Talk:The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film)

Comparison to Swedish version missing

This page doesn't mention anywhere that the film is a remake of the 2009 swedish version. In fact, the 2009 version isn't mentioned anywhere on the page. There's nothing on how similar/different the two movies are etc. This seems like a pretty strange omission, as if someone didn't want people to know that there was another movie before it... 86.32.53.66 (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I second this motion --88.70.43.254 (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The film is a readaption, not a remake. Boombadoom 19:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperDopeBass (talk • contribs)

It is clearly a re-make. There does seem to be an element of hushing-up the fact that the original is a Swedish-language film. I included this fact in the Lead on this article's Page several times last year, only to have it repeatedly "un-done".

May I draw attention to the article entitled "List of English-language films based on foreign-language-films" and its Discussion page, where you will see that the same action is being employed by a non-registered user.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a remake (or even a "re-make"). That is why your claims that it is were removed previously here. The idea that there is a "hushing-up" going on is a preposterous conspiracy theory. The article does make a specific mention of the existence of a previous film. No one is hiding that fact. If you think you have a source that shows that the writer and/or director of the 2011 drew on the 2009 film as source material rather than solely relying on the original novel, then cite that source. Wikipedia depends on sources, not any individual editor's opinion (mine or yours - registered or non-registered). Yes, people have called the film a "remake", but not people in a position to know whether it is or not or who are not sloppy about using the word "remake" imprecisely. Unless you can find a source that says that the 2009 film was used as a source for the 2011 film, the claim that it is a remake cannot be supported. 99.192.77.17 (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.68.203)

Exactly, this is a film based on the same book that the Swedish film was based on and the book in question had an English release. Obviously they are very similar because they have the same source material but there is no evidence that this film was based on the other film and not the original book which was already sold and was popular in North America.--70.24.206.51 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you will find the active editors on this topic have resolved the matter, yesterday, and the discussion has ended to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Casting information

There are a number of problems with the casting information. First of all, the citation for the passage in which Clooney and company are mentioned does not mention them. In addition, there is too much focus on Yolandi Visser. In this, it is the perfect example of gossip. There were actual contenders for the role; see the references above. They can be used. Lastly, we are not supposed to engage in proseline, mentioning such specific dates. The real focus was on Blomkvist and Salander. If we can find an actual source for Clooney and company, we could mention them. But we do not indiscriminately reel off who gets on board every week. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate about Visser, please see this from above. There were many actual candidates for the role, and Visser is not mentioned among them. We can include the names from that reference (though it may be too many), but I don't think it was appropriate to single out Visser as a candidate in the previous revision. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra Daddario

The only sites I could find about Daddario's role in this film are gossip/rumor type, and IMDb lists a different actress as "Young Harriet Vanger". Is Daddario off the project or what? Elizium23 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

References to use.

• How Rooney Mara became "Girl With Dragon Tattoo"*'Dragon Tattoo' casting raises questions

Erik (talk | contribs) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Casting Lisbeth Salander --MR.HJH (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

I noticed in the plot section, the spelling of names is following original Swedish (Mikael and Lisbeth) but in the Cast section its Michael and Lisbeth. Anyone know which is correct for this version of the movie? Optimouse Prime (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing Negative Reviews

The previous edit to this page removed all references to negative reviews in the "Reception" section, leaving only positive reviews.

Not sure why this was done; I don't edit Wikipedia articles, so I'm not sure how to restore the section. However, it might be wise to restore that section and lock the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.34.99 (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, the deleted content has now been restored, because it does not follow a neutral point of view. I assume you mean page protection when you say "locking" it, but protection is only reserved for articles that has been heavily vandalised, so there is no reason to lock out the article to constructive edits. Shuipzv3 (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Awards section: "Pending"

Pending? Does that mean that it is pending whether or not it has secured the nomination? I don't understand why it can't be Nominated. It will always be at least a nomination, and it is far easier to maintain these articles by simply changing the winner from Nominated to Won and leaving the others alone than to change ALL of them after the fact. Plus, as I mentioned, it gives an ambiguous notion as to whether it has actually secured a nomination. A nominated film will ALWAYS be nominated; a win is simply an upgrade - it doesn't nullify the fact that it was also nominated. It seems to me that it would make more sense to make note of a pending and potential award by changing the font type to something like italics, or to add an asterisk. Any thoughts? 76.94.131.47 (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that the nomination is pending. The key is in the column header, "result". The result of the nomination is pending. I've left a more detailed answer to your post at the film project talk page. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot section needs refinement

Instead of a blow by blow description of who does what to whom, how about a more general treatment of the story emphasizing the general themes of the story. One thing that I personally didn't understand until I had seen all of the Swedish trilogy, is that these films are above anything else about violence against women spouse beating, sexual exploitation and torture, murder of "unpersons" e.g. illegal aliens sold into forced prostitution and so on. The second thing that I only realized quite late is that we are supposed to cheer when Liz Salander throws gasoline on her father and sets him on fire; or when she power-nails her brother's feet to the floor with a nailing gun. True, Liz has overwhelming reasons to believe that her victims needed killing, in the creepy old Texas phrase. But why the emphasis on inflicting pain and degradation? Is this supposed to be either purifying or healing for Liz?

Commenting on your opening sentence (and the title to this section) I agree totally. Surely, a plot summary should be just that ... not a mini-version of the novel/film?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Film's Ending

Someone previously wrote that the American version kept the novel's original ending and the Swedish version changed it to a "more upbeat one." One, that is the complete opposite. This version changes it while the Swedish version kept the ending. Two, "more upbeat" is hardly a valid description. What does "upbeat" entail exactly? I've edited the mistake, but someone should improve upon it. booksrule9 (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no explanation for the ending (how harriet came to have anita's identity) in the plot summary. could someone who actually understood it update with corrected information? Tattoo313 (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the American movie is much more to the novel than the Swedish one in many stages. However, in both movies, everything around Harriet and Anita has been changed from the novel. In the novel, Anita lives in London (Swedish movie: Anita is dead) and Harriet lives in Australia (has married there and has a son). In the Swedish movie, Harriet is alive, living in Australia. In the American movie, Anita is Harriet living in London. Maybe due to budget issues (filming in Australia?). In the novel, the two Anitas are explained with Harriets marriage and since they both are living in different countries (GB vs Australia), no one would care and notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.98.210.166 (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my first thought too, that they didn't include Australia for budget reasons, though they didn't actually have to show Australia. Could have just been a shot of them on the airplane and then going on some remote farm. And I don't think a film of this magnitude would have had budget issues. Possible though, I don't know. booksrule9 (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Could not understand why either production changed the Harriet/Anita detail from the novel. The original (Swedish) film handled it better, apart from their not including Anita living in London and having her phone tapped, thus making it plausible that Blomkvist picked up on the lead to Australia. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"In the American movie, Anita is Harriet living in London." I hope you mean "Harriet assumed Anita's identity and is living in London." Otherwise, "Anita is Harriet" literally makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chafe66 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Budget

The page says the budget was $80million but on the reference - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/05/mgm-to-co-finance-sonys-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo.html - it says $100million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.10.71 (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I also wonder where the figure $80 million comes from, regarding the film´s budget. The figure is not given on the referenced web page. I think this should be changed to $90 million, which is the figure given on Box Office Mojo, where The Worldwide gross is taken. I´d do it myself, but I can´t seem to get the reference right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.33.52 (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the production cost to $90 million, since this is the figure given wherever I look, as opposed to $80 million . Can someone reference this information to the same site as the Box office figure - Box Office Mojo, or some other reliable source? I don´t know how to do this properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.33.52 (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

bored but just saying....

The BAFTA noms should be on the accolades... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.52.153 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this film a remake of the 2009 Swedish film?

