Girl With the Dragon Tattoo sequel might happen without Craig

[Dream]

According to THR, plans for "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" sequel are still in place, even though director David Fincher is circling an adaptation of "Gone Girl" and star Daniel Craig may have priced himself out of appearing.

That bit of news is most shocking: Craig, who starred as journalist Mikael Blomkvist in "Dragon Tattoo," wants a raise for the sequel after his box-office performance as James Bond in "Skyfall." Per THR, Sony isn't willing to give him a big bump. (Sony also released "Skyfall.") Should negotiations go south, the idea is that Blomkvist could be written out of the sequel, leaving Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander to star.

Despite some putting "Dragon Tattoo" in the loss column, Sony has held firm on its plans to continue the trilogy. “[Dragon Tattoo] continues to do strong business and nothing has changed with respect to development of the next book,” Sony told EW last year.

Whether Fincher returns, however, is up for debate.

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.

 

[Captaindemotion]

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.

 

[ITL]

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.

 

[Professor Zoom]

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.

 

[Gaith]

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?

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.

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.

What horror, to be married to Rachel Weisz and have the freedom to only take (non-007) roles he wholeheartedly wants!

 

[JarodRussell]

Never thought of Craig as the money grabber.

 

[Data Holmes]

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

 

[bigdaddy]

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.

 

[Saga]

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.

i wouldn't say they're boring...just not as good.

 

[Dream]

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.

i wouldn't say they're boring...just not as good.

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

 

[Emher]

What this should say is "Craig's agent wants more money".

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

They couldn't just recast Blomkvist if Craig bolts?

 

[Mike Farley]

^^ 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.

 

[doubleohfive]

Never thought of Craig as the money grabber.

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 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 sequels are just boring.

i wouldn't say they're boring...just not as good.

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:

The studio has options on Craig for two sequels, but the actor is said to want a pay raise, not a cut, in the wake of Skyfall grossing $1 billion worldwide. If Sony can't bring Craig back to reprise his role as journalist Mikael Blomkvist, the sources say the studio could write the character out of the sequel. (A Craig source says negotiations have yet to commence but the actor wants to return to the role.)

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.

 

[Dream]

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.

 

[JarodRussell]

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.

It's Hollywood. It's not flexible, it's greedy, it's rotten.

 

[Avon]

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.

 

[doubleohfive]

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.

I'd wager they care marginally less than you did to come in here and say that.

 

[tighr]

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.

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.

 

[doubleohfive]

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.

The Swedish versions, however, come off as extremely low budget. The American remake of the first novel was very well done.

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.

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.

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.