Dragon Tattoo Trailer Appears… Stolen Or Styled?
This does seem to be a legitimate red-band trailer for Sony’s David Fincher-directed The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (aka The Feel Bad Movie Of Christmas). But as you’ll notice, this YouTube entry, which is what is up everywhere, looks like someone in a theater taped it off the screen… or is that part of the fun?
Unless CARA gave it the red band for pervasive darkness, the only actual nsfw-style “offense” in the trailer is about half-a-second of Mara Rooney’s right nipple. But I guess that is really enough. (Her prominent ribs were of more concern to me.)
It’s the only video on the YouTube account, which claims to be from The Netherlands. The second most viewed version – which is the same movie screen capture – is another one-video-only account, wich claims to be from Indonesia. And all the other versions of the red band trailer on YouTube have been pulled down or are claiming to be pulled down, trying to get you to click to another site to see the footage.
Smells like a stunt. But a smart one, if it is.
Yeah, it’s probably a clever marketing stunt.
It seems like everyone thinks this is a stunt just because the music is so clear. But you can download just about every movie in theaters right now that are taped off a screen and have perfect sound. You can plug the camera into the projector, apparently.
Why would a trailer screening in Europe have an MPAA advisory?
Rob, among all the blog fudge that’s piling up, some have reported that the trailer did show in the U.S. at some random screens around the country. Since “dobvlvstiuwir” has posted only the one video, and the studio hasn’t called up YouTube…
If only Zaillian’s script is as clever weaving Lisbeth’s own hacking acumen.
It’s a purposeful leak. This is the highest quality looking and sounding cam of a trailer I can remember. The movie looks great too.
26 hours have past and the original video is still up. Youtube is quick to pull high profile stuff like this off very quickly.
Totally a stunt.
Totally worked.
The handheld nature works perfectly with the titles.
Looks absolutely sensational (huge Fincher fan!), but am I the only one who finds the overexposed Craig to be a boring cold fish of an actor?
A stunt? Wouldn’t a real HD trailer get as much coverage? Releasing an ok quality one seems like a bad idea
I don’t think it’s just about getting attention. It’s an aesthetic statement.
And interesting that YouTube is allowing the red band w/nudity to run. Don’t they disallow nudity?
There’s nudity on YouTube for “educational” or “artistic” videos. Hollywood movies don’t get this luxury.
They did this time, Nick. Perhaps that is part of the exercise.
From what I can take from this trailers is, if you seen the original, there is no need to spent any cash on this one.
There is a TON of nudity on Youtube.
I still don’t see the purpose either. Is there anything in the story about videotaping things or anything that would make the trailer work conceptually?
I think people are assuming it’s a stunt because the sound is so good and the picture is good. That’s what I keep hearing. But that isn’t enough for me…it took me about two minutes on the interwebs to find the full version of Thor that looked and sounded just as good, and it was even on a tripod!
The trailer suggets that Fincher’s version has more punch than the swedish one. It’s what all my friends are writing about. If that’s the case, it will join Matt Reeves’s ‘Let Me In’ as the second swedish movie that produces a remake with as much integrity as the original.
Also interesting a studio releasing/endorsing a bootlegged trailer when pose a vehement fight against piracy
the bootleg style totally works artistically to the trailer’s advantage. I say release it to theatres like that.
pretty easy, to pull off, film the trailer screening in a big screening room. That image will be incredibly blown out and jumping, due to 29.97 recording issues (unless they’re recording with a non consumer camera, but we know it’s a stunt so the point is moot) none of which matters because the point is that you’re just capturing a plate. Then drop it in avid, on a layer above the theatre plate, put a pip or 3d effect on it, enable x and y tracking, set a few parameters and voila, you’ve got great video overlaid perfectly on the crappy video without having to spend a lot of time jiggering the positioning of the image around to simulate a faux shakeycam.
It’s clearly a stunt. About 3 seconds into the first shot the resolution of the image changes from soft to clear. Has no-one got eyes any more?
What does that mean? They could have left auto focus on…a lot of times you see the camera making slight adjustments when it goes from black to a picture. Nothing out of the usual if you’ve watched Cam versions of movies.
The internet is making everybody dumber.