Recently editor Gareth Griffith-Jones has been trying to add this film to the page List of English-language films based on foreign-language films. I have been removing the addition, pointing out to him that this film is not a remake, but based solely on the novel. He still insists that it is a remake and should be listed. I pointed out that this page does not call the film a remake and that the creators of the film have said that they did not even see the earlier film before making this one, so it could not be a remake. He still insists it is a remake. I advised him to come here to raise the issue for further input, but decided I'd just do it myself. So what is the consensus of editors here? Remake or not a remake? 99.192.63.21 (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The director of the original Swedish language film of 2009 is reported as saying that this is an American re-make. In Europe that is the general opinion shared by most.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There has been a discussion like this, well several on the IMDB page for it with people believing it is an adaption or a remake and some believing it's both. But technically it is both, a "remake" as it has the same story, characters and title of a previous film, but it's an adaption at the same time of the book. Even though it's closer to the novel than the Swedish version, that doesn't make itself not be a remake. But if you look 'remake' up in the dictionary the simple explanation is that a remake has to be a new version of previous work.

On the List of English-language films based on foreign-language films it lists Let Me In as a remake of Let the Right One In. But Let the Right One In and Let Me In are both based on the Swedish novel "Let the Right One In", so if that's there why can't Girl With the Dragon Tattoo?

Girl With the Dragon Tattoo/Let Me In is a remake of the Swedish film, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo/Let the Right One In, based upon the Swedish novels, Men Who Hate Women/Let the Right One In.

--Charlr6 (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"But technically it is both, a 'remake' as it has the same story, characters and title of a previous film" -- That's not true. If you look up the definition of Remake, it clearly states: "A remake is a piece of media based primarily on an earlier work of the same medium" (emphasis added). The stipulation that the source be the same medium is needed to prevent calling any movie based on a novel a "remake" of the novel. That's not a remake; It's an "adaptation". So if the 2011 film has the same plot and characters as the 2009 film because both are based on the same novel, then the 2011 film is not a remake. Just as many film versions of the same Shakespeare plays are not "remakes" just because they have the same plot and characters (and even the same dialogue), that is not sufficient to call any film a remake. With Let Me In the issue was controversial for a time as to whether it was a remake, but the director/screenwriter does acknowledge (now) having seen and being influenced by the first film. That's not the case here.

And even if the director of the 2009 film calls it a remake (in the context of complaining about the very existence of the 2011 film) it is no evidence that it is one. He had nothing to do with making the 2011 film, so he is no authority. Similarly, the general opinion of Europe is not evidence either. Lots of people also think Humphrey Bogart said "Play it again, Sam", but it does not make it true. 99.192.68.203 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.63.21)

But a previous film has already been made, a film can't escape the fact that a previous film has already been made, that's why it's a remake and adaption at the same time. --Charlr6 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "remake". For it to be a remake, not only must a previous film exist, but that previous film must be the basis for the later film. If it is not, then the two films have no direct connection at all, only an indirect connection in that they are based on the same book. No one is denying the existence of a previous film, but the article makes it clear that it was not a source for the later film. The situation is the same as it is for films like True Grit (2010 film) and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film). Previous adaptations of the same books exist, but were not the basis for the more recent films. By contrast, films like Let Me In (film) and Straw Dogs (2011 film) use the prior source material (in the first case a book and in the second a play) but they also used the previous films as sources, thus they are remakes. The definition of "remake" makes it clear that just because a source has previously been adapted it does not follow that any subsequent adaptation of the same source is a "remake". 99.192.68.203 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "remake". Did you not see in my first post that I got the definition from a dictionary? It said a remake is "to make again or anew". It's making a new version "to make again". And a new adaption "anew". And who are you anyway? You aren't even a proper Wikipedia editor, you don't even have a name just a number and you have barely any edits.

This film wouldn't have been made if it wasn't because of the success of the Swedish film and the producers and studio want to try to take the success of that by 'remaking' it as all they want is money. They don't care it's based upon a book so they are 'making again'/'renewing' in hope it would be successful. --Charlr6 (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(1) This is irrelevant editorializing. It has nothing to do with the question of what is and what is not a remake. If you have axes to grind, perhaps you should withdraw from the discussion here. (2) Even if the motive for making the film was to make loads of money and the belief that they could make loads of money was because the 2009 film was successful, it does not mean that the content of the 2011 film has any direct connection at all to the 2009 film, thus it is no reason to think that the 2011 film is a remake. 99.192.68.203 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I gave my views on what the film is and if it's a remake and if it isn't. So why should I withdraw from the discussion here? We are discussing if it's a remake or not aren't we, just like the title of this discussion said. But I looked on the Dictionary what a remake is and I put what it said in. And who are you to exactly tell me what to do? You aren't even registered properly and you insist on telling me what to do?

This is a 'discussion' board, and thats what we are doing isn't it unless you want situations to be settled ASAP and believe your word is final, we are discussing if the "film is a remake of the 2009 Swedish film" on this "discussion"/"talk" page. --Charlr6 (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I have in the past "rubbed up against" Charlr6, I find myself in complete agreement with him on this one. Well argued, and it is a discussion. Please also see comments above in the section: Comparisons to Swedish version missing. As it is still being discussed, I have re-instated my edit.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Charlr6, your last comment that I responded to was not a comment about whether or not the film is a remake, but a criticism of the producers of the film based on an assumption about their motives for making it. As I pointed out in my reply, their motives and your feelings about them are not relevant to the issue of whether or not the film is a remake. The producers could be the most evil, money hungry monsters ever to walk the planet earth and it would still tell us nothing about whether or not the film is a remake. The fact that you went off topic indicated to me that your position might be coloured by a bias against the producers of the film.

You also wrote: "You aren't even registered properly...." You seem to mistakenly think that registered editors opinions matter more than others. They don't. Wikipedia does not require registration and does not rank editors. Your mentioning the fact that I am not registered is another red herring to the issue of whether or not the film is a remake. The facts are that the writer and director of the 2011 film did not see the 2009 film and did not use it at all as a source, so the 2011 film cannot be a remake of the 2009 film. If you have a reference that shows that they did use the 2009 film, then present it. 99.192.77.17 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.68.203)

Not being registered seems like you haven't put any effort into registering and then whenever you edit a page or comment somewhere, people WILL be able to see your name and who you are. That's why its better to register because no one is going to remember your 'IP Address' code, unless you add your name at the end of your comments or a little signature that you copy and paste in every time.

But about the 'going off topic', well thats what you've practically just done and what I have just done too obviously. And it's not like you are referencing everything you say, I could say that the director of the Swedish film calls this film a remake and send the link to that article/video and you could say its not and a video of David Fincher saying it's an adaption of the book. Charlr6 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"I could say that the director of the Swedish film calls this film a remake and send the link to that article/video and you could say its not and a video of David Fincher saying it's an adaption of the book." That is correct. The director of the Swedish film has no way of knowing whether or not Fincher used his film as a source, so him calling it a "remake" is not authoritative. You need to find evidence that either Fincher or the screenweiter used the 2009 film as a source, otherwise the film is not a remake. 99.192.88.202 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You are kind of being contradicting and going more off topic. I haven't exactly seen you link an article where someone has interviewed the director, but journalists change things a lot and might have mis-heard them. But of course in an interview they would say they didn't use it as a source, they want to distance themselves from that and scared of the fact that it is a 'remake'. Remakes are films that are new versions of a previous film, even if the film is based upon a book. Charlr6 (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to thank and praise everyone... on both sides of the discussion... concerned in bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. Well done, and happy editing!

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable uninvolved sources have not been adduced, so I can't see that we have a "satisfactory conclusion" here. Statements by persons involved in one of the two films are partisan statements and can not be used to definitely settle the matter. Having said that, here is a article with relevant statements by Rooney Mara: 'I don't categorize it as a remake,' she says. 'We are making our interpretation of Stieg Larsson's book." Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

To what I said above I must add that the film is a remake according to the author of the article in The Guardian. However, the quotation from Niels Arden Oplev in the article is, of course, a partisan statement, as is that of Rooney Mara (above). Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

References

Accusativen hos Olsson, I find your use of the term "partisan" strange. It seems to assume that calling a film a "remake" is to criticize it, so the makers (and fans) of the 2011 film will try to deny that it is a remake, even if it is, and the creators (and fans) of the 2009 film will call the 2011 film a "remake" even if it isn't. I reject the premise that calling a film a "remake" is or should be regarded as a criticism. It is simply a fact about what the source material for a film was. It does not make the film any better or any worse for being or not being a remake. So the question of who is or is not "partisan" does not make sense.

