https://static1.colliderimages.com/w...&h=250&dpr=1.5

After seeing the comparison with Nolan, how does Fincher stack up against one of the best blockbuster directors? I feel Cameron's filmography is more consistent, but in terms of technical aspects and details Fincher is way better. Fincher makes more cerebral movies but Cameron's are enjoyable as much as Fincher's. I gotta go with Cameron since T2 is the best out the bunch and his movies have more rewatchability but Fincher's pretty great too.

Re: Better Director: James Cameron vs David Fincher
 

Fincher by a country mile.

Re: Better Director: James Cameron vs David Fincher
 

Fincher and it's not even close

Re: Better Director: James Cameron vs David Fincher
 

Both are exceptional in their own ways, but I am more of a fan of Fincher by quite a large margin.

Not even a contest. Fincher is special.

I think Fincher is the better director, the way he gets performances out actors and his use of CGI is amazing especially his visual storytelling of Zodiac and Se7en (my favorite thriller) but Alien 3, Panic Room and Mank hurts his filmography a bit, since even at his worst a Cameron film is better than those 3.

Meanwhile Cameron's content is always fun and interesting, mostly because he goes into action and technology and they are intended to be for the masses.

Would be a Cameron vs Nolan comparison be closer in your opinion?

I'm just checking, but you are holding Fincher's debut Alien³ against him but forgiving Cameron's Piranha II: The Spawning?

Throwing out Cameron's low-budget debut he has directed only eight features: The Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, True Lies, Titanic, and Avatar - with a slew of Avatar sequels coming. Plus a couple of documentaries. But eight narrative features in thirty-seven years. With Mank Fincher now has ten in twenty-five years, also discounting his debut. Whichever of those ten one wants to label Fincher's "worst" according to their own taste, be it The Game, Panic Room, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Mank or any of them that don't float your boat, I would ecstatically watch that Fincher movie on a loop for three days before being forced to watch Titanic, Avatar, or The Abyss again.

Re: Better Director: James Cameron vs David Fincher
 

You can probably put Fincher up against any other director today, so putting him up against Cameron is almost unfair. Cameron's more of a technocrat than a filmmaker sometimes, using a feint at narrative as an excuse to advance industry tech.

The only question I'd have to think about is how I'd compare the best stuff Cameron has ever done with some of Fincher's lesser works.

Baring the first Terminator, all of Cameron's movies are formulaic blockbusters. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy them but they aren't really pushing the boundaries.


Fincher on the other hand has done that (and continues to do that). Even in some of his ordinary movies like Benjamin Button, which didn't work for me, I appreciated his willingness to do something different. Add to that his work on projects like Mindhunter and that's why he is far better.



I have off late been disappointed with Nolan (TDKR, Dunkirk, and Tenet), but I still appreciate his willingness to explore different ideas and present them in somewhat complex ways.


This is my opinion and others can disagree. But Cameron can be compared to Spielberg for his ability to churn out blockbusters. But even here Spielberg is a far superior director, who has experimented with different ideas or even stories.


So that leaves me with an even more controversial opinion which I am about to present. The better comparison would be with Michael Bay. Cameron is a far, far superior and smarter version of Bay and knows how to use slow-motion, action sequences, sound, etc discreetly and in a better manner than Bay (who just overloads your senses).

I think you didn't get my point man. Anyways, I'll explain my point of view;

Fincher is a better director due to being more talented in visual storytelling, but since he had

Alien 3: studio interference and problems behind production, it was kinda lackluster compared to his standards.

Panic Room: this is an ok movie but far, far weaker than Fight Club mostly because it was like "Insomnia" a movie that the production wanted him to do.

And Mank: I personally enjoy The Game and Benjamin Button, no complains about them. But Mank (id put it above Avatar) was just good, and the third act disappointed me.

Piranha isn’t listed in AFI and sight and sound profile and he left before the film ended so I am not counting that, but if I did I would give the edge to Fincher because that movie was lackluster.

I don’t think quantity is important, I mean Malick directed 5 movies in 38 years right? And then went and did 3 lackluster movies that were poorly received, I doubt anyone expected that.

Here's my ratings

T2 *****
Aliens ****
T1 *** 1/2
True Lies *** 1/2
Titanic *** 1/2
The Abyss ***
Avatar ** 1/2

Se7en *****
The Social Network ****
Gone Girl *** 1/2
Zodiac *** 1/2
The Game *** 1/2
Millennium *** 1/2
Fight Club *** 1\2
Benjamin Button ***
Mank ***
Alien 2 **
Panic Room **

As I said, by an hair..

T2, Aliens and T1 seems atleast comparable to some of Fincher's great stuff I guess. Especially T2..

I think Fincher is one of the best directors working today, besides Marty and Spielberg he’s my favorite alongside Nolan, but do you think a comparison between him and Coppola, Hitchcock and Kurosawa would be fair? As much as I love Fincher, I would still put Coppola above him.

