Originally Posted by Ezrangel (Post 2171229)
T2, Aliens and T1 seems atleast comparable to some of Fincher's great stuff I guess. Especially T2..
|
Originally Posted by Ezrangel (Post 2171260)
He's great, I would say a 7-8/10 as a director especially since he writes and produces and creates his own stuff. There aren't many doing it, especially with that kind of budget.
Not a benchmark like Scorsese or Cronenberg but I’d say he compares to other blockbuster directors such as (current) Ridley Scott, Del Toro, Jackson, Mendes, Cameron etc.
|
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2171265)
Yeah, T2 is basically what I was thinking of when I wrote that. And even then, it has a few cringeworthy moments that almost sink it. But the action is genuinely great and tense (and not just a showcase for special effects), and the limitations of the tech at the time meant Cameron had to blend genuinely cool effects (which changed the plot itself, rather than just existing to be gawked at!) with a lot of great practical ones. It's just enough technology to play to Cameron's strengths without letting him wallow in some Lucasesque CGI puddle just because he can. I don't think he'll top it.
Originally Posted by ScarletLion (Post 2171266)
There are hundreds, but agree not with that budget.
Hmmm, it depends what your definition of benchmark is I guess. There's alot more to cinema than Hollywood. Someone like Wong-War-Kai, Coppola, Lynch, Scorsese I guess? I personally don’t love Lynch (I much prefer Fincher) as much as I do but the man is a known figure who left an impact over the genres he touched. What’s your definition? |
Re: Better Director: James Cameron vs David Fincher
Yeah, to be clear I don't think saying it's not close should be taken as a slight against asking the question. It's interesting to unpack why people feel one director is so much better than another, sometimes more interesting than unpacking why we prefer someone only slightly.
|
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2171268)
Yeah, to be clear I don't think saying it's not close should be taken as a slight against asking the question. It's interesting to unpack why people feel one director is so much better than another, sometimes more interesting than unpacking why we prefer someone only slightly.
PTA, Tarantino and maybe even the likes of Bong-John Hoo and Nolan would be fair comparisons? I made this after rewatching Gone Girl and True Lies lol |
Re: Better Director: James Cameron vs David Fincher
Ah, right, True Lies. That's definitely Good Cameron, relatively speaking.
|
Re: Better Director: James Cameron vs David Fincher
Thoughts on Fincher vs these directors? I'd say that a bit below the GOATs seems the fair rating.
Funny though that theyshootpictures ranks Cameron higher than Fincher in the list. |
But, but...James Cameron has a neural net processor.
True Lies is probably the only movie of his that I can stand to watch these days. Sure, it's cheesy, over the top action but that's why I love it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c_3A9xaolU Sorry. :shrug: |
Re: Better Director: James Cameron vs David Fincher
I think right now Fincher's average film quality is maybe as high as anyone's, so it's going to be more about breadth/range (if you care about that kind of thing--I think it's a tad overrated), perhaps, but definitely longevity. Easier to make nearly all good films when you haven't made as many, after all, or for as long. But if he maintains this quality level for another decade or two I'd put him up there, yes.
One possible argument against this is that we might look back and not see any Fincher films that were truly seminal, but it's not clear if that's a real mark against him or not, since a lot of the people we'd compare him to came along earlier and presumably had more opportunities for that kind of thing, too. |
I voted on how many of their movies I own on disc so Cameron gets my vote.
T1 and T2 are in my top ten and like the majority of the other eight they have superb sound to go with the visuals. I like my ears to get a workout as well as my eyes and for me Cameron does a better job of putting both in his movies. 🙂 |
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2171274)
I think right now Fincher's average film quality is maybe as high as anyone's, so it's going to be more about breadth/range (if you care about that kind of thing--I think it's a tad overrated), perhaps, but definitely longevity. Easier to make nearly all good films when you haven't made as many, after all, or for as long. But if he maintains this quality level for another decade or two I'd put him up there, yes.
One possible argument against this is that we might look back and not see any Fincher films that were truly seminal, but it's not clear if that's a real mark against him or not, since a lot of the people we'd compare him to came along earlier and presumably had more opportunities for that kind of thing, too. I think range is just a plus, there are directors like Argento or Leone with limited or non -existent ranges yet they did a lot of good films. I think we'll see at the end of his career, like Tarantino (who has only one movie left) but he has I think 10+ years of films still, so if he does another Se7en or Social Network I could agree with that. |
I'll also add that the first two episode of House of Cards convinced me of Fincher's workmanship. Not that I needed those but dang, they are probably two of the best episodes of television I have seen in a long while.
|
Originally Posted by Ezrangel (Post 2171267)
I don't think there are hundreds of current directors better than Nolan, but if you mean that they do their own original stuff or blockbusters then it’s probably true.
Someone like Wong-War-Kai, Coppola, Lynch, Scorsese I guess? I personally don’t love Lynch (I much prefer Fincher) as much as I do but the man is a known figure who left an impact over the genres he touched. What’s your definition? The definition of cinematic benchmark is difficult to define. It's whatever makes you tick, as the recent scorsese row showed, people are very divided on this. Personally I feel that great cinematic directors are those that can make beautiful, artful films that release emotions, inspire people and create thought (about the film) well after the film has ended. Not like a Big Mac, just consumed and forgotten about until 'Big Mac 2 - Return of the drive-thru' I read someone say on another forum once that de Caprio was the best actor around because he always makes the studios so much money. That's such a frustrating comment to read. Literally not cared about how good he is at his job. I'd hate to think that way of thinking is quite prevalent. |
Originally Posted by ScarletLion (Post 2171282)
I just meant hundreds of writer directors. But there are certainly many better than Nolan. But it's just down to personal taste. I'm not about to try and persuade you otherwise.
The definition of cinematic benchmark is difficult to define. It's whatever makes you tick, as the recent scorsese row showed, people are very divided on this. Personally I feel that great cinematic directors are those that can make beautiful, artful films that release emotions, inspire people and create thought (about the film) well after the film has ended. Not like a Big Mac, just consumed and forgotten about until 'Big Mac 2 - Return of the drive-thru' I read someone say on another forum once that de Caprio was the best actor around because he always makes the studios so much money. That's such a frustrating comment to read. Literally not cared about how good he is at his job. I'd hate to think that way of thinking is quite prevalent. So, someone like Malick or PTA who are more artistic? Scorsese's lastest films were pretty strong though. That's a stupid statement, but I would say that DiCaprio is one of the best actors working today, with range and a very solid filmography. He's no DeNiro or DDL but I think he'll get a bit below them at the end of his career, like top 20. |
Originally Posted by Ezrangel (Post 2171250)
This is probably unpopular but Zodiac's third act really hurt the film. Once the mystery is gone and the focus is in the detective, it gets a bit monotone.
Same issue with Fight Club, it’s a great film but the first two acts are far stronger than the third. Hard disagree on Fight Club, though - the third act is bonkers, and is incredibly entertaining.
Originally Posted by ScarletLion (Post 2171282)
I read someone say on another forum once that de Caprio was the best actor around because he always makes the studios so much money. That's such a frustrating comment to read. Literally not cared about how good he is at his job. I'd hate to think that way of thinking is quite prevalent.
|
Originally Posted by Sedai (Post 2171286)
I must ask...what was the person's forum handle? Sounds a hell of a lot like a Dicaprio-obsessed guy that used to hang around here... |
Originally Posted by Sedai (Post 2171286)
I think with Zodiac, the tonal shift is due to the film at least attempting to portray real life events in a fairly realistic way, even if it's clear Fincher took liberties with the material.
Hard disagree on Fight Club, though - the third act is bonkers, and is incredibly entertaining. I must ask...what was the person's forum handle? Sounds a hell of a lot like a Dicaprio-obsessed guy that used to hang around here... Even though Fight Club is more entertaining than Zodiac, I think Zodiac writing, cinematography and directing is great, the script is handled well but even though it’s realistic, I feel it could be short, because the mystery is gone and the hint that Arthur Leigh Allen was the killer is clear. I do own all of Fincher's movies, so I might rewatch the ones I don’t see since a lot of time. I think The Game is underrated though, the main issues are on the narrative and anti climatic ending but the cinematography, directing, acting is very strong and it’s well paced. |
Originally Posted by ScarletLion (Post 2171291)
I genuinely can't remember. It was on a forum I rarely went on and made no note of it.
|
Originally Posted by Ezrangel (Post 2171294)
I honestly was disappointed in my first watch of Fight Club, I felt that Tyler was the best part of the film. I much prefer Se7en and Zodiac to it.
Even though Fight Club is more entertaining than Zodiac, I think Zodiac writing, cinematography and directing is great, the script is handled well but even though it’s realistic, I feel it could be short, because the mystery is gone and the hint that Arthur Leigh Allen was the killer is clear. I do own all of Fincher's movies, so I might rewatch the ones I don’t see since a lot of time. I think The Game is underrated though, the main issues are on the narrative and anti climatic ending but the cinematography, directing, acting is very strong and it’s well paced. I like pretty much all of Fincher's stuff, even the Assembly Cut of Alien 3. I dislike the Theatrical cut of that film, though. The Game is really good, but I don't put it on a shelf with most of his stuff. |
Originally Posted by Sedai (Post 2171298)
I like pretty much all of Fincher's stuff, even the Assembly Cut of Alien 3. I dislike the Theatrical cut of that film, though. The Game is really good, but I don't put it on a shelf with most of his stuff.
The theatrical seemed an unfinished product, and really does not feel like a Fincher film and the fact he did Se7en just after makes the production issues more evident than his flaws as a filmmaker. |
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 08:04 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums