Is David Fincher the best technician working in Hollywood?

David Fincher is a thinking man's Michael Bay.

He made a compelling movie out of the story of fucking Facebook; his gift is in taking inane plebshit and spinning gold

You’re right he hasn’t made decent movie in 20 years, but he has made a brilliant movie in the last 20 years

Fincher is the kind of director wannabe kinographers admire before they finally reach the level where they realize that all Hollywood directors are pleb tier and that the only directors actually worth admiring make arthouse films, understanding that even those directors will eventually come to suck after they sell out.

Attached: bonus_butts_7717.jpg (801x1200, 95K)

Attached: 1429492533249.jpg (900x603, 52K)

Pseud

>Fincher said fuck you to Hollywood
Wat

And when you gain enough knowledge directing you will appreciate Fincher for his camerawork, cinematography and editing, even if you don't like his films overall.

Can anyone tell what these two anons mean?

i miss the edgy 90s anarchy of his early works like seven and fight club.

i recognize how good he is, but everything he does looks too hermethic. and i wish he could come up with better work than adapting books from walmart - but ill recognize that GONE GIRL is a very interesting movie, he explore a lot of themes there that a pleb director would let it pass.

He is basically an extremely talented mercenary director.

Probably this.
defamer.gawker.com/leaked-the-nightmare-email-drama-behind-sonys-steve-jo-1668882936

>I'm not remotely interested in presiding over a $180m ego bath that we both know will be the career-defining debacle for us both. I'm not destroying my career over a minimally talented spoiled brat who thought nothing of shoving this off her plate for eighteen months so she could go direct a movie.

that would do. LOL but i cry like a little bitch with benjamin button, wont lie about it.

ironically, doesnt even come close to be a david fincher movie.

MINDHUNTER is a fine show. not perfect, but fine.

He's a brilliant technician, but fails utterly as an artist.

Cringe and soipilled.

Fuck off incel.

His movies are the definition of soulless. Technically beautiful, but utterly devoid of inner life.

>watches one movie from the criterion collection.

>Devoid of inner life.

Attached: 1515480305865.jpg (1200x800, 205K)

Fincher is on the same level as all of those. The only difference is he hasn't done any popular franchises (yet.)

>Fincher is on the same level as all of those

Attached: brainlettttt.jpg (800x450, 45K)

>t. hasn't seen Love, Death, and Robots
The man is a hack

The social network was shit

Yeah, he should stick to making commercials.

He is, but pseuds will claim his style is "sterile". The same people would ejaculate over his movies if he wasn't backed by a major studio.

He wouldn't make movies if he weren't backed by a major studio. His style hinges on having a large budget.

Aren't all his films mid tier budget by hollywood standards?

He didn't write or direct any of those

Only because most major releases are bloated, 150+ million dollar productions now-a-days. By old standards (even adjusted for inflation) he's a big-budget director.

Then he's Speilberg-tier for slapping his name on them

You know for all the flak directors like Fincher, Denis or Nolan get I'd rather have them working in the big budget category than films that are mostly committee made like most 150+ million films.

There's absolutely no way (((they))) would ever let an actual auteur work on any of those films. The LCD has spoken with it's money and it wants the same, commitee-made, soulless flick over and over rather than something unique, original, and artistic.

>I have a philosophy about the two extremes of filmmaking. The first is the "Kubrick way," where you're at the end of an alley in which four guys are kicking the shit out of a wino. Hopefully, the audience members will know that such a scenario is morally wrong, even though it's not presented as if the viewer is the one being beaten up; it's more as if you're witnessing an event. Inversely, there's the "Spielberg way," where you're dropped into the middle of the action and you're going to live the experience vicariously - not only through what's happening, but through the emotional flow of what people are saying. It's a much more involved style. I find myself attracted to both styles at different times, but mostly I'm interested in just presenting something and letting people decide for themselves what they want to look at.

> You get over $200 million - all motion picture companies have corporate culture and corporate anxieties. Once we got past the list of people we could cast as the different characters in the film, once we got past one or two names which made them very comfortable, making a movie at that price, it became this bizarre endeavor to find which three names you could rub together to make platinum. I wanted Aronnax to be French, God forbid! It got to be a little too confusing to me. I had this argument with a studio executive one time where he said to me, 'why is it that the actors always side with you and we're paying them?' And I said, 'I think it's because at some level, they know that my only real allegiance is to the movie.' And because that's very clear and it never wavers, they may not agree with the image of the movie I have in my head, but they know that's what I'm after. They've seen me for 100 days take the long way around. I think that when you're trying to put together a handful of people to deliver all those facets of humanity and who work well together, it has to be in service of the narrative and not in service of the balance sheet. It became very hard to appease the anxieties of Disney's corporate culture with the list of names that allowed everyone to sleep at night. I just wanted to make sure I had the skill-sets I could turn the movie over to. Not worrying about whether they're big in Japan.

>it's not presented as if the viewer is the one being beaten up; it's more as if you're witnessing an event.
He's completely wrong about this. You're one-hundred-percent made to empathize with Alex as a cruel, sadistic monster who gains pleasure out of doing evil, even if you understand it's evil and would never commit such actions.
Part of what made Kubrick so iconic is his unflinching attitude towards the evil side of individuals.