Comments on: Completely Uncensored, Still NSFW Poster For ‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ Arrives

By: digit

digit — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

There is no way this poster will make it into US theater chains. If theater chains won\’t even show NC-17 movies they won\’t put this poster in the lobby. Parents groups would raise hell. They won\’t put it on billboards or the sides of buses. But sex sells and when the movie stars Daniel Craig who is an uncertain box office draw outside the Bond movies and an unknown and the movie has a $100 million production budget they hav to make their money back somehow. That having been said. It seems contradictory to use a naked woman to sell a movie about sexual exploitation and sexual violence against women. Besides that it looks like a fashion spread in Vogue or Vanity Fair.

By: Kate

Kate — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

OTish: I love your site but do you need to tweet every story twice?

By: rotch

rotch — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

If I hadn\’t seen the Swedish version and disliked it, I would actually be really excited about this.

By: cirkusfolk

cirkusfolk — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

I knew there had to be more to this poster! When I first saw it, I was like, \”Um, ok…Bond has his arm around the chick from Social Network…boring.\” Now of course I get it.

By: Dude

Dude — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

So does she still have the Janet Jackson piercing on her left breast?

By: Leah

Leah — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

I can\’t imagine this being put up anywhere here in the States (except for some art house theaters), but I admire Sony\’s stones for doing this at all. Are there non-US commenters here? Would such a fuss be made about the various posters we\’ve seen so far in your home country? I\’m not understanding why such a big deal is being made. Personally, and I think the freakouts about breasts and a nipple are the offensive thing, not the posters.

And StephenM?

Porn? Really?

By: jimmiescoffee

jimmiescoffee — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

this is badass. no one is cutting corners here. honestly, the swedish flicks were sexualized as hell. so dont give me any of that crap.

By: disappointed

disappointed — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

Her hair is awful and passe. It was much better in the French magazine spread. That was excitingly punk-ish. This is just bad \’80s hair.

By: Abner

Abner — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

(If) she really is being over sexualized it probably has much to do with the fact this is a remake of a book adaptation. Have to sell something.

By: josh

josh — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

i saw the american version of this movie ..based on word of mouth from a Movie junkie at and audition i went to last week,Im a sucker for a good movie something i can go and lose myself in.Never having read the book i didnt really know what to think of the movie ..it was very long .Of course seeing rooney mara nude me being the guy that iam was a plus ..but after i got past all that .i really tryed to get into the movie .i thought the acting was good ..as far as mara and craigs performances went .

Then i figured i'd get the original swedish version and watch that. an i all of a sudden understood the story better by some means.(i dont know why that is )..I dont know it just seem the american version glamoured up the swedish version..The girl in the swedish version was void of emotion ..she seemed overtly withdrawn and at times dry ..but real ..even the rape scene in the swedish version ..wasnt all that extravagent ..it was done smartly ..once again ther american version had hollywood written all over it ..I think if it wasnt soo hollywoodish it would of been better…i actually liked the swedish version better

By: MulletLove

MulletLove — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

I\’m just amazed that people still get their knickers in knots over seeing a woman\’s breasts in this day and age in America. We all got \’em, if we\’re lucky, and I\’ve certainly seen Danny Craig\’s tits here and there on film promos in the past. No one bats an eye. It\’s silly, not to mention utterly boring!

Shoot, give me some women\’s teats over a decapitation in a slasher film any flippin\’ day.

By: disappointed

disappointed — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

Sorry the good hair was actually in the U.S. \”W\” magazine, not a french magazine. It was very fresh punk. Lots of great looks there. Much better than this stale poster. Maybe ugly \’80s hair has some story point, but it just feels old, outdated and unimaginative.

By: James

James — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

Good thing the uncensored poster is still up here, the linked site had to take it down.

By: What do you expect from Hollywood....

What do you expect from Hollywood.... — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

Why isn\’t Daniel Craig the one that\’s naked on the poster? After all, he\’s the one that sleeps with almost all the women in the books.
Why does he look like he\’s restraining her and why does lisbeth appear so submissive in the poster?

By featuring a naked Lisbeth on the poster, all Hollywood is doing is re-affirming the injustices that was done to her and \”raping\” her all over again.

It is very disappointing and makes me NOT want to go and see the film.

By: WWP

WWP — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

Nah…not sexualized at all. Yep, let\’s take a character who is a rape victim and make it all about Boob Shots and a fully clothed guy.Typical Hollywood as usual…

By: james

james — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

I just know that by the time I\’m 80, there will larger than life advertisements with full on frontal nudity everywhere. And I might be okay with that, if it\’s done tastefully.

By: StephenM

StephenM — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

I\’m not horribly offended by the poster, and I don\’t think it\’s going to scar people who see it, but I still think it\’s pretty tasteless and makes the movie look like it\’s entirely about explicit sex, so saying it\’s rather porny is, I think, a completely legitimate reaction. And yeah, I haven\’t read the book or seen the other movie, but Lisbeth here looks like a submissive nymphomaniac into kinky sex. The picture is a bit too dark and not as stylish as it could be, she looked cooler in the magazine photo shoot, and the tagline is stupid. So color me unimpressed and mildly irritated.

By: Adela Rogers

Adela Rogers — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:25:09 +0000

Anyone with even a two-hour course in Media Studies under their belt, knows that when one person (in an image) is nude, and one is clothed, the clothed person holds the power; and that when one person is yoked by another person (either with arm around their waist, or their shoulders, or especially their neck), the person being held is, in effect, powerless, controlled, and subservient.

Topping off this character\’s mal-representation, is the posture of \”Lisbeth\’s\” body– in that it doesn\’t appear to be straight and head-on, but canted, (with more weight on one foot), relaxed, and with the help of the shadow, diagonal. This posture has been utilized by Madison Avenue for years to present women in a pseudo-feminine, frivolous, and passive fashion, without agency or independence– simply a object to be ornamented or an object to be ornamental.

Really sad and frustrating to see such an iconic heroine/character being presented in such an antithetical arrangement. I never thought Fincher would be so regressive as to default into musty stereo-typical gender constructions. Really unsophisticated.