movie news and plans

Have you ever written a post and then wondered why you haven't had any comments on it, only to discover that you forgot to hit the "Publish" button and it's been sitting as a draft for a whole day?

Yeah, me neither.


Before I start on movies, let me plug Stevie One. The beginning of Part Three has been posted here.


I just saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (the Hollywood version). I enjoyed it, but I was never involved in it. I just watched it and ticked off the things which were done differently compared to the original, and compared to the book. Some of the choices were (IMHO) good decisions. Some were not. Other than that, the credit sequence is really great.

The biggest problem for me was the casting. Rooney Mara is good as Lisbeth Salander, but Noomi Rapace has already drilled her way into my brain, and I don't need another Salander any more than I need another Ethan Edwards, Tracy Lord, Atticus Finch, or Charles Foster Kane.

The surprise was how much I missed Michael Nykvist (the original Mikael Blomkvist). With Daniel Craig playing the part, Blomkvist was just as grim as Salander, which doesn't work, and he never seemed to be in any danger no matter what was happening. He's James Bond, for goodness sake.

I've written about the Millennium books and movies a few times before.


Anyway, I had my year in movies all planned.

First I was going to look forward to Underworld Awakening (which I wrote about here).

Then I was going to look forward to Dark Shadows (in May), then to Resident Evil Retribution (September), then to The Hobbit (December).

Well the problem is that the first Dark Shadows trailer has revealed that it is going to be (I find it difficult to face this even now) a... wacky comedy. It looks like a remake of Love at First Bite.

Sigh.

I'll still see it, of course. I've seen every movie Burton and Depp have made together, plus this one has Michelle Pfeiffer and Chloë Moretz, so I'd see it no matter what it was. But I'm not getting my hopes up.

So, I've changed my plan and now I'm looking forward to Prometheus (in June). Ridley Scott makes another movie about the Alien universe, starring Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, and Charlize Theron? I'm there. Check out the trailer.

Then Resident Evil Retribution, definitely. This one may wrap it all up (based on indications in the first trailer), carrying through on hints from the last movie, including bringing back some of the best people from the earlier movies (Michelle Rodriguez, Oded Fehr), despite the fact that their characters are (or were) dead. In the RE universe, death is not necessarily permanent, but it will be interesting to see where they're taking this. For a real geek analysis of the trailer, go here (though I can't believe they're confused about who the people dressed in white are – that's from the end of the last movie, which wasn't really all that long ago).

Then The Hobbit. I probably don't have to tell you about that one. 🙂


(Oh, and I admit I swiped the first two paragraphs up there from this post by Jo Eberhardt. Obviously, I only delayed this post so she wouldn't feel like she was the only one. 🙂 )

no timidity, please

I was interested to read the New York Review of Books' piece on the Millennium Trilogy. It was pretty good, including that I was amused to see they started with the Bible clue solution (the sudden and otherwise pointless appearance of Blomkvist's daughter with the key information he needs) which I mentioned as well.

I thought the final point in the piece was facile and wrong, but it was generally a good analysis. They don't give Larsson enough credit for his strengths (as I talked about in the piece linked to above), but they're also less annoyed by his consumer fetishism than I was (as I talked about here) and more forgiving of his pacing (which I talked about here).

However, the review did make one point that had not occurred to me, and I think it's a very important point.

Then Laura Stanfill wrote an excellent post about writers not being timid (titled, of course, "The Parsnip"). This was my comment:

This has been on my mind, in a way, since I just read a review in the New York Review of Books of the Millennium Trilogy (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, etc.) and the reviewer points out that Lisbeth Salander never actually kills anybody. She tortures, she humiliates, she allows people to die when she could save them, and she arranges for people to be killed by others, but she never actually pulls the trigger herself.

Salander is so involved with violence and vengeance that it never even occurred to me that she doesn't kill anybody. The reviewer says that this is clearly manipulated by the author in order to keep the readers on her side, and I think this is a correct analysis. There is no evidence in the text that Salander has any moral compunctions against killing (quite the opposite), so it's the author stacking the deck.

There is no moral advantage to having Salander be non-lethal (nailing somebody's foot to the floor with a nail gun and then calling his other enemies to come kill him while he's immobilized is about the same as killing him, really), so it's just to placate the readers, to stack the deck.

I say, go for it, don't fudge. I have a character who has killed a lot of people. She's better now, though still armed and capable of violence, but I never downplay the fact that she's done what she's done. I think she is a sympathetic character in some ways, but in any case she is what she is, not a watered-down PG version.

Referring to starling, of course.

This is related to what I wrote about in my last post. It's a mark of authorial confidence to allow your "good" characters to do bad things and feel you can still keep the reader on their side. Confidence which Hitchcock had (in spades) and which Stieg Larsson (not surprisingly – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was his first novel) did not.

It is a real shame that he died, since the things he lacked as a novelist are the things you can learn pretty easily.


Later addition
: This post also applies to these modern vampires who don't actually kill anybody. Vampires should kill people and drink their blood to survive. That's pretty much part of the definition. Otherwise, if you're going to wuss out on that part, please call them something else.

k. i. s. s.

I've watched The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, and it was interesting to see the differences between the book and the movie. Many things were handled better in the movie (as I thought they would be), but I do wonder how many of them were changed because the screenwriter and director realized that there was room for improvement, and how many were simply because there wasn't enough time to follow what was in the book.

Of course, there will be spoilers. Press "show" to go further.

show

In tech geek news, I was dissatisfied with the "Recent Posts" links over there on the right, since I wanted it to show only the real posts, and not the ones which are merely plugs for new stuff over at utownwriting.com. So, I poked around, and found some PHP code that would do the job, placed in a "widget."

I've ignored widgets until now, but it turns out they're ways to customize the blocks of links over there on the right. Until now, I've done that manually, like adding the list of characters. And the new widget worked fine, but it turns out that once you enable widgets, all the stuff you coded manually gets wiped out. So, I had to scramble to recreate the "Characters" listing as a widget.

But now I can't remember if there was anything else over there. Characters, recent posts, categories, meta. I think that was everything...

sweden, i’m in sweden

The good news today is that you can now buy the excellent film Let the Right One In with the correct subtitles. Amazon has had a blurb for a while saying that if you ordered the DVD, you might get the regular subtitles (booo!), or you might get the theatrical subtitles (yay!). (Google "Let the Right One In subtitles" to find out the scoop.)

Now they will send you the correct version. Yes, I bought it again, and watched it, and enjoyed it even more than before. The box quotes the Washington Examiner saying, "Best. Vampire Movie. Ever." Not sure I'd be so definitive, but I can't think of one that's better.

(Not to be confused with the upcoming crappy Hollywood remake.)

In other Swedish news, I finished The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Well, I confess I skimmed the last 100 pages or so. The villain is revealed on page 438, the villain is dispatched on page 459, and the final mystery is solved on page 487. And then the book goes on for another 103 pages. Many of which consist of emails the characters write to each other.

I may write more about the book at some point, but I will mention that it is on the cover of Entertainment Weekly this week, and there's an interesting sidebar called "Did Larsson Have a Problem with Women?" by Missy Schwartz. It doesn't seem to be online for some reason – but if it's posted later I will add a link here (link). I think the piece makes some good points. (By the way, I do think Ms. Schwartz may be wrong about Salander getting breast implants – I read that scene as saying that she was wearing falsies as part of a disguise. As I say, though, I was skimming, so maybe I missed the implants. If I'm wrong, that just shows how far things went off the tracks at the end.)

I am still looking forward to the movie (out soon on DVD, not to be confused with the upcoming Hollywood remake).

In news with no direct connection with Sweden, there is more of "The Sister Mystery" posted. The new parts begin here.

questions about men who hate women

I've been reading Men Who Hate Women (aka The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) and I have a few questions.

Why do I need to know the manufacturer of every consumer device in the book?

Why do I need to know so many technical details about Salander's computers? (This part is particularly funny because the only real effect is to make the book seem completely out-of-date, since the "top of the line" has moved a lot in the last five years.)

Why is so much being told and so little being shown? (At times it reminds me of Wonder Boys; I expect any minute to come to the dental records and the genealogies of the horses.)

Why is Salander described in so much detail (including her "slender bones" and her "childlike breasts") but Blomkvist isn't described at all?

Why am I getting so much information about characters I've not been given any reason to care about?

Why is so much geographical detail being given when it would be so much easier to have a map? (Actually, a family tree would be a good idea, too.)

I was very surprised and pleased when a very traditional Agatha Christie-style mystery suddenly manifested in the middle of the book (a crime happens in an area which is completely cut off from the rest of the world – so there is, apparently, a finite set of suspects). Will this mystery actually be solved? I hope so, and I even have a few ideas, but it's early yet.

Will Salander and Blomkvist ever meet? I expect they will (though it will be interesting if they don't). I even have a premonition they they will become lovers, which will be unfortunate and (duh!) predictable.

In a related question, is Blomkvist going to sleep with every women he meets?

Was the name changed from Men Who Hate Women to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo because the latter was considered more commercial or because the former gives away too much?

I look forward to the movie, which comes out on DVD on July 6, since at least some of these problems will have been solved there.