I read the American version changed the ending and a few other scenes, It dosen't bother me as any Film maker
will want to put their own stamp on a project. What puts me of seeing it Is. I have been warned there is a very
graphic and long rape scene, which I wouldn't particulary want to watch. ( was Fincher going after the record
held by "I spit on your grave " )
Even Sony admitts it didn't do the Business they where expecting But obviously it did enough to greenlight a
sequal, Although Song still has many money problems so, we'll see.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I read the American version changed the ending and a few other scenes, It dosen't bother me as any Film maker
will want to put their own stamp on a project. What puts me of seeing it Is. I have been warned there is a very
graphic and long rape scene, which I wouldn't particulary want to watch. ( was Fincher going after the record
held by "I spit on your grave " )
Even Sony admitts it didn't do the Business they where expecting But obviously it did enough to greenlight a
sequal, Although Song still has many money problems so, we'll see.
It was indeed a dark and graphic scene, but Fincher and others defend showing it because they said it is perhaps the most important scene in driving the trilogy and Lisbeth. Implying it just may have been too little for this one, perhaps, but definitely not comfortable to see.
But, yes, they announced that sequel production will happen starting later this year, about a month ago.
It is very dark and bleak, but I think very well done. Can't wait to see Fincher's House of Cards series starring Kevin Spacey when it premieres later this year on Netflix.
I'd say the rape scene is not graphic nor is it long at all. It's over and done in a handful of seconds from what I remember. And most of that is implied action rather than the actual act. I think the buzz around it has been somewhat exaggerated. It is a rape scene, but it's tame by other rape scene standards. Dont be scared off by it.
It is very dark and bleak, but I think very well done. Can't wait to see Fincher's House of Cards series starring Kevin Spacey when it premieres later this year on Netflix.
As in a redo of the 1990 BBC series with Ian Richardson? That was excellent.
If so, is it relocated to the US and US politics? Or is Kevin going all British on us?
Dont wait for your ship to come in. Swim out and meet the bloody thing.
I'd say the rape scene is not graphic nor is it long at all. It's over and done in a handful of seconds from what I remember. And most of that is implied action rather than the actual act. I think the buzz around it has been somewhat exaggerated. It is a rape scene, but it's tame by other rape scene standards. Dont be scared off by it.
Errr, definitely not tame from my experience. Many have called the film a hard R rating, specifically referencing that scene and the follow-up to it.
I wouldn't say it is long either, but definitely not one of the glossed-over eyes, stereotypical, and forgettable rape scenes that entertainment pieces normally do. Compared to how little is seen in most rape scenarios in entertainment, this is on the graphic end as well, so I agree with the reviews on that comment.
I absolutely agree, however, that it should not stop anyone from seeing the film. It isn't the central focus of the plot itself and is moved on from well to focus on the actual mystery.
It is very dark and bleak, but I think very well done. Can't wait to see Fincher's House of Cards series starring Kevin Spacey when it premieres later this year on Netflix.
As in a redo of the 1990 BBC series with Ian Richardson? That was excellent.
If so, is it relocated to the US and US politics? Or is Kevin going all British on us?
you'll notice the part that says Sony expects TGWTDT to make over 200m overseas...please show me where that happened. In the meantime a script has been written for part 2 which costs Sony nothing as the writer has a pay or play deal. Japan is doing well and Japan is an important market so you MIGHT get a sequel but to say that 211m guarantees a sequel is ridiculous. In fact if Japan doesn't bring in a truckload of money it pretty much guarantees no sequel. The film has performed below Sony's expectations in most territories.
DVD for a blockbuster might be half the BOx Office..for a modest performer like TGWTDT about 1/3. UNfortunately Fincher historically performs very poorly on DVD about 1/5th of the box office. That's 40-45 m. FRom that deduct the cost of worldwide dvd manufacture and distribution.
TV rights will bring in some but the grim nature of the film are not mainstream for huge success.
Sorry its just numbers.
