Why The Snowman 2017 Failed and Deserves a Proper Jo Nesbø Adaptation

Tomas Alfredson’s 2017 thriller The Snowman stands as one of the most notorious misfires in recent literary adaptation history. Despite originating from one of Jo Nesbø’s most acclaimed Harry Hole novels and starring Michael Fassbender, the film earned a devastating 7% on Rotten Tomatoes and barely recouped its $35 million budget. Seven years later, with the successful launch of Netflix’s Jo Nesbø’s Detective Hole series finally delivering a well-received take on the author’s work, conversation has renewed about whether the seventh novel in the crime series deserves another shot at the screen.

From Acclaimed Thrillers to Critical Failure

Alfredson arrived at The Snowman with an impeccable reputation for translating complex literary material to cinema. The Swedish director had previously demonstrated rare skill in elevating source material with Let the Right One In (2008), which broke conventional vampire mythology to critical acclaim, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011), widely considered one of the finest John le Carré adaptations ever produced. Both films demonstrated Alfredson’s ability to craft atmospheric, methodical thrillers that honored their literary origins while functioning as distinct cinematic works.

This pedigree made the catastrophic reception of The Snowman particularly surprising. The film, which starred Michael Fassbender as Oslo police inspector Harry Hole alongside Rebecca Ferguson as detective Katrine Bratt, followed the pair as they investigated the disappearance of Birte Becker and discovered a snowman at her home—the calling card of a serial killer. What should have been a tense Scandinavian noir instead became, as Film Comment’s Jonathan Romney suggested, potentially “the last gasp of Scandi-noir for the international market.”

Production Shortcuts and Missing Scenes

The director himself acknowledged that structural production issues severely compromised the final product. In an interview with The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, Alfredson explained that a truncated shooting schedule in Norway prevented the team from capturing the complete narrative.

According to Alfredson, as much as 15% of the script was never filmed, creating significant gaps in the story that became apparent only during post-production. He described the editing process as attempting to assemble “a big puzzle” with crucial pieces missing, preventing viewers from seeing the complete picture. This shortage of footage manifested in the bewildering editing and dull pacing that critics widely cited in their negative reviews.

The financial results reflected these creative struggles. While the film grossed $43 million worldwide against its $35 million budget—technically profitable—it represented a significant underperformance for a major literary adaptation featuring internationally recognized talent. More damaging than the box office, however, was the critical consensus that emerged as one of the lowest-rated wide releases of 2017.

Where the Adaptation Went Wrong

Fans of Nesbø’s 2007 novel found the film’s failures extended far beyond technical limitations into fundamental storytelling choices. The source material presents a taut, well-paced investigation utilizing what readers describe as limpid prose that renders Oslo and Hole with consistent authenticity. The adaptation, by contrast, stripped away narrative complexity that gave the original its psychological depth.

Key departures from the novel include:

• Simplified Characterization: Rebecca Ferguson’s Katrine Bratt lacks the complexity and layered history that defines her literary counterpart, reducing her from a fully realized character to a functional plot device.
• Missing Subplot: The film entirely excises a significant section involving Bratt as a suspect, removing narrative tension and character development.
• Altered Motivations: Most egregiously, the adaptation changes the killer’s underlying motivation entirely, undermining the thematic coherence of Nesbø’s original construction.
• Erased Methodology: The book features a unique forensic detail in which Hole uses a syringe-based method to prove a victim was murdered rather than having committed suicide. This distinctive procedural element, which showcased the detective’s ingenuity, never appears in the film.

These changes offered no discernible cinematic benefit while actively degrading the narrative’s integrity, leaving viewers with a clichéd plot that failed to capture what made the novel compelling.

The Expanding Nesbø Cinematic Universe

Since The Snowman’s disappointing debut, several other attempts have been made to adapt Nesbø’s crime fiction for the screen, with varying degrees of success. The 2022 release The Hanging Sun adapted the 2015 novel Midnight Sun, while 2024’s Killer Heat adapted the short story “The Jealousy Man.” Neither achieved significant critical traction, with Killer Heat approaching Snowman levels of critical derision.

However, 2026 marked a turning point with the Netflix series Jo Nesbø’s Detective Hole. This adaptation of the fifth Harry Hole novel, The Devil’s Star, stars Tobias Santelmann as Hole opposite Joel Kinnaman as Tom Waaler. Written and executive produced by Nesbø himself, the series achieved what previous adaptations could not: a 91% Rotten Tomatoes score and recognition as one of the platform’s strongest detective offerings.

The series’ success demonstrates that Hole’s world can translate effectively to screen when given sufficient creative control and appropriate pacing. Though it flew somewhat under the radar internationally compared to major English-language releases, the show finally provided the on-screen treatment that fans had sought since the literary series gained global popularity.

The Case for Revisiting The Snowman

With The Devil’s Star proving the viability of the franchise, industry observers and fans have increasingly questioned whether The Snowman—arguably the strongest entry in Nesbø’s literary series—deserves another adaptation. The novel’s intricate plotting and psychological depth remain untapped cinematic resources, particularly now that streaming formats allow for the extended runtime necessary to preserve such complexity.

Whether a new adaptation would manifest as a Netflix series installment or a completely new feature film remains unclear. What is evident, however, is that the material possesses inherent cinematic potential that the 2017 version failed to unlock. As the Harry Hole universe finally finds its footing on screen, the industry faces a rare opportunity to correct one of the decade’s most disappointing literary adaptations by delivering the version that Nesbø’s work deserves.

What’s After the Movie?

Stay current with the latest developments in literary adaptations, streaming releases, and crime thriller cinema at What’s After the Movie. Our platform provides comprehensive coverage of box office performance, spoiler-free summaries, and in-depth analysis of films based on bestselling novels. Explore our complete database of movies and series, including detailed information on the Harry Hole franchise and other Scandinavian noir adaptations, or browse our industry news section for updates on upcoming productions and remake developments.