Probably. It’ll introduce the story, the books, and the original movies, to many who might otherwise have never bothered.
It’s David Fincher, and that’s good enough for me. I’ve loved everything else he’s done and I want to see what he does with it. He’s got a gift for great casting, so I have no doubt we’ll get a great Lisbeth.
How in the world did I miss this- it’s been available for a month??
I, too, think Rooney Mara is in for a world of comparison with Noomi Rapace, but I’m sure she expects it, in the same way her co-star, Daniel Craig, steeled himself for the Bond comparisons. And really, what could she do? She either takes the role and the comparisons that inevitably will come with it, or turns down one of the most potentially career making roles she’ll be offered. As an actress, the choice in the end might not have been too difficult to make!
As a huge fan of both the books and the Swedish movies, I’ve already decided to do what I can to set aside my own personal comparisons and simply try to enjoy the American version(s) on their own merit. Should the Swedish movies get remade? It doesn’t really matter now, as they clearly ARE getting remade, so I’ll keep my skepticism to myself!
Basing my opinion solely on this trailer, I will say I love the look of it, love the fact that David Fincher is directing it, and love the cover of “Immigrant Song”. Cannot wait to see this.
Slightly off-topic, but I was pleasantly surprised recently to see that Noomi Rapace is starring in the new Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes film.
I have a spoiler question; at least I think it’s a spoiler question.
At the end of the first Swedish movie, but NOT contained within the first book, some of Lizbet’s past is shown. Is this strictly for the movie, or is it part of book two? And yes, I want to know, no need to spoiler it. Actually, I guess it really isn’t a spoiler. >.< I think the Game of Thrones threads have made me overly cautious.
I’m going to read the other two books for sure, so I’ll find out eventually, but I’m curious NOW. 
Yes it is part of the next book.
I really like the way that there are history flashes that all add up [though I did notice that obviously the movies left some plotlines out that were in the book. It would make a great 3 year series to get all the scenes from the books in.]
Thank you! It’s clear that Lizbet is the most interesting character, and I’m sure she carries the next two books as well. I look forward to them. 
I wonder if it is correct ot call a movie a remake when the original movie was based on a book. It’s like calling Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet a remake. A remake to me is using one film as the source material for another film.
Not to be too snarky, but what does your question really mean? Since does any movie ever “need” to be made? American producers decided that they could make money making this movie. So they are doing so. It may be good, it may be awful. The fact that a Swedish movie of the same source material was already made and is fairly widely seen and available probably hurts them a bit, since some number of people who’ve seen that version will not see the American version because of it, but they believe that they’ll still be able to make money. And if the movie is good, more power to them.
Also, and I admit this is a bit of a pet peeve, I don’t think that a second movie made from non-movie source material is really a “remake”. The Burton/Depp Wonka movie was an adaptation of the Roald Dahl book, as was the earlier Gene Wilder movie. It wasn’t a remake.
Continuing to be slightly off-topic, she is also to be in a pre-Ripley “Alien” movie, directed by Ridley Scott, which has piqued my interest immensely.
That’s a good point, though I preferred the “Willy Wonka” comparison, rather than a source material (a play) that was meant to be performed by different people.
I suppose a better term for those who need to make the complaint would be, why does it need to be… English-ized? I find there are more complaints in that kind of “remake”. (ie. Why can’t it just be dubbed? etc.)
But surely this is largely a remake, with a vision and cinematography inspired by the original film, even if they’re not officially admitting it?
Well, it’s going to be interesting to see how it turns out. Quite a bit of the book was left out of the movie; there are plenty of ways the new one could go that wouldn’t step exactly into the original movie’s footprints.
The trailer seems to hinge heavily on Lizbet’s badassery, though, so it probably won’t be THAT different.
I wish I could find the interview/article, but I’d like to say with some confidence that I read Fincher was going to stay closer to the book than the Swedish adaptation. I would think one thing would be Blomkvist’s love of women. He really did sleep with every damn woman who crossed his path! I also wonder if that means he’ll put in the scene where
the killer strings up Blomkvist and it’s Lisabeth who finds the hidden room to save him.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen the Swedish version, so I can’t quite recall other things that were skimmed over/omitted, but those are two that immediately come to mind.
I just finished watching the Swedish version, and your spoiler was in it, though things might not have actually been hidden, really. Although I also just finished reading the book, it seemed like they just rushed through that part rather than taking 40 pages to get through it. Maybe it was just easily found?
Now, I’m with you on this, Cookies, but I’m with Equipoise on Let Me In, it was worthy.
I thought in the book
The killer strings him up naked??
If I’m remembering correctly, that didn’t happen in the Swedish movie, did it?
And I agree with your assessment of the scene itself in the book- there was certainly more of a build-up and development in the book. But I suppose there’s always going to be something sacrificed in the transition from book to film. I was happy to see they were all given quite a bit of time to do the best they could; each film is roughly 2.5 hours long.
Really?? My partner and I saw the trailer in the theatre last night and when it concluded, we turned to each other and simultaneously said: “That looks awful/terrible.” We’ve both seen the Swedish version and it had style, whereas the trailer for the remake makes it look tragically mediocre.
No no, you’re right, they didn’t go that far. The whole scene was cut pretty drastically in comparison to the book. Though a LOT of exposition was cut for the movie, I do think that one scene could have used a lot more time. We’ll just have to see what the american version produces.
As far as to how the american version will be, both from the trailer and just knowing american audiences, I am sure the focus will be on Lizbet and her asskickery. Everything else will be just a way to build her up and give her excuses to prod buttock. Oh…and with Craig in there, I’m sure there will be lots of romping.
And I’m sure they’ll make a larger deal out of the Lisabeth/Lucy relationship, which is already hinted at in the trailer. Not to say the Swedish version skimmed over it and avoided the physical aspects of it, but (and this might be very unfair to David Fincher) I suspect there will be a more salacious approach to it in the American version.
That was one of the weaknesses of the books, IMO, and I’m glad the original movies cut most of that crap out, and I hope Fincher does too. I hated Blomkvist’s horndoggery and thought it was mostly boring and stupid. But then, I only wanted to read about Lisbeth anyway. Most time spent with Blomkvist when he wasn’t investigating something (such as where he could put his dick next) was time wasted when I could be reading about Lisbeth and what she’s up to.
The Girl Who Played With Fire is my favorite book because it’s jam-packed with Lisbeth. The movie not so much because they had to cut out and couldn’t show SO MUCH, but I still like it.
I really hope they don’t, because there was nothing there. The whole ‘incident’ takes up a paragraph and has nothing to do with the rest of the story except maybe to show Lizbet can still be somewhat intimate even after what would have been a debilitating experience for someone else. I thought the Swedish version was perfectly brief.