Also bear in mind that most sequels make 2/3rds of their predecessors box office. There are exceptions obviously.
My guess is that they are going to go into the sequel with a $60-80mil budget now that they know it is not a blockbuster release franchise.
So Daniel Craig is going to take a pay cut? Rooney Mara was paid $200,000 for the first film but promised a dramatic pay rise- and that was before her Oscar nom. Who are they going to pay less?
X-( Shoo fly! You're bothering the satisfied filmgoers!
I'm rolling my eyes at the idea that expatjb thinks 211.5mm (sic) represents a huge success after 54 days of release. With a production budget of 90-100 and marketing on top. It may or may not get a sequel but 211 doesn't guarantee it by any means.
You must be my wife? Did I say it was a huge success? Wasn't the budget 80-90 plus marketing, not 90-100?
Exaggerate to make a point much? ) Desperate to find the negative much? )
Well ignoring the bizarre post about our marriage ) I am not exagerrating at all. I'm merely pointing out the maths. The truth often hurts. I'm not desperate to find the negative at all but if I was it wouldn't be difficult in this case. The movie has underperformed in every territory except possibly Japan. Even with DVD sales it won't reach Sony's prediction of 300m worldwide, which would have, hopefully, been enough to warrant a sequel. The movie was refused a release in INdia which is an important market. Also if the sequels aren't made the cost of optioning all 3 books and the screenplay for the 2nd will not be spread out over 3 films but will be added to the first film's budget.
I don't care whether there is a sequel or not ( and nor do quite a few other people) but to ignore the facts of film financing is just wrong.
Also remember that the Swedish sequels were not as well received as the first, nor were the books.
My guess is that they are going to go into the sequel with a $60-80mil budget now that they know it is not a blockbuster release franchise.
So Daniel Craig is going to take a pay cut? Rooney Mara was paid $200,000 for the first film but promised a dramatic pay rise- and that was before her Oscar nom. Who are they going to pay less?
You've never heard of sequels that have smaller budgets than their predecessors? Mara could easily get a 10x pay raise and still allow for budget cuts. With Fincher only attached to the first one definitely, they may even save on the director and production team.
And I don't know where you got the idea that Fincher does better in the box office than home media releases, as I have long heard the opposite. Fight Club, Zodiac, and in part The Curious Case of Benjamin Button are three films that are well known to have gotten huge success on home release. In fact, after looking into how his other films have done compared to budget, TGWTDT is better than average at well over double its stated budget. The film is doing well for a Fincher film, the hard-R holiday release that it is, and there is plenty of reason to go for a sequel.
You're missing the point. The point is expatjb stated that 211m means a sequel will be made "for sure". It doesn't.
The movie has failed to come close to the 300m WW that Sony stated would "hopefully" generate a sequel.
A sequel might happen. But with those numbers it isn't by any means a certainty.
You may well think that a sequel is a good investment. But unless you're a senior executive at Sony your view doesn't matter. Nor does mine. The only thing that matters is whether a Sony exec wants to try and justify a major investment on a risky prospect..a sequel to a financial disappointment, or use the money to try something else. The fact that its doing OK *by Fincher's standards* or r-rated standards is irrelevant. It's numbers on a balance sheet. Nothing more or less.
You're missing the point. The point is expatjb stated that 211m means a sequel will be made "for sure". It doesn't.
The movie has failed to come close to the 300m WW that Sony stated would "hopefully" generate a sequel.
A sequel might happen. But with those numbers it isn't by any means a certainty.
You may well think that a sequel is a good investment. But unless you're a senior executive at Sony your view doesn't matter. Nor does mine. The only thing that matters is whether a Sony exec wants to try and justify a major investment on a risky prospect..a sequel to a financial disappointment, or use the money to try something else. The fact that its doing OK *by Fincher's standards* or r-rated standards is irrelevant. It's numbers on a balance sheet. Nothing more or less.
