Page 877 of 1020
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 8:00 am
by Germangirl
Yes, it certainly had to do with his version coming out so soon after the swedish ones. Dunno, personally I can't see, how they could have better the film. I haven't seen Gone Girl, so I cannot compare them. GG seemed to have done a bit better, even though Fincher - again - isn't in any major Awards categoeries with his film apart from R. Pike, as with Rooney.
I am sure, your 2nd man is disappointed. For me, they could use nother director for the sequels and I wouldn't complain. Tattoo was ridiculously expensive with 90 mill for a non-action film.
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:42 pm
by Northcoast
Germangirl wrote:Yes, it certainly had to do with his version coming out so soon after the swedish ones. Dunno, personally I can't see, how they could have better the film. I haven't seen Gone Girl, so I cannot compare them. GG seemed to have done a bit better, even though Fincher - again - isn't in any major Awards categoeries with his film apart from R. Pike, as with Rooney.
I am sure, your 2nd man is disappointed. For me, they could use nother director for the sequels and I wouldn't complain. Tattoo was ridiculously expensive with 90 mill for a non-action film.
Unfortunately, that's what you get with Fincher. A great movie but with so many takes and his perfectionism it costs a ton.
And just putting it out there... Daniel might just hang up his license to kill if Spectre is successful. Sounds like they are trying to make the perfect Bond movie. He may want to go out on top. Just a thought.
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:56 pm
by Sylvia's girl
Northcoast wrote:Germangirl wrote:Yes, it certainly had to do with his version coming out so soon after the swedish ones. Dunno, personally I can't see, how they could have better the film. I haven't seen Gone Girl, so I cannot compare them. GG seemed to have done a bit better, even though Fincher - again - isn't in any major Awards categoeries with his film apart from R. Pike, as with Rooney.
I am sure, your 2nd man is disappointed. For me, they could use nother director for the sequels and I wouldn't complain. Tattoo was ridiculously expensive with 90 mill for a non-action film.
Unfortunately, that's what you get with Fincher. A great movie but with so many takes and his perfectionism it costs a ton.
And just putting it out there... Daniel might just hang up his license to kill if Spectre is successful. Sounds like they are trying to make the perfect Bond movie. He may want to go out on top. Just a thought.
Gone Girl's budget was considerably cheaper $61m.
Yes Fincher goes overboard with takes etc, but shooting abroad on location always hikes the costs up.
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 6:41 pm
by SmittenDramaKitten
I'm hoping for GDT sequels but, like Sf, I don't want to see Daniel stuck with franchises for a large proportion of his career... But then, ANYTHING Daniel does is A-OK (:thumbup:) with me. It's what you might call 'Sophie's Choice'....
... there is no right or wrong answer.
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 5:25 am
by sf2la
Northcoast wrote:Germangirl wrote:Yes, it certainly had to do with his version coming out so soon after the swedish ones. Dunno, personally I can't see, how they could have better the film. I haven't seen Gone Girl, so I cannot compare them. GG seemed to have done a bit better, even though Fincher - again - isn't in any major Awards categoeries with his film apart from R. Pike, as with Rooney.
I am sure, your 2nd man is disappointed. For me, they could use nother director for the sequels and I wouldn't complain. Tattoo was ridiculously expensive with 90 mill for a non-action film.
Unfortunately, that's what you get with Fincher. A great movie but with so many takes and his perfectionism it costs a ton.
And just putting it out there... Daniel might just hang up his license to kill if Spectre is successful. Sounds like they are trying to make the perfect Bond movie. He may want to go out on top. Just a thought.
Supposedly, he's contracted for two more, and its hard to turn down $25m for less than a year's worth of work.
OOPS, I just read that he may not 'have' to do two more. But I think if he wanted to go out on top, he would have stopped with Skyfall. He's still a credible Bond, still fit and sexy, and after Skyfall, his salary went up exponentially. He'd be crazy not to continue.
Yeah, GG, i would miss the opportunity to listen to DF speak and look at his kind face and blue eyes. I'm in awe of his vision and talent, too. I could 'follow' him on other films, but I'm lacking the time to do so. He's also a local boy, having grown up around where I live.
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:53 am
by Germangirl
IMO, they will sit sown after Spectre and make a decision whether or not to go on.
Who knows, what's best for him personally and careerwise. Surely he won't put money as his top priority, even though, I agree, he loves the opportunities, his money gives him.
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 2:56 pm
by tbossmc2000
sf2la wrote:I wonder what the expiration terms of his contract are. There may be no expiration X number of years, but there are definitely terms. I sure hope he plays the part again. I'm just not sure if he wants to. Would it be between Bonds? Aren't the Bonds somewhat back-to-back? Would he lose all the muscle and tone for Tattoo knowing he'd have to get back into shape? Just because the director is ready to film doesn't mean that it fits with Daniel's schedule. Maybe there's another actor that they are interested in who happens to cost a lot less. Just asking.
I'm not so convinced that the Christmas release was the cause of it's lackluster box office sales. It's a theory, but there are A LOT of adults off at Christmas time who are looking for an R-rated movie to see. Had Fincher beat the Swedish version to the screen, I think it would have done a lot better. Despite Fincher saying it wasn't a remake into an American/Hollywood version, that was the talk.
I'll chime in here, I think Christmas was a good time to release a BIG movies such as Dragon Tattoo. I saw all 3 Swedish versions. I was disappointed how it only scratched the surface of the books. It was hard to follow. US version was done very well. I think if they put book 2 and 3 together as 1 movie it would work out fine. Mikael part is very small in book 2, I don't think Daniel would have to loose muscle mass for the filming. He looked pretty good in the first one. He could tone down his arms a little.
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 6:00 pm
by Germangirl
Generally its good to release blogbusters on Christmans, but remember, this was a movie, that had a somewhat disturbing context that IMO didn't sit well with the Christmas tone. The movie picked up heat after X-mas, but you know, how it it now, opening weekend counts.
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 6:28 pm
by Germangirl
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:20 pm
by SmittenDramaKitten
Re GDT.... remember the movie's tagline? "The Feel BAD movie this Christmas...."?!
The movie did not make me feel bad... well, 3 scenes did.
I love Daniel's performance in this movie so much - and he looks damn fine too
- it actually makes me quite HAPPY. I can't believe I've seen an R Rated movie SO MANY times!
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:42 pm
by Dunda
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 7:21 am
by Germangirl
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 4:15 pm
by cassandra
Sorry, Idris: Why Daniel Craig Isn't Leaving "James Bond" - And Shouldn't
http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/12/28/ ... nal,manual
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 4:22 pm
by SilverDragon
I love reading things like this about Daniel especially when it comes to Bond
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 4:42 pm
by Germangirl
Very true all this. Thanks Cass. But the whole leak IMO will lead to them making an even better film and Daniel will show them even more, that he still has it and then some.
