MovieChat Forums > The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) Discussion > What is the Logic for Replacing Rooney a...

What is the Logic for Replacing Rooney and Daniel?

posted 9 years ago by itfollowedme
25 replies | jump to latest

Daniel is about to come out with another huge Bond film and he's proven since Casino Royale to be one of the best and most iconic Bond's in the franchises history...

On top of that Rooney's performance in the first film was spectacular and she even got nominated for an Oscar (I'm not a fan of the Oscars, but there's still something to be said for that). This year she won best actress for her performance in Carol at Canne and is likely to get yet another Oscar nom this year for that very film.

Due to the fact that both Daniel and Rooney are doing pretty good career wise right now (certainly better than any of those said to be replacing them) and people liked them in the original film, why would Sony decide to replace them?

Skipping to Spider's Web I understand, but to replace the entire team seems unnecessary and even insulting considering what a great adaptation Dragon Tattoo 2011 was. And honestly, I am so sick of hearing people call that film a box office flop, did the studio seriously expect a three hour r rated film starring an oddball character like Salander to make more than what it did?

For a film of it's type 234 million was not bad at all, if anything the issue was that it cost so much, which is something they should still be able to remedy with the new film while still keeping Mara and Craig (maybe not Craig but I think Rooney would still be game).

It feels like they're throwing away the opportunity to continue the creation of one of the few great film franchises made for adults that the first film promised us and instead may be planning to create something more sanitized and commercial. Do you all think it's possible they'll also make Spider's Web PG-13? I haven't finished reading Spider's Web but I heard it was considerably more tame. What if this has been there plan along!! OMG ...

[–] kieranmufc1999 9 years ago

I've heard it will be a much lower budget as the first one flopped so I imagine with the success of the bond films Craig will be way too expensive

[–] itfollowedme 9 years ago

I'm starting to think that too. It seems very likely to me that they're going to make a completely different type of thriller, something a lot more commercial, and of lesser quality. But who knows I guess.

[–] ChristianWoolf 9 years ago

but they made $232,617,430 worlwide with a budget of $90 millions. And that with a Rated R movie.

Feel your heart beat.

[–] ArthurDayneSotM 8 years ago

Yeah, I don't get this perception that it "flopped" or that they now need to cut back if they project a similar earn for the sequel. Like huh? Isn't the studio still making 150% in profit?

And I'm with everybody else here, don't transplant Mara! She was amazing and pretty much the sole reason I want to see this franchise finished with every sequel. The writing/direction was also elite but it was Mara that made me love this film.

[–] NotASpeckOfCereal 8 years ago

I've heard it will be a much lower budget as the first one flopped so I imagine with the success of the bond films Craig will be way too expensive

Craig has done lower budget films since taking the Bond role on.

Be sure to proof your posts to see if you any words out

[–] dceuera 8 years ago

Craig is a cool guy, actors often take a huge pay cut to be a part of a movie they really want to be in, or to work with a certain director like Fincher, or even just to please his fans. I wouldnt fully discard hopes of a completion to the trilogy.

[–] xxdrxx 9 years ago

Sony is ruining what could have been a Great sequel. They are in for a huge failure replacing everyone.
Its completely disrespectful to the new fanbase of this movie.
I wont support another movie that replaces Fincher, Rooney, Craig Reznor/Atticus.

[–] itfollowedme 9 years ago

Yeah totally agreed. It makes me even less enthusiastic that they're basing it on Spider's Web (though I'd rather they do that than ruin the books in the series I actually like). I read the first half of that book and then put it down.

It seemed to follow under all the same pitfalls as the second two books Larsson wrote (I still love them, but...) with the excess amounts of exposition, clinical prose, and an influx of all these different character perspectives who I certainly didn't care about, yet Lagencrantz seemed to make it even worse by introducing even more boring 1 dimensional characters and constantly shifting the focus away from Lisbeth and Mikael.

I have no idea how they're gonna turn such a bland book into a film, literally no idea.

[–] tag1981 9 years ago

Only logic I see is if Rooney & Craig were asking for too much money to return. But since I haven't seen any reports on that I really don't see the logic at all in replacing them. It seems as though TPTB in Sony haven't even approached them about the sequel. They are just automatically going in a different direction. Which is going to alienate the current fanbase they have for the 1st film. But then, it is Sony. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

WOLVES DON'T LOSE SLEEP OVER THE OPINION OF SHEEP!

[–] lazarillo 9 years ago

If they're just trying to do a cheap-ass adaptation of the fourth novel, which is probably of dubious value anyway, this might make sense. But if they're trying to "reboot" the franchise, it is pure stupidity. Unless they're going to make it PG-13 and add super-heroes, it's not going to do better than the original, especially when you remove the three elements (Craig, Mara, and Fincher) that made the original great.

"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream"

[–] LLOwens 9 years ago

While I loved Alicia Vikander in Ex Machina, Rooney, is in my opinion, irreplaceable as Lisbeth:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER4piLZIB0g

But then again, I thought the same about Noomi Rapace.

[–] Finroon 9 years ago

It would be fully and utterly ridiculous to replace only one or two of the director-lead actor/actress -trifecta. Also no Fincher means no Treznor/Ross.

If Sony don't have the balls to do a genuine sequel, then it should do a complete reboot with new crew and low budget, shoot it in Toronto and change the setting to america (maybe Minnesota?). Maybe then it can please the masses and anyone who loved the first one can skip the film.

[–] Suntory_Times 9 years ago

To me they are not replaceable, if they do replace them I will not be bothering with it as anything but maybe a netflix watch.

The box office of the first film was solid for the kind of film it was. They simply spent to much making and marketing it.

Film Reverie: http://filmreverie.blogspot.com.au/
My film diary: http://letterboxd.com/filmreverie/

[–] itfollowedme 9 years ago

Completely agreed.

[–] nighttrumpet 9 years ago

You do realize that just because a movie made some money doesn't necessarily mean it met the expectations of the studio.

[–] itfollowedme 9 years ago

Well obviously it didn't meet their expectations, that's quite clear at this point, but it honestly was foolish for them to expect it to do better than it did.

[–] bron-tay 9 years ago

Dumb dumber dumbest!

Let's be realistic, an R-rated property about a bisexual punk is not going to make as much money as a superhero or teen vampire franchise. So what are they trying to accomplish? Just continue with the quality they've established and make their modest $234 mil. But alas, I have the feeling you're right about taming it and making it . . . what?

And here I was looking forward to seeing the next one in the series, with Lisabeth all ensconced in her wealth and leisure.

~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.