You're still doing that negative thing. Sony says they will do the sequel. And I'm sure there is a reason they didn't wait to announce a sequel after they saw if it could hit $300mil worldwide. They also expressed that they think they could do a better release for the sequel and the holiday release they gave the first was a poor choice in the first place. Didn't sound like a hopefully-we-will-announce-a-sequel-later.
Still can't figure out why this is a big-budget venture. Just actors in moody Sweden. Perhaps its the electricity bills.
This still boggles my mind too. It really didn't look that expensive. Everything looked high quality, but it didn't seem like there was a mass number of sets built, not a huge cast, and nearly no special effects. Surely there are some ways to do the shoot on a sequel in a similar way but at a lower cost. It even had a dark independent feel in several ways instead of very Hollywood to me.
You're still doing that negative thing. Sony says they will do the sequel. And I'm sure there is a reason they didn't wait to announce a sequel after they saw if it could hit $300mil worldwide.
No I'm not. No they didn't . Read the post again. They said they were working on a script . The reason they didn't wait is because the film was about to open worldwide and people had already written it off as a flop. Its damage limitation.
You're still doing that negative thing. Sony says they will do the sequel. And I'm sure there is a reason they didn't wait to announce a sequel after they saw if it could hit $300mil worldwide.
No I'm not. No they didn't . Read the post again. They said they were working on a script . The reason they didn't wait is because the film was about to open worldwide and people had already written it off as a flop. Its damage limitation.
I read said that the script was already written and has several adaptations in story that they are enthusiastic about. And nobody thought it flopped. It held in the top few slots in several locations before it went entirely global, and has held its positions far better than the average film. Underperform and flop aren't the same thing. A flop means it wasn't even successful. An underperforming film can still become a success, as this one absolutely has. What film numbers are you comparing it to? Surely not summer, lighter R movies who aren't based on material that has recently been adapted into a different film?
You are not making this a very fun discussion. I wanted to talk to people who had news about the movie or who enjoyed it also. You are trying endlessly to point out splinters in the boardwalk while I point out that there is a boardwalk with a lovely view! Oh, but just because there is a boardwalk doesn't mean it won't crash into the sea before anyone walks on it.
Ah, I see, your coming from anti Craig position not an anti TGWTDT.
In that case your never going to be happy because however much money it makes he will still be in it.
Of course he is. I figured that from the get go. The hate is strong with this one.
It's got to piss off the Anti-Craig's so much knowing he's having the greatest career post Bond since Connery. Their only way to fight the pain off is to throw box office numbers against his performances. Craig is talented and doing well for a non American actor and that can't be taken away from him by movie ticket sales alone.
You're still doing that negative thing. Sony says they will do the sequel. And I'm sure there is a reason they didn't wait to announce a sequel after they saw if it could hit $300mil worldwide.
No I'm not. No they didn't . Read the post again. They said they were working on a script . The reason they didn't wait is because the film was about to open worldwide and people had already written it off as a flop. Its damage limitation.
I read said that the script was already written and has several adaptations in story that they are enthusiastic about. And nobody thought it flopped. It held in the top few slots in several locations before it went entirely global, and has held its positions far better than the average film. Underperform and flop aren't the same thing. A flop means it wasn't even successful. An underperforming film can still become a success, as this one absolutely has. What film numbers are you comparing it to? Surely not summer, lighter R movies who aren't based on material that has recently been adapted into a different film?
You are not making this a very fun discussion. I wanted to talk to people who had news about the movie or who enjoyed it also. You are trying endlessly to point out splinters in the boardwalk while I point out that there is a boardwalk with a lovely view! Oh, but just because there is a boardwalk doesn't mean it won't crash into the sea before anyone walks on it.
X-(
this seems to be really important to you. I'm sorry that I didn't enjoy the movie but the fact that I express a different opinion to you shouldn't provoke such anger. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to say I didn't think the movie was very good. Oh, wait we've already hat that discussion...
