THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO news and tidbits

bubita · Post by **bubita** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:32 pm

Sylvia's girl wrote:ladypandorah Lady Pandorah
Have had to put down my copy of Empire as the image of Daniel Craig hancuffed to a chair for the US version of Dragon Tattoo has killed me!

Definately need a mag scan of that!

WHAT, WHEN, HOW!!!

Germangirl · Post by **Germangirl** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:35 pm

Sylvia's girl wrote:ladypandorah Lady Pandorah
Have had to put down my copy of Empire as the image of Daniel Craig hancuffed to a chair for the US version of Dragon Tattoo has killed me!

Definately need a mag scan of that!

Oh boy, I forgot about THAT scene. I am getting sensitive with age, I fear. When I saw C&A, I was whincing at the view of him getting stitched together and grabbed or almost

for Dundas hand

Here another article from Lainey about BP and other Oscar contenders. From what I read, nobody has him on the radar so far and its getting tied already. He has to be very, very, very good to have a chance here. We know, he will be, but how much fair play is gonna be involved and there are only 5 places after all?

Dear Gossips,

Brad Pitt’s Moneyball needed to get to $20 million this weekend if it has any hope of arriving at a multiple of 4 or more. And it did. Which means it’ll make at least $80 million, if not more. And that means that a trip to the Oscars is looking very, very, VERY good. It’s also an argument in support of those who believe that any press is good press. After all, his face was featured, along with his ex-wife’s, on almost every tabloid cover leading up to the movie’s open. Nice timing, Brad baby - very clever

Moneyball’s success means we’re one step closer to something I’ve had a hard-on for for a while now: a mega-stacked awards season featuring the Brange, and Clooney, and Matt Damon, and maybe Leo (even though the J Edgar trailer looks like a joke), Michael Fassbender, Ryan Gosling, a death-match between Meryl Streep and Glenn Close, and a girl with a dragon tattoo.

JEC57 · Post by **JEC57** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:52 pm

Germangirl wrote:
Sylvia's girl wrote:ladypandorah Lady Pandorah
Have had to put down my copy of Empire as the image of Daniel Craig hancuffed to a chair for the US version of Dragon Tattoo has killed me!

Definately need a mag scan of that!
Oh boy, I forgot about THAT scene. I am getting sensitive with age, I fear. When I saw C&A, I was whincing at the view of him getting stitched together and grabbed or almost for Dundas hand

Here another article from Lainey about BP and other Oscar contenders. From what I read, nobody has him on the radar so far and its getting tied already. He has to be very, very, very good to have a chance here. We know, he will be, but how much fair play is gonna be involved and there are only 5 places after all?

Dear Gossips,

Brad Pitt’s Moneyball needed to get to $20 million this weekend if it has any hope of arriving at a multiple of 4 or more. And it did. Which means it’ll make at least $80 million, if not more. And that means that a trip to the Oscars is looking very, very, VERY good. It’s also an argument in support of those who believe that any press is good press. After all, his face was featured, along with his ex-wife’s, on almost every tabloid cover leading up to the movie’s open. Nice timing, Brad baby - very clever

Moneyball’s success means we’re one step closer to something I’ve had a hard-on for for a while now: a mega-stacked awards season featuring the Brange, and Clooney, and Matt Damon, and maybe Leo (even though the J Edgar trailer looks like a joke), Michael Fassbender, Ryan Gosling, a death-match between Meryl Streep and Glenn Close, and a girl with a dragon tattoo.

Typical US-centric opinion from Lainey.

She managed to miss out the only (honestly deserving) real contender against Dragon which is Tinker, Tailor. Of course, that film has no Hollyweird critic's favs like Pitt in it, and the movie requires a modicum of intelligence to follow the plot.....which lets out most of the aforementioned Hollyweird critics.

If Daniel has to lose out again, I can just about live with it if he loses to Gary Oldman.

tampa · Post by **tampa** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:08 pm

JEC57 wrote:
Germangirl wrote:
Sylvia's girl wrote:ladypandorah Lady Pandorah
Have had to put down my copy of Empire as the image of Daniel Craig hancuffed to a chair for the US version of Dragon Tattoo has killed me!

Definately need a mag scan of that!
Oh boy, I forgot about THAT scene. I am getting sensitive with age, I fear. When I saw C&A, I was whincing at the view of him getting stitched together and grabbed or almost for Dundas hand

Here another article from Lainey about BP and other Oscar contenders. From what I read, nobody has him on the radar so far and its getting tied already. He has to be very, very, very good to have a chance here. We know, he will be, but how much fair play is gonna be involved and there are only 5 places after all?

