THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO news and tidbits
Moderator: Germangirl
-
dolphin100
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:45 pm
-
calypso
- Posts: 17284
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:55 pm
- Location: Knitting willy warmers for Daniel's pickle!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16110375
The director and stars of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo talk about remaking the film for Hollywood.
When Stieg Larsson's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was first published in 2005 it was a runaway best-seller.
Telling a story of murder, corruption and family secrets, the late author's Millennium Trilogy has sold more than 65 million copies worldwide and spawned a series of Swedish films made in 2009.
Although a hit in Larsson's native country taking 110m Swedish krona (£10.3m, $16m) within three months of release, it had a muted reception in the US and UK, taking just $10m (£6.4m) and £1.5m respectively.
Now the book has had a Hollywood makeover with a $100m (£64m) budget and Oscar-nominated director David Fincher and Schindler's List scribe Steve Zaillian at the helm.
Fincher says although he had seen the Swedish production, he tried to put it out of his head.
"We didn't want it to be boring and we didn't want to do the same thing or be redundant," he says.
"I thought it was wonderfully done, but when I read the book it was a different story I saw in my head to the film that I saw."
With James Bond star Daniel Craig cast as reporter Mikael Blomkvist, tasked to investigate a 40-year-old mystery surrounding the disappearance of teenager Harriet, the search was on for the actress to play unlikely heroine Lisbeth Salander.
Many stars were rumoured to be vying for the role, including Harry Potter star Emma Watson, Carey Mulligan and Scarlett Johannson - whom Fincher said was "too sexy" for the role.
The director cast the relatively unknown Rooney Mara, who had a small role in his hit film The Social Network.
The actress confesses she felt the pressure of taking on a part that was so well-known from the books and the Swedish film.
"So many people have an idea of who this character is in their head but I had to let that go and not think about it and portray the character I saw," she says.
Fincher set the film in Sweden to remain as close as possible to Stieg Larsson's book
Stellan Skarsgard, who plays Martin Vanger, the brother of the missing girl Harriet, had a very confident approach to the challenge: "I've done Hamlet so that was not a problem," he says.
For the actors, one of main draws to work on the film was Fincher himself.
"I would've said yes even if he came with a piece of toilet paper for a script," Skarsgard says.
Mara also admits there is "probably not a lot I wouldn't do for David".
Indeed, the actress underwent a startling transformation for the role - she chopped and shaved off her long hair, pierced her eyebrow and nipple (the latter because it was too difficult to fake) and spent hours in make-up every day having seven fake tattoos applied.
And although Mara says she was "happy and excited" to make the changes, there was one that was a little harder to accept - bleaching her eyebrows.
"That was the thing that changed my face and made me the most unrecognisable so that was a little jarring," she says.
There was obviously a lot of concern on the part of the 90-some Swedish crew that this was going to be 'here come the Americans to co-opt our cultural phenomenon'.”
Fincher also gave Craig a challenge: to fatten up for the role. In good shape after his last stint as Bond, the director felt the physique was not quite right for a journalist.
Consequently, the star found his new food friend was Gummy Bears.
"The hotel fridge always had them and they'd be replaced every day - I don't know how that happened," he jokes.
Fincher wanted to ensure his film stayed as true to Larsson's book as possible, which meant filming in Sweden and keeping the characters Swedish instead of a US transplant.
Consequently, all the actors speak English with Swedish accents - all except Craig, who maintains his usual British tone.
"I know Swedes who speak English impeccably with no accent," the actor explains.
"David and I were saying it's completely reasonable [Blomkvist] speaks English with no accent. The debate is does it stick out, but I didn't feel it did because we had lots of accents in the movie, not just Scandinavian."
Fincher, who is known for his no-holds-barred hits Seven and Fight Club, had no qualms about tackling the brutal scenes Larsson depicted in his book.
Fincher was Oscar-nominated for The Social Network and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The director didn't want to compromise the content to secure a more family friendly rating - it carries a certificate 18 in the UK and is R-rated in the US.
Craig suggests it's a brave choice for the film's studio to make: "Although I'm sure Sony would like to make a lot of money out of this film, by making it R-rated they're saying it's just for an adult market - so they realise they're probably going to have a drop in takings."
Skarsgard adds: "There's nothing as lazy as the studio system.
"They're so afraid to try something new, they do what they know works which means they narrow down not only the topics and styles of films they make, but also the audience.
"If you look back the last 15 years there's not many films with a $100m budget that has not been PG13.
"But it is possible to get grown-ups to go to the cinema if the films are good. Hopefully this film will show the way and give a little more courage to the studios," he says.
Fans of the Swedish version of the film may argue there was no need for a Hollywood remake.
Fincher's responds: "Don't go see it if you already know it. I just don't think there's one version of anything."
Fincher had no qualms about tackling the gritty scenes depicted in the book
"There was obviously a lot of concern on the part of the 90-some Swedish crew that this was going to be 'here come the Americans to co-opt our cultural phenomenon'.
"But I think a good 20 days into shooting they saw we were serious about doing something of quality and worthy of the original text."
Fincher's film is undoubtedly the "feel bad movie" of Christmas, but Skarsgard still urges people to see it.
"Your Christmas will seem so much nicer," he says. "Even if your Christmas is terrible, it will look great compared to this."
The director and stars of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo talk about remaking the film for Hollywood.
When Stieg Larsson's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was first published in 2005 it was a runaway best-seller.
Telling a story of murder, corruption and family secrets, the late author's Millennium Trilogy has sold more than 65 million copies worldwide and spawned a series of Swedish films made in 2009.
Although a hit in Larsson's native country taking 110m Swedish krona (£10.3m, $16m) within three months of release, it had a muted reception in the US and UK, taking just $10m (£6.4m) and £1.5m respectively.
Now the book has had a Hollywood makeover with a $100m (£64m) budget and Oscar-nominated director David Fincher and Schindler's List scribe Steve Zaillian at the helm.
Fincher says although he had seen the Swedish production, he tried to put it out of his head.
"We didn't want it to be boring and we didn't want to do the same thing or be redundant," he says.
"I thought it was wonderfully done, but when I read the book it was a different story I saw in my head to the film that I saw."
With James Bond star Daniel Craig cast as reporter Mikael Blomkvist, tasked to investigate a 40-year-old mystery surrounding the disappearance of teenager Harriet, the search was on for the actress to play unlikely heroine Lisbeth Salander.
Many stars were rumoured to be vying for the role, including Harry Potter star Emma Watson, Carey Mulligan and Scarlett Johannson - whom Fincher said was "too sexy" for the role.
The director cast the relatively unknown Rooney Mara, who had a small role in his hit film The Social Network.
The actress confesses she felt the pressure of taking on a part that was so well-known from the books and the Swedish film.
"So many people have an idea of who this character is in their head but I had to let that go and not think about it and portray the character I saw," she says.
Fincher set the film in Sweden to remain as close as possible to Stieg Larsson's book
Stellan Skarsgard, who plays Martin Vanger, the brother of the missing girl Harriet, had a very confident approach to the challenge: "I've done Hamlet so that was not a problem," he says.
For the actors, one of main draws to work on the film was Fincher himself.
"I would've said yes even if he came with a piece of toilet paper for a script," Skarsgard says.
Mara also admits there is "probably not a lot I wouldn't do for David".
Indeed, the actress underwent a startling transformation for the role - she chopped and shaved off her long hair, pierced her eyebrow and nipple (the latter because it was too difficult to fake) and spent hours in make-up every day having seven fake tattoos applied.
And although Mara says she was "happy and excited" to make the changes, there was one that was a little harder to accept - bleaching her eyebrows.
"That was the thing that changed my face and made me the most unrecognisable so that was a little jarring," she says.
There was obviously a lot of concern on the part of the 90-some Swedish crew that this was going to be 'here come the Americans to co-opt our cultural phenomenon'.”
Fincher also gave Craig a challenge: to fatten up for the role. In good shape after his last stint as Bond, the director felt the physique was not quite right for a journalist.
Consequently, the star found his new food friend was Gummy Bears.
"The hotel fridge always had them and they'd be replaced every day - I don't know how that happened," he jokes.
Fincher wanted to ensure his film stayed as true to Larsson's book as possible, which meant filming in Sweden and keeping the characters Swedish instead of a US transplant.
Consequently, all the actors speak English with Swedish accents - all except Craig, who maintains his usual British tone.
"I know Swedes who speak English impeccably with no accent," the actor explains.
"David and I were saying it's completely reasonable [Blomkvist] speaks English with no accent. The debate is does it stick out, but I didn't feel it did because we had lots of accents in the movie, not just Scandinavian."
Fincher, who is known for his no-holds-barred hits Seven and Fight Club, had no qualms about tackling the brutal scenes Larsson depicted in his book.
Fincher was Oscar-nominated for The Social Network and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The director didn't want to compromise the content to secure a more family friendly rating - it carries a certificate 18 in the UK and is R-rated in the US.
Craig suggests it's a brave choice for the film's studio to make: "Although I'm sure Sony would like to make a lot of money out of this film, by making it R-rated they're saying it's just for an adult market - so they realise they're probably going to have a drop in takings."
Skarsgard adds: "There's nothing as lazy as the studio system.
"They're so afraid to try something new, they do what they know works which means they narrow down not only the topics and styles of films they make, but also the audience.
"If you look back the last 15 years there's not many films with a $100m budget that has not been PG13.
"But it is possible to get grown-ups to go to the cinema if the films are good. Hopefully this film will show the way and give a little more courage to the studios," he says.
Fans of the Swedish version of the film may argue there was no need for a Hollywood remake.
Fincher's responds: "Don't go see it if you already know it. I just don't think there's one version of anything."
Fincher had no qualms about tackling the gritty scenes depicted in the book
"There was obviously a lot of concern on the part of the 90-some Swedish crew that this was going to be 'here come the Americans to co-opt our cultural phenomenon'.
"But I think a good 20 days into shooting they saw we were serious about doing something of quality and worthy of the original text."
Fincher's film is undoubtedly the "feel bad movie" of Christmas, but Skarsgard still urges people to see it.
"Your Christmas will seem so much nicer," he says. "Even if your Christmas is terrible, it will look great compared to this."
Hope E! is exaggerating. It is nothing but tabloid imo 
Is It All Over for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo?
Is it true that The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo flopped at the box office because people went to see a Tom Cruise movie instead? What's wrong with people?
—NeatElla, via the inbox
Yep, the Dragon Tattoo girl got flamed all right. Charred. Scorched. Pick your favorite Lisbeth Salander-on-fire analogy and go with it. The film's opening is an unquestioned disappointment. Now, if you're hoping to blame Cruise for this debacle, here's what I can tell you...
Yes, his movie won, and David Fincher's U.S. remake of the Swedish juggernaut, well, did naut. The numbers are brutal. Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol, brought in an estimated $26.5 million over the weekend. At No. 2 was the new Sherlock Holmes installment, at $17.8 million. Even the new Chipmunks movie did better than Dragon Tattoo, which came in fourth with an estimated $13 million.
Does that mean that Salander has been officially trounced? Analysts tell me yes.
"A debut of $13 million over the holiday season is equivalent to a lump of coal, especially for a film that brings along this much fanfare," says Jeff Bock of Exhibitor Relations. "Dragon Tattoo will no doubt perform better than Zodiac, which also debuted with $13 million and finished with $33 million. But it is doubtful foreign grosses will bring much merriment, as the Swedish version of Dragon Tattoo previously lit it up overseas, grossing $94 million.
"With a budget approaching $90 million, plus purchasing the rights to the Millennium franchise, plus big-time marketing, this will go down as a dud."
But why? Well, you have my permission to blame the squeamishness of the American audience, especially during the holidays, when people want only escapism or sentimentality. The Dragon Tattoo series offers neither, instead depicting, among other violations, the graphic shackling and rape of Salander.
"The subject matter is very disturbing and ultimately dour, and as we saw earlier this fall with Drive, those films don't often connect with moviegoers, especially over the holiday season," Bock tells this B!tch.
A shame, really. In my opinion (which totally counts), this new interpretation of Dragon Tattoo is terrific. I highly recommend it.
Read more: http://www.eonline.com/news/ask_the_ans ... z1hhVWrW2t
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/boa ... #192810956Despite the fun we make of the Golden Globes - they can be bought and are - it's an international award with the according worldwide box office exposure, which increasingly has become a force in Hollywood studios' decision-making criteria for greenlighting films, Mara's nomination is great exposure for the film internationally.
With the Dragon's current domestic box office trend, it'll make its money via foreign box office.
-
calypso
- Posts: 17284
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:55 pm
- Location: Knitting willy warmers for Daniel's pickle!
well this was not really suprising maybe to studios or actorscaramel wrote:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/boa ... #192810956Despite the fun we make of the Golden Globes - they can be bought and are - it's an international award with the according worldwide box office exposure, which increasingly has become a force in Hollywood studios' decision-making criteria for greenlighting films, Mara's nomination is great exposure for the film internationally.
With the Dragon's current domestic box office trend, it'll make its money via foreign box office.
excerpt of interview I posted:
The director didn't want to compromise the content to secure a more family friendly rating - it carries a certificate 18 in the UK and is R-rated in the US.
Craig suggests it's a brave choice for the film's studio to make: "Although I'm sure Sony would like to make a lot of money out of this film, by making it R-rated they're saying it's just for an adult market - so they realise they're probably going to have a drop in takings."
I asked my sister if she was going to see it, and she said no, she read the books and saw the 3 Swedish films in the last year. I think that is the main problem. 10s of millions of movie goers saw the Swedish films in movie theaters, or bought the DVDs or downloaded them. And it was within the last year or two at most. People felt they just saw it already and didn't want to see it again, unless they were big Fincher fans, or really into the books and wanted to compare the films. That was just not a big enough of an audience to make an R rated film a hit at Christmas time. Which is a shame, because I think Fincher's film is the better film.calypso wrote:well this was not really suprising maybe to studios or actorscaramel wrote:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/boa ... #192810956Despite the fun we make of the Golden Globes - they can be bought and are - it's an international award with the according worldwide box office exposure, which increasingly has become a force in Hollywood studios' decision-making criteria for greenlighting films, Mara's nomination is great exposure for the film internationally.
With the Dragon's current domestic box office trend, it'll make its money via foreign box office.
excerpt of interview I posted:
The director didn't want to compromise the content to secure a more family friendly rating - it carries a certificate 18 in the UK and is R-rated in the US.
Craig suggests it's a brave choice for the film's studio to make: "Although I'm sure Sony would like to make a lot of money out of this film, by making it R-rated they're saying it's just for an adult market - so they realise they're probably going to have a drop in takings."
-
Germangirl
- Moderator
- Posts: 47068
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany
I hope, it will get better now, that the real holidays are over.
Internationally? I have no idea.
If this flops, what will that mean to DC's career?
4 flops in one year, which was supposed his biggest so far is a little much. And big, expensive ones on top. He proved, he is not bankable, not a draw for audiences and the young ones are coming from every corner. Who will have trust now to give him a leading role in an expensive film? I know, I wouldn't. He has still Bond, but that is it. Whatever he touched - even with the best directors, best prods, best script writers - seems to wither and die. True, even Nicole Kidman still get jobs, but even she had an Oscar nom in between.
I feel very, very sad for him, its undeserved, but then, what is fair anyway? Maybe his edgy, no nonsense personality, his craggy face etc are not working for him. Where will he go from here?
He has been on top and right now, I can only see it going downhill.
I only hope, he doesn't take it personal.
DH was doomed from the beginning IMO, C&A was just not a good enough film, TinTin is unknown to american audiences (which shouldn't really be an aspect - but its not really his film IMO) and Tattoo? With all the great reviews? There is still a little hope, it might come out alright alltogether.
He always said, "It can be all over tomorrow" Maybe it is for now.
I have been avoiding the forum and news also, to not piss on my own X-mas parade, because I know, it will effect me. That was a wise move.
Actually this is the worst nightmare DC-wise (aside from health stuff) I could think of and it might become true now. Good he has a wife and family to wrap him up in their love...I am sure, they do. He needs to be motivated for Bond very soon.
Internationally? I have no idea.
If this flops, what will that mean to DC's career?
4 flops in one year, which was supposed his biggest so far is a little much. And big, expensive ones on top. He proved, he is not bankable, not a draw for audiences and the young ones are coming from every corner. Who will have trust now to give him a leading role in an expensive film? I know, I wouldn't. He has still Bond, but that is it. Whatever he touched - even with the best directors, best prods, best script writers - seems to wither and die. True, even Nicole Kidman still get jobs, but even she had an Oscar nom in between.
I feel very, very sad for him, its undeserved, but then, what is fair anyway? Maybe his edgy, no nonsense personality, his craggy face etc are not working for him. Where will he go from here?
He has been on top and right now, I can only see it going downhill.
I only hope, he doesn't take it personal.
DH was doomed from the beginning IMO, C&A was just not a good enough film, TinTin is unknown to american audiences (which shouldn't really be an aspect - but its not really his film IMO) and Tattoo? With all the great reviews? There is still a little hope, it might come out alright alltogether.
He always said, "It can be all over tomorrow" Maybe it is for now.
I have been avoiding the forum and news also, to not piss on my own X-mas parade, because I know, it will effect me. That was a wise move.
Actually this is the worst nightmare DC-wise (aside from health stuff) I could think of and it might become true now. Good he has a wife and family to wrap him up in their love...I am sure, they do. He needs to be motivated for Bond very soon.The top notch acting in the Weisz/Craig/Spall 'Betrayal' is emotionally true, often v funny and its beautifully staged with filmic qualities..
-
Germangirl
- Moderator
- Posts: 47068
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany
'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo': Lots of hype, but weak box office. What gives?
I thought seeing The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo on Christmas Day, on the West side of Los Angeles (home to many holiday movie enthusiasts), would be similar to my previous holiday movie-going experiences. I thought it would be like the time I tried to see Avatar (sold out) or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (sold out) and ended up in the theater for some unmemorable indie flick of the moment. But no: This year, I was able to get tickets to the much-anticipated David Fincher adaptation. And, as it turns out, there were plenty more available.
According to box office reports, the film came in fourth this weekend, behind MI:4, Sherlock Holmes and (ouch!) Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked – a movie that EW.com reviewer Adam Markovitz called “nothing more than a cynical stab at grabbing kids’ attention.” So with all the rave reviews and the buzz behind Tattoo, why didn’t more people see it this weekend?
Perhaps it’s because Tattoo is a crime thriller where 90 percent of the literate population knows just whodunit. That makes it hard to invest in the film, no matter how much violence, sex, and stylistic Fincher-ism you throw in. Perhaps it’s the fact that an adaptation already exists: Even those who didn’t read the books could have already seen the Swedish film versions, which did quite an adequate job of recounting the Stieg Larsson novels. Perhaps it’s because the new version is 2 hours and 40 minutes long – a marathon compared to some of the other fare that was available to see this past week. Or maybe it’s just that sadomasochism, cold Swedish winters, and abusive families don’t scream “Christmas movie!” to everyone…
Personally, I loved the film — Trent Reznor’s soundtrack and Rooney Mara’s amazing performance as Lisbeth Salandar were definitely worth the price of the ticket. But what do you think PopWatchers? Are you waiting to see Tattoo until after your family leaves, or is it just not on the list of films you’re excited to see this holiday season?
http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/12/26/drago ... ox-office/
I thought seeing The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo on Christmas Day, on the West side of Los Angeles (home to many holiday movie enthusiasts), would be similar to my previous holiday movie-going experiences. I thought it would be like the time I tried to see Avatar (sold out) or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (sold out) and ended up in the theater for some unmemorable indie flick of the moment. But no: This year, I was able to get tickets to the much-anticipated David Fincher adaptation. And, as it turns out, there were plenty more available.
According to box office reports, the film came in fourth this weekend, behind MI:4, Sherlock Holmes and (ouch!) Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked – a movie that EW.com reviewer Adam Markovitz called “nothing more than a cynical stab at grabbing kids’ attention.” So with all the rave reviews and the buzz behind Tattoo, why didn’t more people see it this weekend?
