"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" -- anyone seeing it?

[belladonna]

I saw it at a sneak preview Monday, but it is out today for the masses.
I had read the books, my husband hadn't, and we both thoroughly enjoyed it.

Long, but not draggy, it is faithful enough to the books that I only had a couple "wait a minute" moments. But overall, I think the screenwriter did a great job encapsulating all the crucial ideas with a minimum of padding. The one bit I did miss from the book was the behind-the-scenes magazine politics, but I work in journalism so that appealed to me. I don't think its omission hurt the movie in any way.

Just wanted to hear some other thoughts on it, so please chime in if you've had the chance to see it!

[smiling bandit]

I've heard conflicting things about it, but have not seen it and may not get around to it. Some thought it a powerful and energetic movie, and others though it was so over-the-top that it became absurd (basically, every character is either utterly evil or the hero-can-do-no-wrong type, and the plot meanders).

[Alka Seltzer]

I thought the original version was a rare case of the filmed version being better than the book. If subtitles don't put you off, I'd recommend seeing that instead. I notice the new one has a decent score on metacritic, the only negative review is from someone who didn't like the swedish version or the book either.

[Anaamika]

I saw the original one and liked it a lot, and saw no point in remaking it.

Until I saw that the remake had Daniel Craig. Ok, ok, I'll watch it. *grumble*

[Eyebrows 0f Doom]

I saw it last night and really enjoyed it! (Well, maybe "enjoy" is the wrong word, what with all the rape and brutality and everything.) But I thought it was a great movie. I'm a fan of the books and I've seen all three Swedish films. They were good, but I think Fincher's version is better.

I was curious for those who had not read the books/seen the films first, was it at all confusing? There were several times where I felt like I only knew what was going on because I was already familiar with the story, and I was wondering if someone new to it would have had some trouble? I love that they stayed true to the story and set the film in the original locations instead of transporting it to some random American town, but at times the accents made some lines hard to understand.

Was anyone else completely captivated by that opening credit sequence? That was awesome! David Fincher's films always have the coolest opening credits.

While I wasn't a fan of Trent Reznor's music for "The Social Network," I think the music worked pretty well in this case, giving the entire film a dark sense of unease, foreboding and suspense. Not a soundtrack I would listen to on it's own, but very well suited to the film.

Oh, did anyone else notice Joel Kinnaman (from the TV show "The Killing") as Christer Malm in the background in the office scenes even though I don't think he spoke one line? Perhaps Fincher was already planning for the sequels?

[Odesio]

I saw the Dutch film and don't see any compelling reason to watch the new version. I enjoyed the first movie, but it's a very plot driven mystery and I already know the plot and the mystery.

[diggerwam]

My wife read all 3 books and I will probably get dragged to the movie. I like finchers work other than Ben button. Anyone else disturbed that this type of violent, particularly violence towards women is mainstream entertainment. I could see this being a niche film/book but for the book to be considered a beach read, for the movie to be Xmas release is troubling. I don't get it. It seems like it will be very disturbing imagery and storyline. Why do so many people want to see it. I suppose I'm just a prude, but I just don't really see the appeal.

[Anaamika]

Originally Posted by diggerwam

My wife read all 3 books and I will probably get dragged to the movie. I like finchers work other than Ben button. Anyone else disturbed that this type of violent, particularly violence towards women is mainstream entertainment. I could see this being a niche film/book but for the book to be considered a beach read, for the movie to be Xmas release is troubling. I don't get it. It seems like it will be very disturbing imagery and storyline. Why do so many people want to see it. I suppose I'm just a prude, but I just don't really see the appeal.

The violence and the rape is horrific, but it's good because these things really happen in life, but in the movie, she gets her own back. It's a wish-fulfillment scenario - not to be raped but to utterly destroy and humiliate a rapist. Plus the big reveal at the end is sweet and unexpected (well, I guessed early on, but I still wouldn't expect such a dark book to end so nicely).

It is disturbing, but unfortunately so is real life, only in real life the rapists and murderers are still walking around free.

[Alka Seltzer]

Originally Posted by diggerwam

Anyone else disturbed that this type of violent, particularly violence towards women is mainstream entertainment. I could see this being a niche film/book but for the book to be considered a beach read, for the movie to be Xmas release is troubling. I don't get it. It seems like it will be very disturbing imagery and storyline. Why do so many people want to see it. I suppose I'm just a prude, but I just don't really see the appeal.

The main appeal is that it's a good mystery story.