Dear Gossips,

Brad Pitt’s Moneyball needed to get to $20 million this weekend if it has any hope of arriving at a multiple of 4 or more. And it did. Which means it’ll make at least $80 million, if not more. And that means that a trip to the Oscars is looking very, very, VERY good. It’s also an argument in support of those who believe that any press is good press. After all, his face was featured, along with his ex-wife’s, on almost every tabloid cover leading up to the movie’s open. Nice timing, Brad baby - very clever

Moneyball’s success means we’re one step closer to something I’ve had a hard-on for for a while now: a mega-stacked awards season featuring the Brange, and Clooney, and Matt Damon, and maybe Leo (even though the J Edgar trailer looks like a joke), Michael Fassbender, Ryan Gosling, a death-match between Meryl Streep and Glenn Close, and a girl with a dragon tattoo.
Typical US-centric opinion from Lainey.

She managed to miss out the only (honestly deserving) real contender against Dragon which is Tinker, Tailor. Of course, that film has no Hollyweird critic's favs like Pitt in it, and the movie requires a modicum of intelligence to follow the plot.....which lets out most of the aforementioned Hollyweird critics.

If Daniel has to lose out again, I can just about live with it if he loses to Gary Oldman.

Pitt, George Clooney and To a lesser degree Matt Damon have had a free ride for years. I don't think any of them are great actors or major box office, but they get first choice on so many great roles that someone like DC or Oldman could do so much more with. They also keep getting credit for being major box office when in fact all three of them have had mostly bombs in the last few years.

sasha · Post by **sasha** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:21 am

Maybe BP becomes better? The question is why he decided to do it this year?

About "Moneyball"

'The man who gives the movie its soul as well as, at times, its drive and exuberant energy is Brad Pitt, which surprises me, since I had written him off as a good-looking guy without much temperament. He couldn’t convey thinking, which is not a sign of stupidity, just a failure of technique. But recently something has been happening inside Pitt. In “Babel” he showed hints of fire and a fallible rage. And in Terrence Malick’s “Tree of Life,” in which he plays a father who takes out his disappointments on his sons, his anger is self-wounding and tragic. It’s a performance that deserves an Academy Award.'

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/c ... z1Z6jJKQae

JEC57 · Post by **JEC57** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:53 am

sasha wrote:Maybe BP becomes better? The question is why he decided to do it this year?

About "Moneyball"

'The man who gives the movie its soul as well as, at times, its drive and exuberant energy is Brad Pitt, which surprises me, since I had written him off as a good-looking guy without much temperament. He couldn’t convey thinking, which is not a sign of stupidity, just a failure of technique. But recently something has been happening inside Pitt. In “Babel” he showed hints of fire and a fallible rage. And in Terrence Malick’s “Tree of Life,” in which he plays a father who takes out his disappointments on his sons, his anger is self-wounding and tragic. It’s a performance that deserves an Academy Award.'

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/c ... z1Z6jJKQae

Your generous heart does you much credit Sasha, but imo (and as my Granny used to say), "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".

Pitt is at best limited in his range and - again only imo - he has been given that free ride for years because of his looks (never rated those higher than a 3/10 myself).

Now he is older and his so-called pretty boy looks begin to fade, the critics who have propped him up for years have to find something else to rave about in order to justify their previous reviews. Otherwise they would have to admit they were wrong and fell for "the emperor's new clothes syndrome" - heaven forbid that!

There is a group of male actors over the past 15 years who have vacuumed up special and awesome roles because of being part of the in-crowd. With very few exceptions they have sold those roles way short because of nothing more than a lack of talent.

sasha · Post by **sasha** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:20 am

JEC57 wrote:
sasha wrote:Maybe BP becomes better? The question is why he decided to do it this year?

About "Moneyball"

'The man who gives the movie its soul as well as, at times, its drive and exuberant energy is Brad Pitt, which surprises me, since I had written him off as a good-looking guy without much temperament. He couldn’t convey thinking, which is not a sign of stupidity, just a failure of technique. But recently something has been happening inside Pitt. In “Babel” he showed hints of fire and a fallible rage. And in Terrence Malick’s “Tree of Life,” in which he plays a father who takes out his disappointments on his sons, his anger is self-wounding and tragic. It’s a performance that deserves an Academy Award.'

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/c ... z1Z6jJKQae
Your generous heart does you much credit Sasha, but imo (and as my Granny used to say), "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".