$100 says the Dragon Tattoo sequel gets made before A Team 2. )
I'll bet £100 ( that's grown up money) that A team 2 gets made before Golden Compass2. Or Dream House 2. Or Cowboys and Aliens 2.
Ah, I see, your coming from anti Craig position not an anti TGWTDT.
In that case your never going to be happy because however much money it makes he will still be in it.
*sigh* expat jb can't dispute the facts so he resorts to ad hominem attacks. I'm not coming from an anti- anything position. you re-read my old posts saw I enjoyed the A-Team and decided to have a dig. I responded citing Craig's movies because I seem to recall you dressing up in some Tom Ford knock offs. If I was anti-Craig I wouldn't have paid £8 to watch this film and Cowboys and Aliens and even the godawful Dream House. But don't let common sense get ih the way of insulting people.
So why don't you discuss the facts of TGWTDT's production budget, marketing costs and box office numbers instead of cheap jibes? because I actually find box office discussions genuinely interesting. If you find it too painful to discuss Craig then we could discuss MI4.
Ah, I see, your coming from anti Craig position not an anti TGWTDT.
In that case your never going to be happy because however much money it makes he will still be in it.
Of course he is. I figured that from the get go. The hate is strong with this one.
It's got to piss off the Anti-Craig's so much knowing he's having the greatest career post Bond since Connery. Their only way to fight the pain off is to throw box office numbers against his performances. Craig is talented and doing well for a non American actor and that can't be taken away from him by movie ticket sales alone.
Did you just call me a hater? seriously? that's the behaviour of teenage girls with a crush.
STill its easier to sling around cheap shots about some kind of personal agenda than address my actual thoughts.
If I'm so anti-Craig why didn't I slate all his movies or his performances? I have stated that I didn't enjoy the film which provoked a meltdown from Mr Beech. I state facts, based on my experience of the business and you throw around personal abuse. Nice. I'd heard that if you did anything less than worship Craig on these boards there were certain people who had tantrums. I'm saddened to discover its true.
Well if you have to resort to ad hominems then you have nothing to say. At least Mr Beech addresses the points I make and I respect him for that. You know what they say IF YOU CAN'T DISCREDIT THE OPINION discredit the source.
I'll bet £100 ( that's grown up money) that A team 2 gets made before Golden Compass2. Or Dream House 2. Or Cowboys and Aliens 2.
Ah, I see, your coming from anti Craig position not an anti TGWTDT.
In that case your never going to be happy because however much money it makes he will still be in it.
*sigh* expat jb can't dispute the facts so he resorts to ad hominem attacks. I'm not coming from an anti- anything position. you re-read my old posts saw I enjoyed the A-Team and decided to have a dig. I responded citing Craig's movies because I seem to recall you dressing up in some Tom Ford knock offs. If I was anti-Craig I wouldn't have paid £8 to watch this film and Cowboys and Aliens and even the godawful Dream House. But don't let common sense get ih the way of insulting people.
So why don't you discuss the facts of TGWTDT's production budget, marketing costs and box office numbers instead of cheap jibes? because I actually find box office discussions genuinely interesting. If you find it too painful to discuss Craig then we could discuss MI4.
And I'm the one launching personal attacks? )
And Insults? What insults? )
Your skin is very thin. Your either very young or very old.
Dont wait for your ship to come in. Swim out and meet the bloody thing.
nope sorry. Expressing opinions is my limit. I just prefer to have an honest discussion without resorting to "hater" "anti- this, anti-that".
You may be back tracking, but ok I'll give you the benefit of doubt. I've seen people discuss and be more involved in things they don't like, than some that like it. It's the Internet, it happens. Your jab back after the A-Team dig was misleading I guess, and resorted down to a level your supposedly above now.
I actually have my doubts of the sequel happening too.
No I'm not. No they didn't . Read the post again. They said they were working on a script . The reason they didn't wait is because the film was about to open worldwide and people had already written it off as a flop. Its damage limitation.
/snip
this seems to be really important to you. I'm sorry that I didn't enjoy the movie but the fact that I express a different opinion to you shouldn't provoke such anger. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to say I didn't think the movie was very good. Oh, wait we've already hat that discussion...
All this complaining now of people not discussing with you or addressing the facts and you go and act like I am telling people they can't say if they thought it wasn't good? Not at all what I said. I said who and what I'd like to discuss, not that I wish to prevent anything that doesn't fall within my wants from appearing here. And I'll make it clear now, I am not angry or having a meltdown 8-) . Maybe text just doesn't convey things quite right in my use, but I don't get angry about much at all. I'm kind of emotionless as far as the extremes go. I don't get excited enough to cheer and I don't get angry enough to raise my voice. It's sort of a gift when it comes to most debates, but apparently it isn't coming across here.
You weren't saying that you didn't think it was good. You were saying a bunch of broad statements about what kind of film it is statistically and how unlikely its numbers are to assure any actions. I responded to those points. I don't see how that means you, who keeps coming back with multiple responses and more and more statements on films to hold against the sequel possibilities, find this less important than I do and are not at your meltdown threshold. Is it the smiley faces? Do the concepts of importance and argument emotions hinge on smiley faces?
Yes, I love the film. If you want to know about that, you can ask. But don't spin it like I am being the Big Bad Wolf against those with differing opinions on the film itself when we were most definitely talking about the logistics and business around the film rather than the content. Sure, you come off as a pushy realist when you keep throwing doubt in the middle of some pretty positive filmgoers' discussion of a film that most of them enjoyed. That is why I think it is a rather negative thing to do.
We can keep discussing, but as I said, I'd still rather keep discussing here with people who had news about the movie or who enjoyed it also.
It's a Swedish proverb. Fincher wanted to embrace the film's setting and origin. When a member of production said that line, Fincher thought it went very well with the film and its dark theme in Sweden.
I like it, if only because of why they picked it and where it is from.
Comments
will want to put their own stamp on a project. What puts me of seeing it Is. I have been warned there is a very
graphic and long rape scene, which I wouldn't particulary want to watch. ( was Fincher going after the record
held by "I spit on your grave " )
Even Sony admitts it didn't do the Business they where expecting But obviously it did enough to greenlight a
sequal, Although Song still has many money problems so, we'll see.
It was indeed a dark and graphic scene, but Fincher and others defend showing it because they said it is perhaps the most important scene in driving the trilogy and Lisbeth. Implying it just may have been too little for this one, perhaps, but definitely not comfortable to see.
But, yes, they announced that sequel production will happen starting later this year, about a month ago.
It is very dark and bleak, but I think very well done. Can't wait to see Fincher's House of Cards series starring Kevin Spacey when it premieres later this year on Netflix.
As in a redo of the 1990 BBC series with Ian Richardson? That was excellent.
If so, is it relocated to the US and US politics? Or is Kevin going all British on us?
Errr, definitely not tame from my experience. Many have called the film a hard R rating, specifically referencing that scene and the follow-up to it.
I wouldn't say it is long either, but definitely not one of the glossed-over eyes, stereotypical, and forgettable rape scenes that entertainment pieces normally do. Compared to how little is seen in most rape scenarios in entertainment, this is on the graphic end as well, so I agree with the reviews on that comment.
I absolutely agree, however, that it should not stop anyone from seeing the film. It isn't the central focus of the plot itself and is moved on from well to focus on the actual mystery.
http://blog.netflix.com/2011/03/house-of-cards.html
Yes sir! I believe it is being adapted to US politics in the present...
that article is derived from this one
[url]
http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/sony-going-ahead-with-dragon-tattoo-sequels-despite-underperforming-box-office[/url]
you'll notice the part that says Sony expects TGWTDT to make over 200m overseas...please show me where that happened. In the meantime a script has been written for part 2 which costs Sony nothing as the writer has a pay or play deal. Japan is doing well and Japan is an important market so you MIGHT get a sequel but to say that 211m guarantees a sequel is ridiculous. In fact if Japan doesn't bring in a truckload of money it pretty much guarantees no sequel. The film has performed below Sony's expectations in most territories.
DVD for a blockbuster might be half the BOx Office..for a modest performer like TGWTDT about 1/3. UNfortunately Fincher historically performs very poorly on DVD about 1/5th of the box office. That's 40-45 m. FRom that deduct the cost of worldwide dvd manufacture and distribution.
TV rights will bring in some but the grim nature of the film are not mainstream for huge success.
Sorry its just numbers.
Also bear in mind that most sequels make 2/3rds of their predecessors box office. There are exceptions obviously.
So Daniel Craig is going to take a pay cut? Rooney Mara was paid $200,000 for the first film but promised a dramatic pay rise- and that was before her Oscar nom. Who are they going to pay less?
Well ignoring the bizarre post about our marriage
I don't care whether there is a sequel or not ( and nor do quite a few other people) but to ignore the facts of film financing is just wrong.
Also remember that the Swedish sequels were not as well received as the first, nor were the books.
You've never heard of sequels that have smaller budgets than their predecessors? Mara could easily get a 10x pay raise and still allow for budget cuts. With Fincher only attached to the first one definitely, they may even save on the director and production team.
And I don't know where you got the idea that Fincher does better in the box office than home media releases, as I have long heard the opposite. Fight Club, Zodiac, and in part The Curious Case of Benjamin Button are three films that are well known to have gotten huge success on home release. In fact, after looking into how his other films have done compared to budget, TGWTDT is better than average at well over double its stated budget. The film is doing well for a Fincher film, the hard-R holiday release that it is, and there is plenty of reason to go for a sequel.
The movie has failed to come close to the 300m WW that Sony stated would "hopefully" generate a sequel.
A sequel might happen. But with those numbers it isn't by any means a certainty.
You may well think that a sequel is a good investment. But unless you're a senior executive at Sony your view doesn't matter. Nor does mine. The only thing that matters is whether a Sony exec wants to try and justify a major investment on a risky prospect..a sequel to a financial disappointment, or use the money to try something else. The fact that its doing OK *by Fincher's standards* or r-rated standards is irrelevant. It's numbers on a balance sheet. Nothing more or less.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
You're still doing that negative thing. Sony says they will do the sequel. And I'm sure there is a reason they didn't wait to announce a sequel after they saw if it could hit $300mil worldwide. They also expressed that they think they could do a better release for the sequel and the holiday release they gave the first was a poor choice in the first place. Didn't sound like a hopefully-we-will-announce-a-sequel-later.
This still boggles my mind too. It really didn't look that expensive. Everything looked high quality, but it didn't seem like there was a mass number of sets built, not a huge cast, and nearly no special effects. Surely there are some ways to do the shoot on a sequel in a similar way but at a lower cost. It even had a dark independent feel in several ways instead of very Hollywood to me.
No I'm not. No they didn't . Read the post again. They said they were working on a script . The reason they didn't wait is because the film was about to open worldwide and people had already written it off as a flop. Its damage limitation.
I'll bet £100 ( that's grown up money) that A team 2 gets made before Golden Compass2. Or Dream House 2. Or Cowboys and Aliens 2.
I read said that the script was already written and has several adaptations in story that they are enthusiastic about. And nobody thought it flopped. It held in the top few slots in several locations before it went entirely global, and has held its positions far better than the average film. Underperform and flop aren't the same thing. A flop means it wasn't even successful. An underperforming film can still become a success, as this one absolutely has. What film numbers are you comparing it to? Surely not summer, lighter R movies who aren't based on material that has recently been adapted into a different film?
You are not making this a very fun discussion. I wanted to talk to people who had news about the movie or who enjoyed it also. You are trying endlessly to point out splinters in the boardwalk while I point out that there is a boardwalk with a lovely view! Oh, but just because there is a boardwalk doesn't mean it won't crash into the sea before anyone walks on it.
X-(
In that case your never going to be happy because however much money it makes he will still be in it.
It's got to piss off the Anti-Craig's so much knowing he's having the greatest career post Bond since Connery. Their only way to fight the pain off is to throw box office numbers against his performances. Craig is talented and doing well for a non American actor and that can't be taken away from him by movie ticket sales alone.
this seems to be really important to you. I'm sorry that I didn't enjoy the movie but the fact that I express a different opinion to you shouldn't provoke such anger. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to say I didn't think the movie was very good. Oh, wait we've already hat that discussion...
*sigh* expat jb can't dispute the facts so he resorts to ad hominem attacks. I'm not coming from an anti- anything position. you re-read my old posts saw I enjoyed the A-Team and decided to have a dig. I responded citing Craig's movies because I seem to recall you dressing up in some Tom Ford knock offs. If I was anti-Craig I wouldn't have paid £8 to watch this film and Cowboys and Aliens and even the godawful Dream House. But don't let common sense get ih the way of insulting people.
So why don't you discuss the facts of TGWTDT's production budget, marketing costs and box office numbers instead of cheap jibes? because I actually find box office discussions genuinely interesting. If you find it too painful to discuss Craig then we could discuss MI4.
STill its easier to sling around cheap shots about some kind of personal agenda than address my actual thoughts.
If I'm so anti-Craig why didn't I slate all his movies or his performances? I have stated that I didn't enjoy the film which provoked a meltdown from Mr Beech. I state facts, based on my experience of the business and you throw around personal abuse. Nice. I'd heard that if you did anything less than worship Craig on these boards there were certain people who had tantrums. I'm saddened to discover its true.
Well if you have to resort to ad hominems then you have nothing to say. At least Mr Beech addresses the points I make and I respect him for that. You know what they say IF YOU CAN'T DISCREDIT THE OPINION discredit the source.
Craig Fight!
nope sorry. Expressing opinions is my limit. I just prefer to have an honest discussion without resorting to "hater" "anti- this, anti-that".
And Insults? What insults?
Your skin is very thin. Your either very young or very old.
I actually have my doubts of the sequel happening too.
All this complaining now of people not discussing with you or addressing the facts and you go and act like I am telling people they can't say if they thought it wasn't good? Not at all what I said. I said who and what I'd like to discuss, not that I wish to prevent anything that doesn't fall within my wants from appearing here. And I'll make it clear now, I am not angry or having a meltdown 8-) . Maybe text just doesn't convey things quite right in my use, but I don't get angry about much at all. I'm kind of emotionless as far as the extremes go. I don't get excited enough to cheer and I don't get angry enough to raise my voice. It's sort of a gift when it comes to most debates, but apparently it isn't coming across here.
You weren't saying that you didn't think it was good. You were saying a bunch of broad statements about what kind of film it is statistically and how unlikely its numbers are to assure any actions. I responded to those points. I don't see how that means you, who keeps coming back with multiple responses and more and more statements on films to hold against the sequel possibilities, find this less important than I do and are not at your meltdown threshold. Is it the smiley faces? Do the concepts of importance and argument emotions hinge on smiley faces?
Yes, I love the film. If you want to know about that, you can ask. But don't spin it like I am being the Big Bad Wolf against those with differing opinions on the film itself when we were most definitely talking about the logistics and business around the film rather than the content. Sure, you come off as a pushy realist when you keep throwing doubt in the middle of some pretty positive filmgoers' discussion of a film that most of them enjoyed. That is why I think it is a rather negative thing to do.
We can keep discussing, but as I said, I'd still rather keep discussing here with people who had news about the movie or who enjoyed it also.
Very clean and doesn't mess with the artwork. Most slipcovers are a bit tacky and have Blu Ray logo striping on top.
It's a Swedish proverb. Fincher wanted to embrace the film's setting and origin. When a member of production said that line, Fincher thought it went very well with the film and its dark theme in Sweden.
I like it, if only because of why they picked it and where it is from.