh, is it because the almighty Fincher is being bashed now and not some d-movie Hollywood director? Poor fucking Fincher, the new god of cine-cookies.
it’s not gonna make much money anyway, Daniel Craig is the lead attraction so… and those that loved the book bothered to see the originals and can see this is a money grab
It will do about as well as Let Me In then Fincher will go away
I chose to believe this; it makes the world better