Pitt is at best limited in his range and - again only imo - he has been given that free ride for years because of his looks (never rated those higher than a 3/10 myself).

Now he is older and his so-called pretty boy looks begin to fade, the critics who have propped him up for years have to find something else to rave about in order to justify their previous reviews. Otherwise they would have to admit they were wrong and fell for "the emperor's new clothes syndrome" - heaven forbid that!

There is a group of male actors over the past 15 years who have vacuumed up special and awesome roles because of being part of the in-crowd. With very few exceptions they have sold those roles way short because of nothing more than a lack of talent.

You are right, BP doesn't do well outside of his comfort zone. But then he was never taken seriously or praised by serious critics with rare exceptions of "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and maybe "Babel".

There is a vicious cycle - limited number of actors 'monopolized' the industry, but it's understandable in this economy: studious want bankability so they bring in easily recognizable faces ("famous" actors) and the more they engage them the more recognizable and bankable this actors become. No mystery here, right? (I don't say that the actors don't deserve it completely, but it's a general trend).

I can be very wrong, but it seems to me, that there is some kind of national pride wave in America (as a result of all the troubles) and many movies deal with internal problems and it easier for studios to engage Americans’ actors who will be closer to audience. (With exception Daniel Day-Lewis's Lincoln). But again it's only my speculations.

About TGWTDT and Millennium series - I'm afraid that because it was preconceived as trilogy the critics will be inclined to reserve their judgment of its Oscar worthiness to the very end. I know that "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy is not a good equivalent, but it what was happening to it - it got its prizes only in the very end (last movie), when it was proven to be sustainable. (I'm sorry - I'm very tired, hope it makes sense

)

tampa · Post by **tampa** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:04 am

sasha wrote:
JEC57 wrote:
sasha wrote:Maybe BP becomes better? The question is why he decided to do it this year?

About "Moneyball"

'The man who gives the movie its soul as well as, at times, its drive and exuberant energy is Brad Pitt, which surprises me, since I had written him off as a good-looking guy without much temperament. He couldn’t convey thinking, which is not a sign of stupidity, just a failure of technique. But recently something has been happening inside Pitt. In “Babel” he showed hints of fire and a fallible rage. And in Terrence Malick’s “Tree of Life,” in which he plays a father who takes out his disappointments on his sons, his anger is self-wounding and tragic. It’s a performance that deserves an Academy Award.'

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/c ... z1Z6jJKQae
Your generous heart does you much credit Sasha, but imo (and as my Granny used to say), "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".

Pitt is at best limited in his range and - again only imo - he has been given that free ride for years because of his looks (never rated those higher than a 3/10 myself).

Now he is older and his so-called pretty boy looks begin to fade, the critics who have propped him up for years have to find something else to rave about in order to justify their previous reviews. Otherwise they would have to admit they were wrong and fell for "the emperor's new clothes syndrome" - heaven forbid that!

There is a group of male actors over the past 15 years who have vacuumed up special and awesome roles because of being part of the in-crowd. With very few exceptions they have sold those roles way short because of nothing more than a lack of talent.

You are right, BP doesn't do well outside of his comfort zone. But then he was never taken seriously or praised by serious critics with rare exceptions of "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and maybe "Babel".

There is a vicious cycle - limited number of actors 'monopolized' the industry, but it's understandable in this economy: studious want bankability so they bring in easily recognizable faces ("famous" actors) and the more they engage them the more recognizable and bankable this actors become. No mystery here, right? (I don't say that the actors don't deserve it completely, but it's a general trend).
I can be very wrong but it seems to me that there is some kind of national pride wave in America (as a result of all the troubles) and many movies deal with internal problems and it easier for studios to engage Americans’ actors who will be closer to audience. (With exception Daniel Day-Lewis's Lincoln). But again it's only my speculations.

About TGWTDT and Millennium series - I'm afraid that because it's was preconceived as trilogy the critics will be inclined to reserve their judgment of its Oscar worthiness to the very end. I know that "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy is not a good equivalent, but it what was happening to it - it got its prizes only in the very end (last movie), when it was proven to be sustainable. (I'm sorry - I'm very tired, hope it makes sense )

I think that is why the same actors get the plum roles over and over and sooner or later have hit films. DC is starting to crack into that circle but he needs some luck with a hit outside of Bond.

JEC57 · Post by **JEC57** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:02 am

Ladies - you are both right imo. It's a hard nut to crack.

I just hate to see our man passed over time and time again for those who are not fit to lace his shoes in the area of both acting chops and looks/charisma/screen presence.

