If being told from the angles of other people then Salander and Blomqvist, it would be an outsider's position who doesn't have the knowledge of the complete story to this point. So, content-wise, this wouldn't be possible. Or you'd have a lot of repition necessary to let that person find out the previous plot. (At least the necessary bits to understand.) And, perhaps that's important, those character's judgment of the whole matter would result in something different. This seems to be not what the author/screenwriters wanted. It was intended to be a story in the style of "Blomqvist carries a camera on his shoulder, showing us his view" and the same for Salander.
What you call "bad storytelling", I'd rather tend to see it as a means like if you have a character who's present the whole time silently, passively, but it isn't physically present much of the time. Even though while that being so, it's relevant to the story, maybe even drives the story in a subtle way. I don't know what they might call that formally... It's a means of telling a story lesser straight forward. According to the psychological dynamics laid out, I wouldn't see a problem here because Salander, as a character, is designed to be rather distant, not really seeking the intersection unless a subject catches her focus. She acts a lot on her own behalf without asking someone else over methods and appropriation.
And, about the "hacking skills missing", I don't really find them so much missing in part two. Yes, it drops a bit into the background because she's stolen herself that money and can live of something as she wants to, it's not a skill depictured so unconditionally necessary for survival, so in that environment it may not have the same kind of significance. (At all it hasn't been disclosed at any point in the story how she acquired those skills at all and of what nature they actually truly are. E. g. had she learned to be a programmer or such thing? It's only mentioned that she had worked for a firm. Nothing more explicit.) - That applies as long as she lived outside of Sweden under a false identity. Back in Sweden, there's some more to be seen of that again because it becomes necessary.
In movie 3 I'll agree on this, but I see there isn't really an environment for the character to actively use these skills in. She received a cell-phone that had been smuggled in by someone else, that's all most of the time. The only thing this background becomes noticeable again is as she asks a friend from the firm the she had worked for to go look for material speaking against the credibility of the guy in court who is supposed to judge her mental state. And that because she can't do it herself.
At all, that the point of telling the story from her point of view in the present day events in movie number 3 isn't that strongly present, I'd see a good reason for that because plot-wise she's in the situation now that she actually didn't want to be in: Caught up and detained. That causes a sort of mental paralyzation, shock, in her character for an amount of time - up to the point in jail where she starts doing some sports in her cell. That's like a breaking point of finally realizing the whole situation and understanding the fact that either she starts to fight for her freedom or she's definitely going to lose it forever. From that point, the character becomes more active again.
I'll admit there's a noticeable shift in story and style to tell it from movie number 1 to number 2. The reasons for this aren't really explained by the story content itself. Now you can speculate... maybe it became solid to the author of the books that he's going to work some more with these characters? Let them solve a couple of cases? Something that maybe wasn't so clear as writing the first story that contained the two. So that's why from number 2 on the style changed, designed it more like a story to tell that slowly unfolds itself. Also, it was perhaps clear then that the author wants to focus on these two main characters and not add more to it or maybe even drop one of them.
At least, style-wise, from 1 to 2, admittedly there's this noticeable gap such which one usally experiences with movies which it hadn't been clear about, at the time they were shot, that there's going to be a sequel. So they were shot as a work that persists as a one-time thing. Then it became manifest there's going to be a sequel and the plot and character development was shifted to a more long-term style (that maybe even lasts longer than just one sequel) - both to say something, but also to keep the reader/viewer entertained with these characters for longer.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2021-03-15 12:41 pm (UTC)Or you'd have a lot of repition necessary to let that person find out the previous plot. (At least the necessary bits to understand.)
And, perhaps that's important, those character's judgment of the whole matter would result in something different. This seems to be not what the author/screenwriters wanted.
It was intended to be a story in the style of "Blomqvist carries a camera on his shoulder, showing us his view" and the same for Salander.
What you call "bad storytelling", I'd rather tend to see it as a means like if you have a character who's present the whole time silently, passively, but it isn't physically present much of the time. Even though while that being so, it's relevant to the story, maybe even drives the story in a subtle way. I don't know what they might call that formally...
It's a means of telling a story lesser straight forward.
According to the psychological dynamics laid out, I wouldn't see a problem here because Salander, as a character, is designed to be rather distant, not really seeking the intersection unless a subject catches her focus. She acts a lot on her own behalf without asking someone else over methods and appropriation.
And, about the "hacking skills missing", I don't really find them so much missing in part two.
Yes, it drops a bit into the background because she's stolen herself that money and can live of something as she wants to, it's not a skill depictured so unconditionally necessary for survival, so in that environment it may not have the same kind of significance.
(At all it hasn't been disclosed at any point in the story how she acquired those skills at all and of what nature they actually truly are. E. g. had she learned to be a programmer or such thing? It's only mentioned that she had worked for a firm. Nothing more explicit.)
- That applies as long as she lived outside of Sweden under a false identity. Back in Sweden, there's some more to be seen of that again because it becomes necessary.
In movie 3 I'll agree on this, but I see there isn't really an environment for the character to actively use these skills in.
She received a cell-phone that had been smuggled in by someone else, that's all most of the time. The only thing this background becomes noticeable again is as she asks a friend from the firm the she had worked for to go look for material speaking against the credibility of the guy in court who is supposed to judge her mental state. And that because she can't do it herself.
At all, that the point of telling the story from her point of view in the present day events in movie number 3 isn't that strongly present, I'd see a good reason for that because plot-wise she's in the situation now that she actually didn't want to be in: Caught up and detained.
That causes a sort of mental paralyzation, shock, in her character for an amount of time - up to the point in jail where she starts doing some sports in her cell. That's like a breaking point of finally realizing the whole situation and understanding the fact that either she starts to fight for her freedom or she's definitely going to lose it forever.
From that point, the character becomes more active again.
I'll admit there's a noticeable shift in story and style to tell it from movie number 1 to number 2. The reasons for this aren't really explained by the story content itself.
Now you can speculate... maybe it became solid to the author of the books that he's going to work some more with these characters? Let them solve a couple of cases? Something that maybe wasn't so clear as writing the first story that contained the two.
So that's why from number 2 on the style changed, designed it more like a story to tell that slowly unfolds itself.
Also, it was perhaps clear then that the author wants to focus on these two main characters and not add more to it or maybe even drop one of them.
At least, style-wise, from 1 to 2, admittedly there's this noticeable gap such which one usally experiences with movies which it hadn't been clear about, at the time they were shot, that there's going to be a sequel. So they were shot as a work that persists as a one-time thing.
Then it became manifest there's going to be a sequel and the plot and character development was shifted to a more long-term style (that maybe even lasts longer than just one sequel) - both to say something, but also to keep the reader/viewer entertained with these characters for longer.