So how should we decide whether to describe a film as a "remake" or not? Well, the only people who know for certain what was used as source material for a film are the people who actually made the film itself. So when the screenwriter of the 2011 film says that he has never seen the 2009 film, that is definitive proof that the screenplay for the 2011 film could not have been based at all on the 2009 film. Unless someone has a source that gives a good reason to think that he is lying when he says this, then that should settle the matter.

The fact that outsiders (like The Guradian's writer) call the film a "remake" is of no help. It is very common for people to erroneously refer to a film as a "remake" in the absence of any real information about the source material just because a previous film told the same story. Even the director of the 2009 film was not involved at all in the making of the 2011 film, so his description of the film as a "remake" is not authoritative. He is not in a position to know whether or not it is one (especially when he makes the claim before the 2011 film was even made).

Sloppy or lazy journalists will call the 2011 film a "remake" without any knowledge of the source material. But the people who actually made the film and know first hand what they did or did not use in making the film have said that the 2009 film was not a source. That should clearly settle the question. 99.192.78.224 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.63.21)

I'll be back later to discuss this further. Let me say briefly that there are two main questions here: First, we have the question of source criticism—which source is, and which source is not, a reliable source for settling whether the American film is a remake of the Swedish film? Secondly, we have the question how we define the term remake in the first place, referring specifically to the term when used for films, and again, which source is a reliable source for settling the definition of the term, which, as can be seen above, is also subject to debate? (I apologize for bad syntax here.)

English is not my native language, and it's of course possible that my use of the term "partisan" is strange—I'll give some thought to this. However, there is not any assumption on my part that calling a film a "remake" is to criticize it—I'm simply interested in establishing facts, as best they can be established, in a wikilike manner. You say that "the question of who is or is not 'partisan' does not make sense". I think it does, in a souce criticism context. If the Holy Quran says that the Holy Quran is the word of God revealed to Muhammed through Archangel Gabriel, then that does not settle the question of veracity—it's a partisan statement regarding the source.

Since published opinions vary considerably, I think it would be a good idea to add a separate section to the article on how the two films relate to each other. This might have been discussed before. [Addition: cf section 2, above.] By the way, my own hypothesis is that the film is not a remake.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Accusativen hos Olsson, first, what you meant be "partisan" was clear, so no worries there. But the idea that some people might have a "bias" or a "vested interest" only makes sense if there is a reason to think that calling a film a "remake" is a value judgement. Let me explain with a made-up example. Suppose that some published articles said that Steven Zaillian wrote the screenplay while living in Boston and others said he wrote it while living in Chicago. The question of where he wrote it would seem to be in dispute. Now suppose that Zaillian says that he wrote it in Chicago. Well, he should know where he wrote it and so unless there were some reason to think he would lie about the matter, his statement should be taken as authoritative on the question. We would not worry about "bias" in this case because nothing is riding on the question of where he was when he wrote it. So with the source of the screenplay, we know that either it was based solely on the novel or it was based on the previous film (or both). Published articles differ on which is true. Steven Zaillian says that he only used the novel and has not even seen the film. So unless there is reason to think he is lying, that should settle the question of the source material.

To use a real and similar example, George Lucas says that he his characters for Star Wars were partly inspired by The Wizard of Oz. Other people might have speculated that that was the case without him saying so, but the only one who knows for sure if that is true is him, so what he says about the question is really the only primary source for the information. To use another real example that was an edit discussion a few months ago, some sources (probably relying on IMDb, which had that "credit" on their page for a long time) say that a young Tim Robbins played a small part as an assassin in the film Network. But Robbins has publicly stated that he was not in the film and, in fact, he was still in high school and not even an actor then. Based on that statement, the "credit" for him as acting in the film has been removed from both his Wikipedia page and his IMDb page. Again, he might be seen as having a "bias" in the matter, but only if there is a reason to think that he would lie about it. (He did, in fact, say that he would have loved to have been in that film, but wasn't). So unless there is a reason to think he would lie, his statement should be taken as the best authority on the issue.