Germangirl · Post by **Germangirl** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:06 am

JEC57 wrote:Ladies - you are both right imo. It's a hard nut to crack.

I just hate to see our man passed over time and time again for those who are not fit to lace his shoes in the area of both acting chops and looks/charisma/screen presence.

Yup, feel the same. It might be VERY biased, but what can you do? I wouldn't like to see Rooney alone nominated either. Either both or none...sorry Rooney..

JEC57 · Post by **JEC57** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:25 am

Germangirl wrote:
JEC57 wrote:Ladies - you are both right imo. It's a hard nut to crack.

I just hate to see our man passed over time and time again for those who are not fit to lace his shoes in the area of both acting chops and looks/charisma/screen presence.
Yup, feel the same. It might be VERY biased, but what can you do? I wouldn't like to see Rooney alone nominated either. Either both or none...sorry Rooney..

Germangirl · Post by **Germangirl** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:38 pm

Little new only...

http://movies.uk.msn.com/blog/editor-bl ... fe3fbb831c

tampa · Post by **tampa** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:13 pm

Germangirl wrote:
JEC57 wrote:Ladies - you are both right imo. It's a hard nut to crack.

I just hate to see our man passed over time and time again for those who are not fit to lace his shoes in the area of both acting chops and looks/charisma/screen presence.
Yup, feel the same. It might be VERY biased, but what can you do? I wouldn't like to see Rooney alone nominated either. Either both or none...sorry Rooney..

I think it will be next to impossible for either of them to be nominated, even if they are great. I think there is a lot of bias against the film coming so soon after the Swedish film. Rooney is I think a far better physical fit for Lizbeth, but Naomi got such huge praise, it will be a real uphill climb for Ronney to get a nomination when Naomi didn't (which she probably deserved). Daniel who should have been nominated for Bond and Layer Cake among others, is going to need a big break out showy kind of role to get nominated. I think Rachel will get nominated this year possibly because of her two highly praised roles. She is a critics darling and won for best supporting against a tough field.

calypso · Post by **calypso** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:37 am

http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-po ... 3?page=0,2

"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"(David Fincher; Sony, Dec. 21)
Fincher's version of the Stieg Larsson novel, which was already made into a well-received Swedish film only two ago, is reportedly dark and violent and kinky. But the advance footage, particularly an extended eight-minute trailer that was unveiled a couple of weeks ago, also makes it look stylish and dramatic.

Maybe the film will be Fincher's genre exercise, a crowd-pleasing detour before he goes back to more substantial original material. Or maybe it'll be more than that: dark and violent the way Scorsese's Oscar-winning "The Departed" was, or dark and kinky the way Jonathan Demme's winner "The Silence of the Lambs" was.

Without having seen more than the eight minutes, and despite the fact that the movie might be easy to dismiss sight unseen as lesser Fincher, I have a feeling that "Dragon Tattoo" could be a major contender. The Academy has grown notably less prim and squeamish in recent years, and the director is certainly riding goodwill from last year, when his "The Social Network" swept the critics' awards but lost to "The King's Speech." This could well be Sony's third serious Best Picture contender, alongside "Moneyball" and "The Ides of March.

also

http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-po ... 3?page=0,3

"The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn" (Steven Spielberg; Paramount, Dec. 23)
The year he won Best Picture and Best Director for "Schindler's List," Spielberg was also responsible for "Jurassic Park," which took home three Oscars in craft categories; the year he was nominated for Best Picture for "Munich," he also had the thrice-nominated "War of the Worlds."

2011 is another double-movie year for the director – and while "Tintin," a motion-capture adaptation of the French comic produced with Peter Jackson, is unlikely to be a major contender the way that Spielberg's "War Horse" may well be, it could certainly figure in those craft categories. And if it's magical enough (see: "Hugo"), who knows?

- so daniel could be in two oscar nominated films

tbossmc2000 · Post by **tbossmc2000** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:02 am

JEC57 wrote:
Germangirl wrote:
JEC57 wrote:Ladies - you are both right imo. It's a hard nut to crack.

I just hate to see our man passed over time and time again for those who are not fit to lace his shoes in the area of both acting chops and looks/charisma/screen presence.
Yup, feel the same. It might be VERY biased, but what can you do? I wouldn't like to see Rooney alone nominated either. Either both or none...sorry Rooney..

JEC, you always drive a hard bargin,

but if Rooney were to hit it out of the park, she would deserve a nomination.
Sorry I wasn't paying attention to who was posting what, but 1 sentence says Daniel needs a hit other than Bond, and some say they hate to see him passed over, it's contradictry. IMO