Whats your opinion about Steig Larsson Triology?

[TaureanBull]

Originally Posted by fettpett

Honestly he could have done better to keep Salander the secondary character and having Blomkvist be the main character solving the mysteries.

Believe me the books would not have clicked so much with idea!

Anybody watched the movie? The movies are well directed it seems. Actually the way people wished the books were. To the point. I saw the first one with English Subs.

BTW, I had a look at the last part of the third movie. I think it had a bit different ending. The novel says she opened the door and let him inside her life once again.... something like that. In movie she closes the door! Poor Kalle Blomkvist!

[jbcohen]

Goes to show that the best way to make it big in litterature is to die.

[fettpett]

Originally Posted by TaureanBull

Believe me the books would not have clicked so much with idea!

Anybody watched the movie? The movies are well directed it seems. Actually the way people wished the books were. To the point. I saw the first one with English Subs.

BTW, I had a look at the last part of the third movie. I think it had a bit different ending. The novel says she opened the door and let him inside her life once again.... something like that. In movie she closes the door! Poor Kalle Blomkvist!

well if he had kept her as a background character then he could have focused on other stories at lest for a couple more books and then dealt with her story...or weaved in as a secondary plot.

I watched the first one with subs, good movie but the actress was sooo wrong for the part, much too tall and old for the character, Roona Mara is a much better choice for the character, though I can't see them doing the rape seen as well as they did in the Swedish version

[Andanzas]

I absolutely loved the first book. Couldn't stop reading it until I finished it at dawn. I am not sure I will reread the other two, but I know I'll revisit the first one for sure. What an amazing plot and what a wonderful gallery of characters. Indeed one of the best mysteries I've ever read.

Although they are very different, Larsson somewhat reminds me of Conan Doyle. They are both excellent plotters and both possess the extraordinary ability to create unforgettable characters. The funny thing is that neither of them was really talented as writers: their style is formulaic and clunky at best. Still, Conan Doyle's books are still widely read after so many years. And I suspect Larsson's trilogy will face a similar future. Despite its many flaws, it is here to stay.

[tm3]

Originally Posted by sakura-panda

I am sad that there won't be any more because there were some ideas started that I would have liked to see if anything came out of them -- like the entire sequence at the hotel, at the start of the second book? I feel like that could have been forshadowing something for future escapades.

i had forgotten about that part at the beginning of book 2. it seems totally unrelated to the rest of the story. was it just filler?

i've seen subtitled movies 1 and 2 and really enjoyed the casting. salander and blomkvist in the movies were exactly how i pictured them in the book. i was very curious in fact about how the salander character would be cast, and in her introductory scene at the copy machine when she turns and faces the audience i said, "perfect."

[tm3]

Originally Posted by 6charlong

For someone the size of Salander with no training--impossible.

yes the business with the guns is part of what i was referring to as unrealistic.

also, there is no martial art that enables a 95 pounder to easily dispatch an experienced fighter that weighs over 200 pounds.

not to mention the medical inaccuracies.

still, i enjoyed the read.

[jbcohen]

Hmm, Robert Jordan + novels + dead = stardom, Atkins + atkins diet + dead = stardom, Steig Larson + novels + dead = stardom. Hmm, I'm seeing a pattern.

[DiapDealer]

Jordan was a rock-star long before he died.

[sakura-panda]

Originally Posted by tm3

i had forgotten about that part at the beginning of book 2. it seems totally unrelated to the rest of the story. was it just filler?

I don't know; when I finished the first book, I thought that most of Lisbeth's back story (the guardianship) was filler and a just a whole lot of unnecessary information that didn't advance the main story and didn't add much to her character. Along a similar vein, I thought maybe something would have come out of the hotel escapade if the rumored sequels had been written.

[TaureanBull]

Originally Posted by tm3

i had forgotten about that part at the beginning of book 2. it seems totally unrelated to the rest of the story. was it just filler?

i've seen subtitled movies 1 and 2 and really enjoyed the casting. salander and blomkvist in the movies were exactly how i pictured them in the book. i was very curious in fact about how the salander character would be cast, and in her introductory scene at the copy machine when she turns and faces the audience i said, "perfect."

Thats why the second book is the least interesting.

Originally Posted by jbcohen

Hmm, Robert Jordan + novels + dead = stardom, Atkins + atkins diet + dead = stardom, Steig Larson + novels + dead = stardom. Hmm, I'm seeing a pattern.

hmmm... nice observation. But I dont have any intention of achieving stardom this route.