Perhaps it’s because Tattoo is a crime thriller where 90 percent of the literate population knows just whodunit. That makes it hard to invest in the film, no matter how much violence, sex, and stylistic Fincher-ism you throw in. Perhaps it’s the fact that an adaptation already exists: Even those who didn’t read the books could have already seen the Swedish film versions, which did quite an adequate job of recounting the Stieg Larsson novels. Perhaps it’s because the new version is 2 hours and 40 minutes long – a marathon compared to some of the other fare that was available to see this past week. Or maybe it’s just that sadomasochism, cold Swedish winters, and abusive families don’t scream “Christmas movie!” to everyone…
Personally, I loved the film — Trent Reznor’s soundtrack and Rooney Mara’s amazing performance as Lisbeth Salandar were definitely worth the price of the ticket. But what do you think PopWatchers? Are you waiting to see Tattoo until after your family leaves, or is it just not on the list of films you’re excited to see this holiday season?
http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/12/26/drago ... ox-office/
The top notch acting in the Weisz/Craig/Spall 'Betrayal' is emotionally true, often v funny and its beautifully staged with filmic qualities..
-
Germangirl
- Moderator
- Posts: 47068
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany
jatorres jesus
Mildly surprised to see The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo bombed, but who thought Christmas was a good time to release a movie like that??
Indeed...
Mildly surprised to see The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo bombed, but who thought Christmas was a good time to release a movie like that??
Indeed...
The top notch acting in the Weisz/Craig/Spall 'Betrayal' is emotionally true, often v funny and its beautifully staged with filmic qualities..
-
Cyanaurora
- Posts: 3430
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:27 am
I don't think running 4th place in box office take counts as a "flop" for an R rated movie. Right now the kids are out of school and you can't take them to an R rated movie. I think that it will stay in the theaters for a long time, maybe even until the Oscars, especially if it gets nominations.
I'm sure DC will still get offered choice rolls in movies and the chance to do Broadway again.
I'm sure DC will still get offered choice rolls in movies and the chance to do Broadway again.
-
Sylvia's girl
- Posts: 11961
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:57 am
Why all the doom and gloom over box office figures?
Were we all expecting Dragon Tattoo to be no.1? That is certainly a very
unrealistic notion. You can't really expect it to beat the likes of MI and Sherlock which are both rated 13 with a much wider audience.
Also Dragon Tat opened in a total of 2914 theatres, SH - 3703 and MI - 3448. MI have also had a big push for Imax.
Dragon Tattoo has now grossed almost $27.8 mil in the U.S.
IMO I don't think that's too bad.
Were we all expecting Dragon Tattoo to be no.1? That is certainly a very
unrealistic notion. You can't really expect it to beat the likes of MI and Sherlock which are both rated 13 with a much wider audience.
Also Dragon Tat opened in a total of 2914 theatres, SH - 3703 and MI - 3448. MI have also had a big push for Imax.
Dragon Tattoo has now grossed almost $27.8 mil in the U.S.
IMO I don't think that's too bad.
I think it will have some legs going into the New Year. If the cinemas hold their nerve and keep it showing for at least a month, then the figures should pull up okay.
Releasing it at Christmas was either going to be a stroke of marketing genius ("the feelbad movie this Christmas") or a stroke of folly. Remember Defiance? Another excellent movie swallowed up in the so-called "festivities". Defiance would have done better being released in about September, especially being released before Inglorious Dead which stole some of it's thunder when Defiance's release was put back, and Defiance also would have benefited from being released at a more (possibly predictably) politically quiet time of year. It was a risky business making Dragon so close to the Swedish version but that too was a calculated risk, the kind of risk the industry takes all the time, trying to divine what the paying public wants.
As for Daniel's career, I've been thinking about this and to me the problems lay in the nature of his acting. To appreciate Daniel, the viewer needs to have a keen eye, an open heart, an engaged brain, and an appreciation for the nuances of the human psyche. The "big screen" is just that....."big"! It's like comparing Mondrian with Signac, comparing neo-plasticism with pointillism. With one you get a whole big hit at once, with the other, you get an initial hit and then you have to sit back and examine minutiae in order to appreciate the depths. Daniel is no Mondrian. He is something far more subtle.
Many of us here turn our noses up at performers like Matt Damon and Tom Cruise, simply because as a group, we lean towards the appreciation of depth, which Daniel does so well and can tailor to just about any scenario. But in watching Daniel the viewer has to look and listen with more than their eyes. They have to listen with their whole brain and look with their hearts. The blockbuster big screen productions, the kind which garner in hundreds of millions at the box office are very rarely the kind of movie which gives Daniel a chance to interact with the audience on his special level.
It was a brave move taking Dragon because it is the kind of role which traditionally he has always excelled at, but which Fincher was trying to write big across the screen. A risky choice. But there are some heavy issues stacked against it, as mentioned, the timing of release, and the previous fairly-new Swedish version which was always going to have the moral high ground, the author being Swedish. And then there is the tainting that is Hollyweird. So many commentators out there made the similar remarks that the movie is only being made because Americans cannot be bothered to read subtitles and that “Hollywood has to always think it can do better than the rest of the world“. There were some fine-line xenophobic reactions to it all around which I hope still may disappear given the pedigree of all concerned with project.
Sadly, I think this is how it will be from now on until Daniel takes his eyes away from the glitter of Hollyweird and the hypnotic effect of all that jazz and hype and returns to his roots. Unfortunately, the number of people who are willing to invest the time and energy to access his acting are often not the kind who routinely visits blockbuster movies. Such people are more likely to be found in art house cinemas, in theatres and staying up late with a good glass of wine to watch back-to-back episodes of things like Sword of Honour or Copenhagen. Sorry if I sound like a snob, I’m just speaking from my perspective, though I do acknowledge that viewers can and do cross boundaries (I love Daniel and I love Sci-Fi! )
Unfortunately (here I go again - feel free to all roll your eyes
) this is the price of Bond. Many who go to see him now do so on the strength of Bond, on the strength of seeing his naked body and the vicarious hope of seeing him get his leg over. In my opinion, shallow reasons for coming into the presence of one of the most nuanced and delicately balanced actors there has ever been.
Such people will either "get him" and come away fans, or alternatively come away feeling slightly cheated......they wanted "beef cake" and sex, but got Sushi and subtlety instead. Many of those people would not sit through 90% of his previous (and much better) work. Of course there are those for whom Bond was a gate-way. As previous discussed here so often, most of the people here found him through Bond and I think it is no stretch to say that the ones that stayed here over time are in the 10% who saw Bond and then "got him". But I also think these dear people are in the minority among the millions upon millions of movie-goers the world over. That 10% does not a blockbuster make.
GG asked the emotive question "what now?". Well, he can come home and take up the reins of what he had before, being a beloved national treasure who could fill theatre seats from now until the next century, he could return to his indi directors who would no doubt welcome him with open arms as would the indi movie crowd here in the UK, he could step behind the camera and direct.....or he could continue at the dirty coal-face of Hollyweird, hoping for the one magic role that would take him out of the expectations of Bond. And yes, I’ve heard all the arguments about his marriage and NY, etc., etc., but families move for career reasons all the time. He moved westwards; at the right time for all concerned he can also move back eastward if it is the price of his professional sanity.
One last thing, note I said not the "shadow" of Bond. I don't think he is in Bond's shadow because more than any other Bond he has grasped roles away from the franchise. But I say the "expectations" of Bond because while he makes Bond movies so many people out there will go to see his movies and not "get him".
Yes, there are hundreds and hundreds of tweets we see about him, saying how fantastic he is which indicates a following outside of the critics circles. I read all those posted at the time of C&A, but in a way they prove my point. So many of them did not "get him“, they got the body, the eyes, the PFA, got a load of other shallow things and in the main most of them managed to miss the most important things of all, his heart and his soul.
Releasing it at Christmas was either going to be a stroke of marketing genius ("the feelbad movie this Christmas") or a stroke of folly. Remember Defiance? Another excellent movie swallowed up in the so-called "festivities". Defiance would have done better being released in about September, especially being released before Inglorious Dead which stole some of it's thunder when Defiance's release was put back, and Defiance also would have benefited from being released at a more (possibly predictably) politically quiet time of year. It was a risky business making Dragon so close to the Swedish version but that too was a calculated risk, the kind of risk the industry takes all the time, trying to divine what the paying public wants.
As for Daniel's career, I've been thinking about this and to me the problems lay in the nature of his acting. To appreciate Daniel, the viewer needs to have a keen eye, an open heart, an engaged brain, and an appreciation for the nuances of the human psyche. The "big screen" is just that....."big"! It's like comparing Mondrian with Signac, comparing neo-plasticism with pointillism. With one you get a whole big hit at once, with the other, you get an initial hit and then you have to sit back and examine minutiae in order to appreciate the depths. Daniel is no Mondrian. He is something far more subtle.
Many of us here turn our noses up at performers like Matt Damon and Tom Cruise, simply because as a group, we lean towards the appreciation of depth, which Daniel does so well and can tailor to just about any scenario. But in watching Daniel the viewer has to look and listen with more than their eyes. They have to listen with their whole brain and look with their hearts. The blockbuster big screen productions, the kind which garner in hundreds of millions at the box office are very rarely the kind of movie which gives Daniel a chance to interact with the audience on his special level.
It was a brave move taking Dragon because it is the kind of role which traditionally he has always excelled at, but which Fincher was trying to write big across the screen. A risky choice. But there are some heavy issues stacked against it, as mentioned, the timing of release, and the previous fairly-new Swedish version which was always going to have the moral high ground, the author being Swedish. And then there is the tainting that is Hollyweird. So many commentators out there made the similar remarks that the movie is only being made because Americans cannot be bothered to read subtitles and that “Hollywood has to always think it can do better than the rest of the world“. There were some fine-line xenophobic reactions to it all around which I hope still may disappear given the pedigree of all concerned with project.
Sadly, I think this is how it will be from now on until Daniel takes his eyes away from the glitter of Hollyweird and the hypnotic effect of all that jazz and hype and returns to his roots. Unfortunately, the number of people who are willing to invest the time and energy to access his acting are often not the kind who routinely visits blockbuster movies. Such people are more likely to be found in art house cinemas, in theatres and staying up late with a good glass of wine to watch back-to-back episodes of things like Sword of Honour or Copenhagen. Sorry if I sound like a snob, I’m just speaking from my perspective, though I do acknowledge that viewers can and do cross boundaries (I love Daniel and I love Sci-Fi!
)Unfortunately (here I go again - feel free to all roll your eyes
) this is the price of Bond. Many who go to see him now do so on the strength of Bond, on the strength of seeing his naked body and the vicarious hope of seeing him get his leg over. In my opinion, shallow reasons for coming into the presence of one of the most nuanced and delicately balanced actors there has ever been. Such people will either "get him" and come away fans, or alternatively come away feeling slightly cheated......they wanted "beef cake" and sex, but got Sushi and subtlety instead. Many of those people would not sit through 90% of his previous (and much better) work. Of course there are those for whom Bond was a gate-way. As previous discussed here so often, most of the people here found him through Bond and I think it is no stretch to say that the ones that stayed here over time are in the 10% who saw Bond and then "got him". But I also think these dear people are in the minority among the millions upon millions of movie-goers the world over. That 10% does not a blockbuster make.
GG asked the emotive question "what now?". Well, he can come home and take up the reins of what he had before, being a beloved national treasure who could fill theatre seats from now until the next century, he could return to his indi directors who would no doubt welcome him with open arms as would the indi movie crowd here in the UK, he could step behind the camera and direct.....or he could continue at the dirty coal-face of Hollyweird, hoping for the one magic role that would take him out of the expectations of Bond. And yes, I’ve heard all the arguments about his marriage and NY, etc., etc., but families move for career reasons all the time. He moved westwards; at the right time for all concerned he can also move back eastward if it is the price of his professional sanity.
One last thing, note I said not the "shadow" of Bond. I don't think he is in Bond's shadow because more than any other Bond he has grasped roles away from the franchise. But I say the "expectations" of Bond because while he makes Bond movies so many people out there will go to see his movies and not "get him".
Yes, there are hundreds and hundreds of tweets we see about him, saying how fantastic he is which indicates a following outside of the critics circles. I read all those posted at the time of C&A, but in a way they prove my point. So many of them did not "get him“, they got the body, the eyes, the PFA, got a load of other shallow things and in the main most of them managed to miss the most important things of all, his heart and his soul.
-
cheryl1700
- Posts: 9682
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:25 pm
Think its too soon to rate it as a flop, its only the second day on release in the UK, and few people venture to the pictures, on a boxing day, its time for family and and eating and drinking in your own house or family's and friends houses, it isnt a time to go to the pictures. Give it till after the New Year, then i think u can rate it. Either way they are talking about making a second arnt they?
