It's not in-continuity with any of the previous films.
It's based on the worst-received novel in the series.
None of the actors are box office draws.
But Sony hopes to restart the franchise with this movie?
If David Fincher, Rooney Mara, Daniel Craig, et al were too expensive or in demand, why not bring back Noomi Rapace to continue her series of films?
*****It's not in-continuity with any of the previous films.
? Of course it is. It's a (loose) adaptation of the fourth novel, which follows directly from the third. Different author, but handpicked by the original's estate, and eminently qualified.
*****It's based on the worst-received novel in the series.
??? What on earth are you on about? All of the Millenium novels review at 4-4.5 stars. It's reviewed just fine.
*****None of the actors are box office draws.
Really? Aside from the "relative to what" issue. . .Is that a reason to make (or not make) a movie?
*****But Sony hopes to restart the franchise with this movie?
Clearly. Remains to be seen whether they succeed. I, for one, am rooting for them. . .the novels are great, and good adaptations would be a treat. This one in particular failed (for me) as an adaptation, but succeeded as a film.
*****If David Fincher, Rooney Mara, Daniel Craig, et al were too expensive or in demand, why not bring back Noomi Rapace to continue her series of films?
Because they wanted to go in another direction? Noomi wasn't available either? Sunspots? Shrug. What difference does it make?
SPOILERS
For me the points were:
1. Sweden is a dreary country with wonderfully designed everything.
2. Many people in Sweden speak English with British accents.
3. Wimpy, spoiled, high-IQ kids still do dumb things that push the plot forward.
4. A psycho, murderous, sadistic woman who aspires to genocide deserves our sympathy because she's a lesbian and gave in to molestation even when she could have escaped.
Just kidding, pretty much.