But if one really wants to look to another source for authority, how about the Writers Guild of America? If they have any bias at all, it is in ensuring that writers get the proper credit for their work. So if Steven Zaillian's screenplay were based even in part on the work of the Swedish team that made the 2009 film, they would have an interest in saying so. So on their webpage where they list the nominees for WGA awards, they not only name the nominees for "Best Adapted Screenplay", but they also name the authors of the work it was adapted from. Well, Steven Zaillian has been nominated for TGWTDT and the WGA says: "Based on the novel by Stieg Larsson". No mention is made of the previous film, which says that it was not a source.

The TGWTDT page is currently accurate. It does not claim that the film is a remake or that it is based on anything other than the original novel. So unless someone wants to claim that it is a remake and change the page (as I understand you do not), then the issue seems settled. And should someone want to change the page, they better have some good source for any claim that Zaillian is lying and that the WGA is wrong. 99.192.78.224 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not returning to re-open the central issue of this section, but only to comment on Accusativen hos Olssons' closing paragraph above. In view of the attention both films have attracted... not to mention the novel... I would consider it an excellent idea. [... although as I have already made clear, I have the opposite hypothesis to yours...] What is your native tongue? You should not apologise for your excellent English. It is only slightly obvious to my ear that your first language is another. You write infinately better than many of the "posters" on Wikipedia who are English-only speakers.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Plot hole or I missed something?

Was it ever explained why Blomkvist and Salander did not find out that Anita had died in the car crash? How was he led to the "imposter" Anita when he was trying to inquire the real one? --uKER (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you read the novel. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an unhelpful suggestion, Gareth. Reading the novel will not tell you whether or not something was explained in the film. Sorry I cannot help you, UKER with your question. I have not seen the film, so I don't know if there was a hole in its plot. 99.192.78.224 (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. Was not meant too seriously, but, nevertheless, point taken. You (Anon) know by now that I have a sense of humour which should sometimes be checked. Seriously, I have enjoyed our discussions earlier this month and I am impressed with the quality of your posting earlier today. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop changing the Studios and Distributor without supporting documentation!

The official movie site says "Colubmia Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures present..." (i.e.: they're production companies) and nothing about Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer being a distributor. Further, the movie section of the New York Times lists Columbia and Sony as domestic distributors; no mention of MGM there, either. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of the plot

In its current form the plot in this wikipedia article is factually incorrect and inconsistent. Good luck with your article, I won't touch it ever again. Funnily the original book plot is presented in much deeper details yet no one argues that it's too long. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The novel has much more content and covers a longer timeframe. The Plot summary of this film has evolved over many weeks. It grew and grew, and has since been precied by several editors. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my concern that the current plot laid out here is factually incorrect and inconsistent. E.g. it seems like her new guardian rapes her without any reason and there are no consequences to this dramatic event. I cannot understand how the number of editors and edits can be relevant to the quality of any article. If a hundred monkeys edit something it can still remain an incomprehensible mess (I'm not necessarily referring to this article). Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your reply is appreciated.

If like me, you have read all three novels more than once, and seen the original Swedish–language/English–dubbed films of 2009, it is sometimes difficult to remove what you know about the stories from what you see and you hear in this film version.

I find it better to make much smaller edits than those you made this weekend. You are then not so disappointed when they are challenged. Remember, the Plot section of articles summarises the actions simply, and interpretation is left to the reader of the article. If you disagree, please refer to Wikipedia:BRD

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Was the english version of the film shot at the same location as the swedish version?

More specifically the Hedestad scenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.155.177.184 (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hedestad is fiction, so probably not. 188.98.210.166 (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Girl with the Tribal Tattoo

The article states that Paramount wanted to rename the movie as The Girl with the Tribal Tattoo to appeal to American audiences. This seemed like a really stupid idea, so I went to the citation at the end of the sentence and could not find that information anywhere in the article. Then I did a google search for that phrase and the only sites that came up were Wikipedia, tattoo sites, and some fan-fiction sites. Can anyone find any credible sourcing on this? Skafkas (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It was apparently updated on January 4, 2012 by User:184.98.125.214. The citation refers to the previous sentence and the information about the title was inserted in between. It seems highly doubtful that Paramout really wanted to name it this. I'm going to remove this sentence.Skafkas (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

sentance in sequal paragraph

"On Mar. 28, 2012, MGM stated that they budget the two sequels due a loss of 10% from the first film"

this sentance is unsupported and also isnt clear, the first film did not make a loss anyway! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.209.43 (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

re-assessment

I'd like this article to be re-assessed. If it can't become a GA, at least it can be C-class or B-class! Definitely not start class! Kailash29792 (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

copyedit

Per request, I took a run through this. Comments:

• What does "redolent" mean as a composing approach?

