Sound on Sight.com: LMI Vs. LTROI

[drakkar]

I agree with you in most of what you're saying, however

Reeves promoted the film as being a new take on the original novel.

what Reeves did, in my book, was to remove Blackeberg and Sweden, and replace it with some american culture so the "wider audience" could stay in the film long enough to get the action. So, for a person not able/willing to take in Swedish culture and/or speech, LMI is a "new take on the original novel", and I believe it was this audience Reeves was talking to.

Hey, even on this board I've read people thinking that LMI was a better take on the novel, despite the fact that the film discarded most of it (and much more than the original film did). The american culture references made it able for them to root for the story in a way the swedish original never could.

What I got from Reeves statement was that he had written a new beginning and end into the story (cyclical take - exit "the father", enter Owen). However I don't like that detail at all, I find that it breaks with JAL's style and destroys most of the magic of the story.

[CyberGhostface]

I definitely agree with Reeves lying about what the project was. Especially with Hammer going along with the promotional materials like the featurette with the head honchos going on about how they discovered the book. Even more baffling is that I still run into people who *insist* that it's based on the book despite being familiar with both the Swedish film and the novel. I mean, how? How can you ignore that he copied the original screenplay verbatim right down to scenes and concepts that were absent in the original novel? Ugh.

[Jameron]

I don't really get the plagiarism claim. Reeves has said, on camera, in interviews, that he took the original screenplay as the basis for his film.

Add to that, the "Based on the Screenplay and Novel Låt Den Rätte Komma In by John Ajvide Lindqvist" is the first screen of the closing credits.



Also, don't forget, Hammer PAID for the rights to produce their own version, so if either Tomas or John believe that there was any unpaid-for-usage, I'm sure we would have heard of it by now.

Any false advertising wasn't down to Reeves, but to the inept and morally vacant marketing department.

.

[CyberGhostface]

The bulk of Reeves' comments were talking up the novel and making comments like "At first I didn't want to remake the film, but then I read the novel and I was touched so I had to do it", or "The similarities are there because we both used the same novel", etc. On the commentary he's like "Oh this is here because it was in the novel" even when he was following the screenplay's turn of events (like the initial meeting which is different in the book). Even Lindqvist took from Reeves that he was doing a new take on the novel -- he was under the impression that Reeves would be doing something "completely different" from what he and Alfredson did.

Reeves was being duplicitous at best. For a film that followed the Swedish screenplay verbatim 90% of the film he talked up the book's influence way too much and the Swedish film way too little.

[Jameron]

The bulk of Reeves' comments were talking up the novel and making comments like "At first I didn't want to remake the film, but then I read the novel and I was touched so I had to do it", or "The similarities are there because we both used the same novel", etc. On the commentary he's like "Oh this is here because it was in the novel" even when he was following the screenplay's turn of events (like the initial meeting which is different in the book). Even Lindqvist took from Reeves that he was doing a new take on the novel -- he was under the impression that Reeves would be doing something "completely different" from what he and Alfredson did.

Of course, you realise that I will have to watch it again with the commentary on, I missed anything like that when I heard the commentary.

Reeves was being duplicitous at best. For a film that followed the Swedish screenplay verbatim 90% of the film he talked up the book's influence way too much and the Swedish film way too little.

That may very well be true, but to claim that he flat out lied is a bit much.

[CyberGhostface]

Perhaps not in so many words but he was wording himself in such a way that misrepresented himself and his film, which is being dishonest. Reeves is smart enough to know what he was doing and that people would take from him that LMI was just a "new take" on the novel.