MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

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.

19 Responses to “Dragon Tattoo Trailer Appears… Stolen Or Styled?”

  1. Bigbull says:

    Yeah, it’s probably a clever marketing stunt.

  2. The Big Perm says:

    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.

  3. Rob says:

    Why would a trailer screening in Europe have an MPAA advisory?

  4. Ray Pride says:

    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.

  5. NickF says:

    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.

  6. Tofu says:

    Totally a stunt.

    Totally worked.

    The handheld nature works perfectly with the titles.

  7. movieman says:

    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?

  8. Matt says:

    A stunt? Wouldn’t a real HD trailer get as much coverage? Releasing an ok quality one seems like a bad idea

  9. David Poland says:

    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?

  10. NickF says:

    There’s nudity on YouTube for “educational” or “artistic” videos. Hollywood movies don’t get this luxury.

  11. David Poland says:

    They did this time, Nick. Perhaps that is part of the exercise.

  12. RedTeaBurns says:

    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.

  13. The Big Perm says:

    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!

  14. 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.

  15. Matt says:

    Also interesting a studio releasing/endorsing a bootlegged trailer when pose a vehement fight against piracy

  16. movielocke says:

    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.

  17. Danmac says:

    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?

  18. The Big Perm says:

    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.

  19. christian says:

    The internet is making everybody dumber.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin