http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/daniel-craig-dragon-tattoo-sequel_n_2590829.html So blame Skyfall's huge success if we never see the US's take on the Dragon sequel or we get something very different from the books. Let's see if Sony calls Craig's bluff.
You'd think that Craig's salary etc for the trilogy would have been worked out when they signed the deal for the first one, wouldn't you? Craig and his agents should be wary of reading too much into the success of Skyfall, IMHO. I think the real star of that movie was James Bond, not Daniel Craig. There is no doubt that Craig is an excellent Bond and that Eon should pay him huge sums of money to remain in the role. However, the fact remains that outside of 007, he is not really a massive box-office draw. The Golden Compass, The Invasion (the Body Snatchers remake, Cowboys and Aliens, even Dragon Tattoo - underperfomers all. I' not convinced that his presence will benefit the sequel all that much and he could just end up pricing himself out of roles at this rate.
Even though I thought he did a fine job in Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, I don't think the next one would be diminished by his absence. After all, Rooney Mara was the star of the show. She played a blinder as Lisbeth.
Meh. I thought the first one wasn't all that great... The trailer was more exciting, more edgy than the movie turned out to be. In other words, if they don't make it... no great loss. The Swedish movies are pretty good.
I'm sure they tried, but, given his apparently deep ambivalence about staying on as Bond (at least before most of the world wetted itself over Skyfall), the logical conclusion from this news is that he refused to lock himself in for such a contract. What horror, to be married to Rachel Weisz and have the freedom to only take (non-007) roles he wholeheartedly wants!
Roony Mara was interviewed/asked about this and she emphatically denied there was any truth to the story. She said she has talked with both Craig and Fincher and there is no problems and all three are looking forward to the next movie in the trilogy. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1701214/daniel-craig-dragon-tattoo-sequel-rooney-mara.jhtml
I think the fact people actually think the sequels will be made at all is too funny. The movies will never see the light of day. And friends who have read the books say its a good thing, that the squels are just boring.
There is always the Swedish trilogy which was completed if an English trilogy is never filmed... Also here is a pretty funny review which compares this series to the Star Wars OT. http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=2112
^^ Exactly. I like Daniel Craig, but the role isn't exactly an iconic-no-one-else-can-replace-him part. Re-cast. Move on. I imagine EON isn't thinking about wrapping up the Bond movies when Craig moves on.
I don't know that I blame him for trying to get more money out of Sony. Whether or not he himself (the actor) was responsible for (in large or small part) the massive success Skyfall has been financially, I don't know that I disagree that he shouldn't be given a bigger slice of the pie. Certainly, this is how actors become successful - their name becomes a 'brand' and that 'brand' insures (or ideally hopes to insure) future box office success. Do you honestly think an adaptation of "The Girl Who Played With Fire" would be more successful without Craig's involvement as opposed to an adaptation with him in the thing? There is, of course, no way to really know... but he's in a perfect position to ask for that pay raise and given how much business he's been able to help Sony do over the years, I don't think we can easily qualify it as "money grabbing." I disagree. I read both "The Girl Who Played With Fire" and "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest" this summer and couldn't put them down. I liked "Dragon Tattoo" immensely, but the sequels are just ripe for (American) cinematic adaptation. In a perfect world, Fincher and Craig would just do the two sequels and we'd have, I hope, a fantastic trilogy. Its all moot right now anyway. If any of you bothered to read the article and follow the link to the Hollywood Reporter article, you'd have seen this bit: So there's hope yet that Craig will forgo his pay raise and still appear, and that perhaps this is just the first stage of his trying to negotiate a better deal with Sony.
It's kind of funny how the low budget Swedish film adaptations of these books pretty much had zero problems being made compared to the big budget Hollywood versions.
just watch the swedish ones. they're pretty boring, but so was the remake. don't know why people seem to care about this series really.
The Swedish versions, however, come off as extremely low budget. The American remake of the first novel was very well done. If they do write out the Blomkvist character in Girl Who Played with Fire, you lose his entire storyline. The two characters don't even meet in the novel until the final chapter. It would need to be re-told in some other fashion, as it is critical to the plot. Not impossible, but exceptionally difficult.
Indeed. The Swedish adaptations, I believe, were in fact actually television movies that were later released theatrically. There's a whole hell of a leap in terms of money, time, effort and general quality that exists between that kind of production and an actual film produced for cinematic, theatrical release. Agreed. Just as much of the action in "Fire" is motivated by the murders that take place and their connection to Blomkvist and Millennium. Half of what Salander does in the book would otherwise make no sense if those elements were written out.