SPOILER:

I did find the rape scene upsetting to watch, but at least there was a payoff, as Lisbeth was able to take control of her life again.

I wouldn't put the story in the torture porn category, the book and film take a strong stance against violence towards women. It's more explicit than many, but it deals with the issues more carefully than several others I can think of, which make light of them.

[Death of Rats]

Originally Posted by diggerwam

My wife read all 3 books and I will probably get dragged to the movie. I like finchers work other than Ben button. Anyone else disturbed that this type of violent, particularly violence towards women is mainstream entertainment. I could see this being a niche film/book but for the book to be considered a beach read, for the movie to be Xmas release is troubling. I don't get it. It seems like it will be very disturbing imagery and storyline. Why do so many people want to see it. I suppose I'm just a prude, but I just don't really see the appeal.

As for why release in December, the answer is: to put it into awards contention for 2011. Voters for various cinema awards will be voting soon, so it releases it at a point where it is still in 2011 and ends up being one of the freshest movies in the minds of the voters.

[McDeath_the_Mad]

I saw it last night as well and I really enjoyed the movie. It stayed fairly faithful to the book and everyone did a great job playing their roles.

I have to say the opening title sequence was visually stunning. If I recall correctly Trent Reznor did the title sequence for "Se7en" (anothe Fincher movie), so I'm willing to bet he did this one as well.

Humerous side note, when the movie theater went dark they started showing "family" previews (Tin-Tin, We Bought a Zoo, etc.) when they were over there was a 5 minute animated short of Sylvester and Tweety. When that was over Happy Feet 2 started! Everyone in the audience was just sitting there thinking WTF?

It took them 10 minutes to get that straightened out!

MtM

[UncleRojelio]

I saw the original and liked it. Why bother with the second banana?

[Skammer]

Originally Posted by McDeath_the_Mad

I saw it last night as well and I really enjoyed the movie. It stayed fairly faithful to the book and everyone did a great job playing their roles.

I have to say the opening title sequence was visually stunning. If I recall correctly Trent Reznor did the title sequence for "Se7en" (anothe Fincher movie), so I'm willing to bet he did this one as well.

Humerous side note, when the movie theater went dark they started showing "family" previews (Tin-Tin, We Bought a Zoo, etc.) when they were over there was a 5 minute animated short of Sylvester and Tweety. When that was over Happy Feet 2 started! Everyone in the audience was just sitting there thinking WTF?

It took them 10 minutes to get that straightened out!

MtM

Similar thing happened to me when I went to see Crazy Heart. Unfortunately it was me who had accidentally wandered into Valentine's Day.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I saw the original film trilogy and thought they were excellent. Based on that I got the books, and thoroughly enjoyed them as well.

Based on what I saw in the 2 trailers, I won't bother with these until someone makes me, as I thought what I saw in the trailers indicated that key parts of the character's personalities had been altered enough to change their relationships and motivations. I thought the original films were nearly flawless, perhaps even, as Alka said, better than the books. Any alteration to the characters, thus, is to me a flaw.

[Chefguy]

The one review I saw said that the cast does a competent job, with the only one real standout being the actress who plays Lisbet. Otherwise it appears it's just a clone of the Swedish version. Any comments about this from Dopers?

[Blank Slate]

Will this be three films like the Swedish trilogy or just the one?

[CrazyCatLady]

[quote=Alka Seltzer;14589117]The main appeal is that it's a good mystery story.

It's a decent mystery interspersed with rather a lot of irrelevant crap that does nothing to advance the story or deepen the character. The entire rape story line could have been dropped and only improved the movie.

[interface2x]

Originally Posted by McDeath_the_Mad

I have to say the opening title sequence was visually stunning. If I recall correctly Trent Reznor did the title sequence for "Se7en" (anothe Fincher movie), so I'm willing to bet he did this one as well.

Yes, he did the music for both, kind of - the Se7en opening was just a remix of Closer that had already been released. This one, the song was recorded specifically for the movie.

I wasn't originally planning on seeing this (the Swedish movies were decent but not amazing), but when I found out David Fincher was directing, I was in. I'm planning to see it this week.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by CrazyCatLady

It's a decent mystery interspersed with rather a lot of irrelevant crap that does nothing to advance the story or deepen the character. The entire rape story line could have been dropped and only improved the movie.

Permit me to disagree. In fact, the rape is central to the other 2 books (movies) in the series, and since the over-arching issue being explored here is violence against women, it's not only apropos, it's necessary.

[Equipoise]

Originally Posted by Blank Slate

Will this be three films like the Swedish trilogy or just the one?

Three. Fincher will film 2&3 at the same time.

Anyone who's read the books and/or seen the Swedish films and loves the character of Lisbeth Salander should knock everyone out of their way and RACE to the theater to see Rooney Mara's take on this fascinating character. If you have a loyalty to Noomi Rapace and refuse to see it, it's just because you like Noomi Rapace, and not Lisbeth Salander. Noomi's great, wonderful, love her, but it's the character I especially love and Mara makes Lisbeth her own. Brilliantly.

Bring on The Girl Who Played With Fire! That's my favorite because it's ALL about Lisbeth.

[aruvqan]

We went to see it this afternoon.

I liked it. I liked the books, and I liked the original movies. I did notice where they omitted stuff for time issues, and i notice where they omitted plot lines so they could condense.

SPOILER:

I was not thrilled that they killed off Anita - England is too fucking close, anybody in the family could have decided to just "hop to England and See Anita" and noticed it wasn't actually Anita. Australia was far enough away that hiding in plain sight is plausable.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by CrazyCatLady

It's a decent mystery interspersed with rather a lot of irrelevant crap that does nothing to advance the story or deepen the character. The entire rape story line could have been dropped and only improved the movie.

After I watched the movie, I thought to myself they could have gotten rid of the girl with the dragon tattoo and had a tighter murder mystery. Then again, I suppose our intrepid reporter needed someone to work with to make it a more exciting movie. But, yeah, you don't really need to know anything about his job at the newspaper or Lisbeth's situation.

[DoctorJ]

It was OK. The casting and acting were great and the overall look and feel were spot-on. The opening title sequence (with that great Reznor/Karen O "Immigrant Song" cover) made it worth seeing the movie in a theater, even if it writes a check the movie couldn't possibly cash.

My problems with it:
--It was about 30 minutes too long. I know Roger Ebert says that no good movie is too long (and no bad one is too short), but I don't really agree; I've seen plenty of three-hour movies that would have been better two-hour movies. I might be misremembering the Swedish version, but I remember it as being tighter, and this one felt much longer even though in reality it's only six minutes longer.

--More specifically, the movie's climax happens with a nice one-two punch of solved mysteries, and then...the movie goes on for 45 minutes. This is where a lot of the tightening up needed to happen.

(These issues were present in spades in the book, which needed serious editing.)

--The rape scene bothered me, and not quite like it was supposed to. I have this problem a lot with violent comic book movies (Sin City, Watchmen), when an incredibly violent act that plays out over a few panels in a comic has to happen in real time on the screen. Rather than making them more real it tends to pull me out of the story. I think the rape had to be there to set up Lisbeth's satisfying comeback and to help define her character, but I don't think it needed to be shown quite so literally.

[Equipoise]

Originally Posted by Odesio

After I watched the movie, I thought to myself they could have gotten rid of the girl with the dragon tattoo and had a tighter murder mystery. Then again, I suppose our intrepid reporter needed someone to work with to make it a more exciting movie.

Originally Posted by CrazyCatLady

It's a decent mystery interspersed with rather a lot of irrelevant crap that does nothing to advance the story or deepen the character. The entire rape story line could have been dropped and only improved the movie.

This thread is starting to freak me out. Lisbeth, who she is, what happened to her, how she became the present day Lisbeth, is the whole point. The first book/movie is just to introduce her and set her up as an interesting character you want to know more about.

Originally Posted by DoctorJ

--More specifically, the movie's climax happens with a nice one-two punch of solved mysteries, and then...the movie goes on for 45 minutes. This is where a lot of the tightening up needed to happen.

I won't argue that the Swedish movies are tighter, but I'm ok with length since a lot of that is setup for movies 2 and 3. It actually should have been longer. I don't remember them

SPOILER:

explaining that Harriet was the one sending the pressed plants to her uncle. If they did I missed it.

I want, NEED, The Girl Who Played With Fire movie to be as long as humanly possible, since the Swedish film was like a Cliff Notes version of a Reader's Digest condensed version of the book. It was way too severely, jarringly, edited. I like that Fincher is taking as much time as he needs and wants.

[SCSimmons]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

We went to see it this afternoon.

I liked it. I liked the books, and I liked the original movies. I did notice where they omitted stuff for time issues, and i notice where they omitted plot lines so they could condense.

SPOILER:

I was not thrilled that they killed off Anita - England is too fucking close, anybody in the family could have decided to just "hop to England and See Anita" and noticed it wasn't actually Anita. Australia was far enough away that hiding in plain sight is plausable.

Just got back ... fantastic movie overall, I thought, most especially Mara's performance. Disturbing, gritty, and really captured the character from the book, with both her positive qualities and flaws.

I quoted this post because that was one of my only complaints on leaving the theater. I think I understand why they did it--it would probably hurt the pacing (which was on the edge already) to have that much more investigation after the climax. But as presented, the resolution to the original mystery was really implausible.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Equipoise

This thread is starting to freak me out. Lisbeth, who she is, what happened to her, how she became the present day Lisbeth, is the whole point. The first book/movie is just to introduce her and set her up as an interesting character you want to know more about.

When I watch a movie I judge it based on nothing more than the movie itself. I don't judge it by what might happen in a sequel. It's why I judged Pirates of the Caribbean harshly even though I knew a third movie was on the way. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was a procedural murder mystery. You could have replaced the reporter or Lisbeth and ended up with a movie that was just as good. It wouldn't pave the way for a sequel I guess, but, as I pointed out, I don't judge movies based on the next sequel. I judge it only on what I see.

Anyway, my sister wants to see the movie so I'll be seeing it tomorrow.

[Untoward_Parable]

Loved the original, the previews of this version seemed like the girl was a lot weaker and Daniel Craig's character was... Daniel Craig. One of the very cool things about the original film was that the male/female roles were very unique, something you almost just don't see in movies. I can't help but think this version is Americanized to the point of being glossy but bad.

[Equipoise]

You'd be wrong. And Lisbeth being weaker? Ask the guy in the subway who stole her computer bag. Ask

SPOILER:

Bjurman's ass & stomach

just how weak Mara's Lisbeth is.

[voguevixen]

Nope. Read the book.

DISGUSTING!

Why would I PAY to see that?

[diggerwam]

Anaamika's response was that violence towards women happens in real life. Yes you are right. So does infanticide. Doesn't mean I want to watch it dramatized for my entertainment. I gave up watching csi, l& o, dexter etc many years ago because it was just too disturbing. Apparently I'm in the minority

[Taomist]

Originally Posted by diggerwam

My wife read all 3 books and I will probably get dragged to the movie. I like finchers work other than Ben button. Anyone else disturbed that this type of violent, particularly violence towards women is mainstream entertainment. I could see this being a niche film/book but for the book to be considered a beach read, for the movie to be Xmas release is troubling. I don't get it. It seems like it will be very disturbing imagery and storyline. Why do so many people want to see it. I suppose I'm just a prude, but I just don't really see the appeal.

I *hate* torture movies. Will NOT see any of the Saw films, absolutely detest that kind of thing. Hate it. Had to leave the room during the church-burning scene in The Patriot, even; just can't bear it.

But I love the books, liked the Swedish films, and am looking forward to the American version. Looking MORE forward to the second and third American ones, and I hope they do them. I was quite saddened when I came to the end of the three books, went to see when the next one was coming out, and only THEN realized the author was not only dead, but that all three books were published post-humously.

It's an engaging storyline, and you really want to know more about Lisbet. Also encouraging to see people actually survive that kind of shit, because we know it happens in real life. Trust me, we know. The attraction is in the survival.

No, still won't ever watch Saw. I remember wishing the creator would just DIE already. I think he did? Still going on anyway. Bleargh.
(To be fair, I suspect the first Saw movie might be a BOOK I would read. But I don't want to see it. If I hadn't read the books, not sure I'd want to see the 'Dragon' movie, either, to be honest)

[Equipoise]

Some people don't like seeing strong women characters, women who'll fight back against/get revenge for abuse. Lisbeth Salander is one of, if not the most intelligent characters in modern fiction. She's physically small but is a kickboxer and knows how to use weapons like tasers (but does not use guns or knives) to protect/avenge herself.

It's her mind that's the real threat. She has a photographic memory, is off-the-charts intelligent, and she's calm and knows how to bide her time and get revenge when the timing is right. Her hacking skills are legendary and she can cause someone more damage with keystrokes than an army could with conventional weapons. All that is what's so fascinating/terrifying about her. In the books it's a thril when you read that she's sitting down at her computer because you know what follows will be interesting. Of course that aspect is hard to convey on film but they do their best.

Seeing/reading a character like Lisbeth is why I'll gladly pay.

Reese Witherspoon has a new romantic comedy coming out as an antidote to Lisbeth Salander. Don't know the release date though.

[Anaamika]

Originally Posted by diggerwam

Anaamika's response was that violence towards women happens in real life. Yes you are right. So does infanticide. Doesn't mean I want to watch it dramatized for my entertainment. I gave up watching csi, l& o, dexter etc many years ago because it was just too disturbing. Apparently I'm in the minority

Why would you only comment on part of my post? I don't just watch it because violence occurs towards women in real life, I watch it because in this one, Lisbeth gets her own back. And I'm sure lots and lots of women watch that with a visceral sense of joy. It's catharsis and it feels goddamn good.

Infanticide happens but I wouldn't watch a movie for that. I might watch a movie if the person who killed the baby got a horrible fate in return - but less so, because I can't identify with the baby like I can with Lisbeth. We've all felt like the outsider at some point. Well, Lisbeth is the ultimate outsider - very few friends, no one who really knows her, no one who loves her, and still surviving, teeth-gritted.

She's a survivor. And I like survivors. For you to distill all that down to just another graphic rape (I'm looking at you, Irresistible, you dipshit crass movie) is frankly, rather insulting to Lisbeth.

That being said, I am fully aware as Lisbeth is just a bag of bones in a book, as Stephen King would put it. And yet, she is a strong female type that takes no shit from anyone. I love her, even though she's strange and would never accept my love nor my friendship.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Equipoise

Some people don't like seeing strong women characters, women who'll fight back against/get revenge for abuse. Lisbeth Salander is one of, if not the most intelligent characters in modern fiction. She's physically small but is a kickboxer and knows how to use weapons like tasers (but does not use guns or knives) to protect/avenge herself.

You just described Batgirl.

[Equipoise]

And?

[well he's back]

I can handle the rape scene in the book but choose not to watch it on screen, especially as it's been described as graphic.

[diggerwam]

A societys art should reflect reality. My original comment was that I am shocked that this particular storyline is so mainstream. A movie released on Xmas week doesn't get any more mainstream. I am surprised that I am apparently a minority of one. Without the horrible treatment this character wouldn't exist. It's great that she gets get revenge but she was spawned by violence. Full disclosure I like tarantino movies and American horror story. But I understand that those are niche entertainments. Personally its troubling that this is so widely watched and read.

[Equipoise]

Originally Posted by diggerwam

A movie released on Xmas week doesn't get any more mainstream.

Checking Chicago listings, also in theaters now (depending on where you live):

Shame
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
50/50
Melancholia
A Dangerous Method
The Rum Diary
The Interrupters
Young Adult

Do you think all of those strange, offbeat and often shocking movies are mainstream too? Why does Christmas have to be all about Happy Feet, Arthur Christmas, Muppets and Tintin?

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

You just described Batgirl.

Originally Posted by Equipoise

And?

And it's my opinion that Lisbeth Salander is not some special snowflake that is here to show all the other literary characters what a real woman is like. She's the gimmick of this particular mystery series. Sweden's literary scene is actually rife with them.

Don't get me wrong, the original Swedish movies were awesome, but Lisbeth as a character is such a riot grrl cliche that I can't believe anyone would ever refer to her as original with a straight face.

Originally Posted by Equipoise

Do you think all of those strange, offbeat and often shocking movies are mainstream too? Why does Christmas have to be all about Happy Feet, Arthur Christmas, Muppets and Tintin?

Are you honestly arguing that The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is some underground, indie production? Even if you ignore the big name director, big name cast, and big budgetness of the film, the fact remains that Stieg Larsson's books have reached the Harry Potter/Dan Brown level of popularity. There is nothing bigger in fiction today. And the movie based on the first one is as mainstream as mainstream gets.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

And it's my opinion that Lisbeth Salander is not some special snowflake that is here to show all the other literary characters what a real woman is like. She's the gimmick of this particular mystery series. Sweden's literary scene is actually rife with them.

Don't get me wrong, the original Swedish movies were awesome, but Lisbeth as a character is such a riot grrl cliche that I can't believe anyone would ever refer to her as original with a straight face.

Good on you for arguing against something that no one said! Keep on fighting the good fight!

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Good on you for arguing against something that no one said! Keep on fighting the good fight!

Skipped this post I assume?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

Skipped this post I assume?

No, I read that post, just like I read all the others in this thread. Nothing in that post coincides with the things you are arguing against.

Equipoise didn't say that Lisbeth was here to show everyone what a real woman was like, that she was "original" or any of the other things you argue against.

ETA: Lisbeth is not the "gimmick" here; she's the main character. The things she goes thru are not just the plot of the book, they are the central theme that Larrson was writing about.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I knew I was going to miss the edit window if I tried to jam this into the previous post, so here it is:

When Larsson was 15 years old, he witnessed the gang rape of a girl, which led to his lifelong abhorrence of violence and abuse against women. His longtime partner, Eva Gabrielsson, writes that this incident "marked him for life" in a chapter of her book that describes Larsson as a feminist. The author never forgave himself for failing to help the girl, and this inspired the themes of sexual violence against women in his books. According to Gabrielsson, the Millennium trilogy allowed Larsson to express a worldview he was never able to elucidate as a journalist. She described, with a great deal of specificity, how the fundamental narratives of his three books were essentially fictionalized portraits of the Sweden few people knew, a place where latent white supremacy found expression in all aspects of contemporary life, and antiextremists lived in persistent fear of attack. “Everything of this nature described in the Millennium trilogy has happened at one time or another to a Swedish citizen, journalist, politician, public prosecutor, unionist or policeman,” she writes. “Nothing was made up.”

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

ETA: Lisbeth is not the "gimmick" here; she's the main character. The things she goes thru are not just the plot of the book, they are the central theme that Larrson was writing about.

I know all about Larsson's desire to see rapists and killers punished, but Lisbeth is still a cartoon. She's a superhacker with a photographic memory, ninja skills, and a killer right hook. She's also covered in tattoos, sports a mohawk, and is bisexual. This fits right in with Blomqvist the superjournalist who prints a niche magazine that somehow pushes him into the national spotlight every few months and all women are drawn to his animal magnetism and drop their clothes quickly and often (including Lisbeth!).

Like I said, the movies were great, but realistic characters they did not have.

And Equipoise's post pretty clearly shows her having been pulled in by the "Lisbeth is super special" brigade.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

This fits right in with Blomqvist the superjournalist who prints a niche magazine that somehow pushes him into the national spotlight every few months and all women are drawn to his animal magnetism and drop their clothes quickly and often (including Lisbeth!).

By "all women" I suppose you mean Erika and Lisbeth, since they are the only 2 women he sleeps with in all 3 of the movies.

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

I know all about Larsson's desire to see rapists and killers punished, but Lisbeth is still a cartoon. She's a superhacker with a photographic memory, ninja skills, and a killer right hook. She's also covered in tattoos, sports a mohawk, and is bisexual.

You must have seen a different movie. I saw no "ninja skills" on display from any of the characters. Killer right hook? I don't remember that.

So we're left with a hacker with a photographic memory with lots of tats and a mohawk who is bisexual. So what? I know at least 3 women who fit this description, although 2 of them have areas of technical expertise that don't include hacking. Oh, and one likes to dye her hair purple, not black.

By your definition, nearly every movie character ever is a "cartoon".

And I still stand by what I wrote: you argue against things no one has said: there was no post that said Lisbeth was "original" or "some special snowflake that is here to show all the other literary characters what a real woman is like".

There were posts that praised Lisbeth as a strong character, and a notable one, but that's it. Again, tho, thanks for shaking your fist at the sky; I'm sure we all appreciate the effort you're putting into that.

[Equipoise]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Again, tho, thanks for shaking your fist at the sky; I'm sure we all appreciate the effort you're putting into that.

I know I do. I can usually count on Justin to follow me around and tell me where I've gone wrong. What would I do without him? He completes me.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Equipoise

I know I do. I can usually count on Justin to follow me around and tell me where I've gone wrong. What would I do without him? He completes me.

It's a satisfying relationship on my end too.

[Equipoise]

My husband is starting to become suspicious though.

[Floater]

Originally Posted by Odesio

I saw the Dutch film ...

Dutch?

Originally Posted by Blank Slate

Will this be three films like the Swedish trilogy or just the one?

Originally Posted by Equipoise

Three. Fincher will film 2&3 at the same time.

Maybe it's decided now, but from the beginning it depended on the outcome of the first one.

Anyroad,. I haven't read the books and I rarely go to the cinema. In which order should I read and watch?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Floater

Anyroad,. I haven't read the books and I rarely go to the cinema. In which order should I read and watch?

Well, since it's really one story arc, you should probably read/watch them in order:

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
The Girl Who Played With Fire
The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest