The guardian argues that the role of journalist Mikael Blomkvist couldn't be further from Craig's bond character. Lisbeth Salander, Blomkvist's odd love interest in the novel, is assumed to find a man like James Bond quite despicable. Yet Craig of course has starred in other films and is not identical to his role as Bond.
What the guardian makes out as a smart career move by Craig, who's Bond franchise is delayed due to (let's call them) structural problems at the studio, can also be interpreted as a smart casting move by Fincher: Craig, as the guardian article shows, in many minds is synonymous with the current James Bond reincarnation -- a reckless, high octaine special agent, licensed to kill. Getting this actor to imbody a journalist who is all wit and logic and no "physical problem-solving" is exactly the kind of surprising casting decision that may exceed the audience's expectations.
It may force us to see the concept of James Bond in a new light.
Even if the Bond girls seduced by James don't seem to particularly mind being exploited, that is exactly what is happening to them. At least one in two usually ends up dead, after all, even in the later films, starring Craig.
"Or could it be that director David Fincher will succumb to the temptation to dumb down the original source material to create something more generic in the interest of box office success?", asks the article. It goes on to suggest both is possible: Fincher being in "Zodiac" or "Benjamin Button" mode -- with the later describing Fincher's role as "a skilled but unadventurous director for hire".
How exactly one can conceive of "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" as an unadventurous work is beyond me. And dumbing down a story, in my opinion, is not something David Fincher is known for.
This should make for an interesting debate. I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
Here's the article in full: