It's a Swedish proverb. Fincher wanted to embrace the film's setting and origin. When a member of production said that line, Fincher thought it went very well with the film and its dark theme in Sweden.
I like it, if only because of why they picked it and where it is from.
Cheers. Makes a bit of sense now. I thought some ad guy had tried to rhyme snow with thaw.
After being nominated in Best Sound Mixing, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing, Best Cinematography, and Best Actress in a Leading Role, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo took home Best Film Editing at the Academy Awards. -{
Returns of $231 million in worldwide box office wasn't enough to turn a profit on "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo."
Metro-Goldwyn Mayer disclosed in financial results this week that it is booking what Co-Chief Executive Gary Barber called a "modest loss" on the film. On a conference call with shareholders, he said the independent studio, which covered 20% of the approximately $100 million production budget for the movie co-financed and distributed by Sony pictures, needed "Dragon Tattoo" to collect about 10% more revenue in order to break even.
As a result, he said that while talks with Sony are ongoing for a potential sequel based on the second book in the "Millennium" trilogy by author Stieg Larsson, MGM would participate only "assuming we can achieve better economics" - Hollywood speak for a lower budget.
Reading the comments section about this article on another forum I must admit I was thinking the same as the guy who posted this:
Loss? To date, Fincher's "TGWTDT" has pocketed $231 million against a $90 mil budget; not counting what they've just started raking in from DVD/digital sales.
Also thought Xmas was a silly time to release a film like this
Reading the comments section about this article on another forum I must admit I was thinking the same as the guy who posted this:
Loss? To date, Fincher's "TGWTDT" has pocketed $231 million against a $90 mil budget; not counting what they've just started raking in from DVD/digital sales.
Also thought Xmas was a silly time to release a film like this
Especially when they call it The Feel-Bad movie of the year in their own marketing. Sure to get the family holiday crowd with that.
The thing is if the first made a loss then the sequels will prob fair A LOT worse - the Swedish versions went slowly down hill as the trilogy progressed (don't get me wrong, I like them but they seem to get weaker)
Without DC and Fincher onboard then they will indeed be worthless and would end up as straight to DVD films!!
The good thing about the first film is that it stands up on its own as a single film (lets face it they sought of squeeze in the sequel material fast right at the end) hence if sub par sequels do appear it wouldnt be the end of the world but I would be disappointed as I do love the first!!!
Hell I couldn't imagine the sequels without Reznor and Atticus onboard either - the soundtrack is frikkin awesome!
All's I can say is it's no wonder I struggled with math throughout my schooling. . . Stupid me, I always thought that something that earns more than twice its investment makes a profit! Or is that economics? Nope, didn't do well in that subject either. . .
All's I can say is it's no wonder I struggled with math throughout my schooling. . . Stupid me, I always thought that something that earns more than twice its investment makes a profit! Or is that economics? Nope, didn't do well in that subject either. . .
Maybe Sony forgot to mention their execs took "Bank Style" $50m each in bonuses for 2011 out of the films income!!
All's I can say is it's no wonder I struggled with math throughout my schooling. . . Stupid me, I always thought that something that earns more than twice its investment makes a profit! Or is that economics? Nope, didn't do well in that subject either. . .
I can't understand how it could cost them $140million dollars to put a movie out in addition to the budget. How is that possible? Surely if it costs that much to get films released internationally, then few films would do it.
Mara said just weeks ago at the Oscars that they are going to start filming the sequel in autumn and when she said that, the film was already done with its full theater release.
It just doesn't make sense to me. I could believe that at most they might pay as wild as $100mil for world marketing and release, but $140mil just doesn't seem the least bit cost effective. How would a film like John Carter ever make it if it costs $275mil to make it in the first place and then $140mil to do international release and what appeared to be at least as big of marketing. They could never bet on making that much back in this day and age unless they were making Harry Potter, Twilight or Pirates of the Caribbean. Even Bond wouldn't be allowed to risk costing that much to release on top of its budget.
And what's the point of even beating the budget if it is only a fraction of what they need to make on the film? Why do press outlets exclaim when a film makes over its budget at all?
They are also mentioning that Fincher may step out for the next one, but I thought that was almost already decided before? Wasn't it well-reported that Mara and Craig were contracted, but Fincher was not for the next two?
EDIT: Reading through some news articles, it sounds like Mara is right that filming for the next one is a go. Apparently the film's underperformance has caused discussion in how to improve the next release, not a discussion on if they should still do it.
It has also been one of the better selling Blu-Rays in the US for the past couple weeks during pre-order, being number one since release.
All's I can say is it's no wonder I struggled with math throughout my schooling. . . Stupid me, I always thought that something that earns more than twice its investment makes a profit! Or is that economics? Nope, didn't do well in that subject either. . .
I can't understand how it could cost them $140million dollars to put a movie out in addition to the budget. How is that possible? Surely if it costs that much to get films released internationally, then few films would do it.
If you assume the budget was approx $100 million plus marketing. If you also assume that cinemas and distributors take a slice of the $231 million box office then the "modest loss" begins to make some sense.
Speaking of losses, Disney is expecting John Carter to lose $200 million making it one of the biggest flops of all time.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
What has also come to light from the disaster of John Carter, is an extra cost ( which I'd never thought off )
Development costs, JC had a Development cost of $100 mill. On top of the cost of making it. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Still doesn't add up to me, but I suppose it would if we knew more about how it costs so much over budget.
Reading further, it would cost Sony and MGM $5mil+new director's pay, to choose a new director for the second one over Fincher because it is part of his option deal. Therefore, many are thinking that with decent sales on home releases, they'll bring Fincher back because the cost would be too high anyways to let someone else take over. The second book is also Fincher's favorite of the three, plus his name carries weight and Oscar buzz, making it even more likely that they will avoid the $5mil fee and just keep Fincher for whatever he costs.
Great interview on creating the title sequence. Several paragraphs in, it seems Fincher was told by Blur Studio that "'We can make a CG-animated movie for 8 million dollars!’ And sometimes I’d [Fincher] have to be like, ‘Tim, you gotta stop saying that because someone’s going to take you up on that and you will be well and truly fucked, my friend!’"
Maybe I am misinterpreting, but it sounds like the studio had an $8mil budget? Unless that is somehow a random figure...
It was indeed a fantastic stunning intro however I'm not sure it was totally necessary or possibly that it didn't sit well with the first scene with Henrik opening another flower print package in the bleak snow. Maybe it would have been better fitted into a scene with Lisbeth straight from that futuristic intro!
Immigration song was fantastic and really made the trailer however it is a little out of place on the soundtrack and now I know why according to interviews etc. Fincher had it specifically in mind for the trailer and personally requested Trent & Atticus to cover it
PS - anybody got it on blu ray yet? Whats it like? Im awaiting my copy to arrive!!
Got it, but at my permanent address instead of here at university. From what I hear, the disc art is a fun nod to Lisbeth and the picture quality is among the best.
PS - anybody got it on blu ray yet? Whats it like? Im awaiting my copy to arrive!!
Got it, but at my permanent address instead of here at university. From what I hear, the disc art is a fun nod to Lisbeth and the picture quality is among the best.
Just checked out few reviews, sounds like Sony really went crazy overboard with the extras, doubt there will be another version! Wish all discs were like this!!
There is still development on The Girl Who Played with Fire, though it will not hit theatres next year as originally hoped due to the script still being worked on:
Daniel Craig is reportedly demanding a massive pay rise to commit to the sequels of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, but Sony is looking to cut costs on the sequel and could potentially write Craig's character out of the film if he doesn't accept reasonable pay. A source close to Craig has claimed that the actor still hasn't started negotiations yet and is keen to return for the follow-up.
Daniel Craig is reportedly demanding a massive pay rise to commit to the sequels of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, but Sony is looking to cut costs on the sequel and could potentially write Craig's character out of the film if he doesn't accept reasonable pay. A source close to Craig has claimed that the actor still hasn't started negotiations yet and is keen to return for the follow-up.
The first one did not do as well as expected (though I loved it) however the sequals would be even more shaky and vulnerable without the main character, guaranteed to flop!! I think this is usual media bull
What's more interesting is how they are going to find time to shoot if Bond is indeed going to be pushed out ASAP. Dragon Tattoo sequel doesn't seem close to being given the green light so that is prob this year out and imagine the next Bond will be shooting next year and Skyfall took a hell of a lot of time and practically hammered DC for best part of the year
From what I've heard, the second book of the trilogy has little of Lisbeth and a lot of Mikael, which made it a challenge to adapt it so that both were heavily featured in the screenplay again as they were in the first film. Now, it sounds like it would be a bigger challenge to make the movie solely about Lisbeth when Mikael is far more prominent than she is in the source material.
PPK 7.65mmSaratoga Springs NY USAPosts: 1,253MI6 Agent
I guess we will have to wait and see what develops. IMDB says that The Girl Who Played With Fire still does not have a release date and Craig is current set to start filmling The Monuments Men for release this year.
Comments
Cheers. Makes a bit of sense now. I thought some ad guy had tried to rhyme snow with thaw.
http://whatishiddeninsnow.com/
http://comesforthinthethaw.com/
Thanks for sharing!
Metro-Goldwyn Mayer disclosed in financial results this week that it is booking what Co-Chief Executive Gary Barber called a "modest loss" on the film. On a conference call with shareholders, he said the independent studio, which covered 20% of the approximately $100 million production budget for the movie co-financed and distributed by Sony pictures, needed "Dragon Tattoo" to collect about 10% more revenue in order to break even.
As a result, he said that while talks with Sony are ongoing for a potential sequel based on the second book in the "Millennium" trilogy by author Stieg Larsson, MGM would participate only "assuming we can achieve better economics" - Hollywood speak for a lower budget.
The FULL article
MGM books loss on 'Dragon Tattoo,' expects profit on '21 Jump Street'
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/03/mgm-books-loss-on-dragon-tattoo-expects-profit-on-21-jump-street.html
Also thought Xmas was a silly time to release a film like this
Especially when they call it The Feel-Bad movie of the year in their own marketing. Sure to get the family holiday crowd with that.
I have high hopes for sequels!
Without DC and Fincher onboard then they will indeed be worthless and would end up as straight to DVD films!!
The good thing about the first film is that it stands up on its own as a single film (lets face it they sought of squeeze in the sequel material fast right at the end) hence if sub par sequels do appear it wouldnt be the end of the world but I would be disappointed as I do love the first!!!
Hell I couldn't imagine the sequels without Reznor and Atticus onboard either - the soundtrack is frikkin awesome!
Maybe Sony forgot to mention their execs took "Bank Style" $50m each in bonuses for 2011 out of the films income!!
I can't understand how it could cost them $140million dollars to put a movie out in addition to the budget. How is that possible? Surely if it costs that much to get films released internationally, then few films would do it.
Mara said just weeks ago at the Oscars that they are going to start filming the sequel in autumn and when she said that, the film was already done with its full theater release.
It just doesn't make sense to me. I could believe that at most they might pay as wild as $100mil for world marketing and release, but $140mil just doesn't seem the least bit cost effective. How would a film like John Carter ever make it if it costs $275mil to make it in the first place and then $140mil to do international release and what appeared to be at least as big of marketing. They could never bet on making that much back in this day and age unless they were making Harry Potter, Twilight or Pirates of the Caribbean. Even Bond wouldn't be allowed to risk costing that much to release on top of its budget.
And what's the point of even beating the budget if it is only a fraction of what they need to make on the film? Why do press outlets exclaim when a film makes over its budget at all?
They are also mentioning that Fincher may step out for the next one, but I thought that was almost already decided before? Wasn't it well-reported that Mara and Craig were contracted, but Fincher was not for the next two?
EDIT: Reading through some news articles, it sounds like Mara is right that filming for the next one is a go. Apparently the film's underperformance has caused discussion in how to improve the next release, not a discussion on if they should still do it.
It has also been one of the better selling Blu-Rays in the US for the past couple weeks during pre-order, being number one since release.
*sigh of relief for now*
If you assume the budget was approx $100 million plus marketing. If you also assume that cinemas and distributors take a slice of the $231 million box office then the "modest loss" begins to make some sense.
Speaking of losses, Disney is expecting John Carter to lose $200 million making it one of the biggest flops of all time.
Development costs, JC had a Development cost of $100 mill. On top of the cost of making it.
Reading further, it would cost Sony and MGM $5mil+new director's pay, to choose a new director for the second one over Fincher because it is part of his option deal. Therefore, many are thinking that with decent sales on home releases, they'll bring Fincher back because the cost would be too high anyways to let someone else take over. The second book is also Fincher's favorite of the three, plus his name carries weight and Oscar buzz, making it even more likely that they will avoid the $5mil fee and just keep Fincher for whatever he costs.
http://www.artofthetitle.com/2012/02/21/the-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo/
Great interview on creating the title sequence. Several paragraphs in, it seems Fincher was told by Blur Studio that "'We can make a CG-animated movie for 8 million dollars!’ And sometimes I’d [Fincher] have to be like, ‘Tim, you gotta stop saying that because someone’s going to take you up on that and you will be well and truly fucked, my friend!’"
Maybe I am misinterpreting, but it sounds like the studio had an $8mil budget? Unless that is somehow a random figure...
Money well spent.
Immigration song was fantastic and really made the trailer however it is a little out of place on the soundtrack and now I know why according to interviews etc. Fincher had it specifically in mind for the trailer and personally requested Trent & Atticus to cover it
Got it, but at my permanent address instead of here at university. From what I hear, the disc art is a fun nod to Lisbeth and the picture quality is among the best.
Just checked out few reviews, sounds like Sony really went crazy overboard with the extras, doubt there will be another version! Wish all discs were like this!!
The secondary font for the film, used in almost all places other than the title itself: Jupiter http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/canadatype/jupiter/
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/08/22/girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo-sequel/
The FULL article.
Daniel Craig 'Demanding Pay Rise' For The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo Sequels Following 'Skyfall' Success
http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/103509/Daniel-Craig-Demanding-Pay-Rise-For-The-Girl-With-The-Dragon-Tattoo-Sequels-Following-Skyfall-Success
No, Daniel Craig, no! I need this movie to happen.
The first one did not do as well as expected (though I loved it) however the sequals would be even more shaky and vulnerable without the main character, guaranteed to flop!! I think this is usual media bull