• I removed many repetitive refs. Once per paragraph is enough.

Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bruce Campbell (talk · contribs) 07:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. Bruce Campbell (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Some of the lines in the lead are a little awkward, for example:

A concerted effort by Sony Pictures Entertainment associates Michael Lynton and Amy Pascal to create the film started in 2009. It took the company a few months to obtain rights to the novel. -> Should either be "A concerted effort by Sony Pictures Entertainment associates Michael Lynton and Amy Pascal to create the film started in 2009, though it took the company a few months to obtain rights to the novel." or the second sentence should either be reworked or removed

 Done

Lines like "They then recruited Zaillian and Fincher." and "The script took over six months to write." should be worked in more smoothly into the lead, the small sentences with only a few words is a bit awkward.

 Done

Synopsis

I noticed that after every main character's name in the synopsis is followed with the actor that portrayed them, so try adding Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) and Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) for additional clearance.

 Done

Filming

The pose is fine but the paragraph is a big block of text with only reference supporting the entire thing. There's also several quotes, which all should be individually referenced. Could easily all be multi-referenced with the same reference or more could be added.

I was originally concerned with that, but the copyeditor said that it would be over referencing, given that all of the info originates from the same sources. I did reference the quotes, however.

Title sequence

Same issue here aswell. The pose is great but generally there's a lack of references.

See above.

References

Wikilink Box Office Mojo please.

References 92, 93, 102 have their titles all in capitals. And while the titles on the references themselves are all capitalized, they're generally changed, for example; "AFI AWARDS 2011" -> "AFI Awards 2011".

 Done

After these slight corrections the article can be passed. Also, though this has no barring on the GA nomination itself, the accolades section is large enough to warrant a split. It would be fairly easy to slit the into a separate article and get a Featured List form that, ala List of accolades received by Black Swan, etc Bruce Campbell (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all of the issues. :) —DAP388 (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ever-expanding Synopsis - Plot summary

Good morning Treybien!
Good, and much needed copy-editing last night. Thank you. Just to let you know that a have changed lieutenant (not your's, I know) to lawyer. Also, changed "Soon afterward ... " to "At their next meeting".
Trust you approve.
Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 08:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

One way of shortening the plot summary is to remove the actors names. I have done that on other film articles and generally the consensus is to support the idea. After all, the cast list covers it more clearly in the following section. To duplicate them in "Plot" actually makes "Cast" redundant.
What do you think?
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality of references: WikiLeaks

70.27.17.234 is adding content based on leaked emails published by WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is not a reputable publisher and does not do any fact-checking of their own. Consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard (particularly here and here) has been to not rely solely on WikiLeaks without a secondary source providing context and interpreting the leaked document. The Variety arrticle given by 70.27.17.234 does not mention this movie and thus cannot serve to back up the information provided by the WikiLeaks document. Huon (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Variety Article reported on the emails that were leaked to the press before Wikileaks published them publicly. All the emails that were reported in the press before wikileaks put them up match up to what Wikileaks reporte exactly, and some of the participants of the emails, notably Amy Pascal, apologized publicly for the emails that Wikileaks published, proving there were authentic.

Here two trade papers report that the Wikileaks documents were authentic:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sony-hack-wikileaks-publishes-more-789263

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/wikileaks-new-sony-documents-1201524047/

Also Sony's statement, found in the article above: "The cyber-attack on Sony Pictures was a malicious criminal act, and we strongly condemn the indexing of stolen employee and other private and privileged information on WikiLeaks," Sony said in a statement. "The attackers used the dissemination of stolen information to try to harm SPE and its employees, and now WikiLeaks regrettably is assisting them in that effort. We vehemently disagree with WikiLeaks’ assertion that this material belongs in the public domain and will continue to fight for the safety, security, and privacy of our company and its more than 6,000 employees."

If Wikileaks was faking these documents and leaks why would Sony put out a statement condemning them. It's obvious they're real.

The article doesn't have to mention this movie- the article shows that Wikileaks merely published the same documents and emails from Sony's servers that were already available to the press. It shows the trustworthiness of the leak. Here is more sources for the facts about this movie specifically from the Sony leaks:

http://time.com/3625392/the-7-most-outrageous-things-we-learned-from-the-sony-hack/

This shows Wikileaks is not a source, just a publisher of hacks emails from Sony's servers. If Wikileaks wasn't putting up the real documents trade papers news sources like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, the most trusted trades in Hollywood, would have said so in their article on the publication of the leaked documents.

More sources that predate Wikileak's publication of the documents and emails but show that Wikileaks referenced the same sources:

http://moviepilot.com/posts/2520838

I can't believe after dozens if not hundreds of newspaper articles confirmed the authenticity of the Sony hack we're even questioning it as a source.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/02/aloha-what-the-sony-hack-revealed-about-the-bomb-from-anxious-bradley-cooper-to-bill-murray.html

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/leaked-sony-emails-reveal-nasty-exchanges-and-insults-1201375511/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.17.234 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Simple: If hundreds of newspapers confirm that the leaked documents discuss the commercial success of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, please provide one of them. If none of those hundreds of newspapers deal with the film, we're highlighting a primary source in the lead, which violates WP:UNDUE. What secondary sources do report about the leaks, regarding Girl, is that Sony employees apparently regarded it as "innovative", and that Sony wants to produce another three sequels. I'll give it a shot and summarize that later tonight. Huon (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The hundreds of newspapers do not discuss the commercial failure of Girl in regards to the Sony leak, but there are articles about it before the leaks that say so- what the leaks did is provide exact figures of how much it lost- including its marketing budget. What the hundreds of newspapers I was talking about confirm is the authenticity of the sony leaks- especially Sony's statement.

>" is that Sony employees apparently regarded it as "innovative" "

Everyone knows that.

>" and that Sony wants to produce another three sequels."

Except that's not true- Sony wants to do a Netflix reboot, which both Sony leaked emails AND secondary sources with no mention of the leaks from this year say. You're willing to put wrong information into the article because you don't trust a source literally every one in the trades trusts. It's nonsense.

Do what you want- go ahead and put in incorrect figures for the film. You're the one making wikipedia worse, not me. Have your ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.172.233 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

So let's summarize: Firstly, despite hundreds of secondary sources discussing the leaks, including some discussing this movie and others discussing other movies' failures, there is not one secondary source that considers the parts you want to add to the Wikipedia article significant enough to write about them. Secondly, you now claim that the only secondary source you gave that deals with the content leaked about Girl in any detail is actually wrong. Thirdly, sources that actually discuss the box office success of Girl in connection with the leaks call it a global hit that performed respectably at the worldwide box office. Paticularly in light of sources explicitly contradicting your interpretation of the leaked emails, I'll once again revert that content. Huon (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

At a closer look the source does not even say, "The film lost Sony some $110 million". That Excel sheet is open to any kind of interpretation, and I don't think yours is correct. The lead sentence you wrote violates core content policies such as WP:NOR. Huon (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Genre

I feel this film could be considered a Neo Noir in addition to a psychological thriller. Of course I don't have any sources. Anyone have any opinions on this?--Unopeneddoor (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a forum to discuss the subject (did you read the notices at the top of this, and every other Talk Page?) - and please put your posts in chronological order, not at the top of the page. 104.169.17.29 (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Uh this is part of the article as it could be how the film could be categorized --66.215.153.74 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbfc.co.uk/BFF279624/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=girldragontattoo11.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029080302/http://www.goldenglobes.org/blog/2011/12/the-69th-annual-golden-globe-awards-nominations/ to http://www.goldenglobes.org/blog/2011/12/the-69th-annual-golden-globe-awards-nominations/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

LGBT?

What did I miss? How is this film LGBT related? Thanks in advance. Sundayclose (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)