Thanks for your reply. Anyways, I'd say that he improves technology and 3D other than making blockbusters and it works fine. He's just doing what he's able to do.

Regarding Nolan, i honestly get your criticism. I rate 00s Nolan above 10s Nolan but not by a big margin.

Inception and TDKR were perfect.

I mean, if you go until Inception, i feel that Nolan vs Fincher would be really close, putting my preference aside (I prefer Nolan) but Gone Girl (for example) was a better film than Dunkirk and something I would like to see more times and that besides Mank, Fincher remained pretty consistent meanwhile after TDKR, Nolan got worse.

I think the gap between Spielberg and Cameron and Bay, is wide in both cases so it’s not comparable I guess.

Yeah, I also like the style and directing of Fincher in House of Cards.

I have nothing but good things to say about his (and his company's) contribution to tech development.
But I was only commenting on his movies.

Oh no problem. I'd agree that Fincher has a better eye for detail, composition etc and his movies have more substance but there's nothing wrong with spectacle films. A regular blockbuster would be Godzilla vs Kong but not Aliens, in my opinion.

Cameron has also imagination and talent, especially in his sequels and can do action and romance too. Wouldn't say that him and Spielberg are only "popcorn directors", films like T2, Schindler's List, Raiders, Jurassic Park are well made and praised for the directing too.

In 20 years, Spielberg's filmography had more quality films than anyone minus Scorsese.

Zodiac and Fight Club rated the same as The Game?

I definitely don't agree there. Zodiac might just be Fincher's best film, or it is at least in the running in that regard.

Not by much. I don't really rate Cameron. One dimensional and as Yoda said, more of a tech advancer than a meticulous technical master like Fincher is. Nolan is ok but is a touch ambitious for his own good.

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.

The Game, despite having a lot of rushed moments (which I don’t care) is just thrilling to start to finish and represent the change over someone psyche and the ego of Nicholas Van Orton, I usually rewatch that, Gone Girl and Se7en.

Same issue with Fight Club, it’s a great film but the first two acts are far stronger than the third. I honestly like Gone Girl (I would give it a 9/10 in terms of ratings) and social network more because the relationship between the characters and third acts are stronger than Fight Club and Zodiac.

I understand your position but would say that Interstellar, Tenet and Dunkirk are definitely ambitious but Pre-TDKR Nolan films seemed very polished in terms of script, spectacle and characters. (I really like TDKR and even Interstellar)

I think that Inception works well, even the exposition and narrative have hold up.

Re: Better Director: James Cameron vs David Fincher
 

Fincher, but it's closer than I would think... so ranking time!

1. FINCHER - Se7en
2. CAMERON - The Terminator
3. FINCHER - Zodiac
4. CAMERON - Aliens
5. FINCHER - Fight Club
6. CAMERON - Terminator 2: Judgment Day
7. FINCHER - Gone Girl
8. CAMERON - Titanic
9. FINCHER - The Game
10. CAMERON - True Lies
11. FINCHER - Panic Room
12. FINCHER - The Social Network
13. CAMERON - The Abyss
14. FINCHER - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
15. FINCHER - Alien3 (Assembly Cut)
16. CAMERON - Avatar
17. FINCHER - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
18. FINCHER - Alien3 (Theatrical Cut)

I still haven't seen Mank or Piranha II. I would also take my ranking of The Abyss with a grain of salt, cause I haven't seen that film in a long, long time; easily 20 years.

Finally, the 2-3-4 ranking is a toss-up. I could really swap any of those.

TDKR was a huge disappointment for me. Inception is a good blockbuster. Insomnia and following are good too, I've yet to see the original Insomnia, big gap for me. Nolan is a very decent Hollywood director but not exactly a benchmark for cinema.

I will never call Spielberg a popcorn director. I didn't mean that. I was just highlighting his ability to churn out blockbusters and adding that Cameron has that, as well. I think it's an admirable quality and there's nothing wrong in that. I am definitely not snobbish about enjoying blockbusters. But I also added that Spielberg has a far wider range, but Cameron doesn't, which is a point you also seem to agree upon.

Yeah, I would agree with that. Spielberg's a one-of-kind director, the man did Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List in the same year, and has done nearly everything within genres.

He got a bit worse recently but whatever miss he had, his large catalog of great films ensures he'll be one of the best directors ever.

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.

I think TDKR criticism did hurt Nolan, I personally really liked it because Batman is my favorite character but I remember that back in the day 2010-2012 Nolan's work was rated higher than it is now.

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.

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.

It's my 5th favorite movie tbh, just entertaining and perfect from start to finish.. anyways I get your point but I thought this would be closer, especially after I saw that Nolan got some people backing him against Fincher.

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?

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.

I'd agree with that. But I think Fincher can be compared to most directors but I feel that people like Spielberg, Scorsese and Coppola are a bit above his pay grade.

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. 🙂

I didn’t know that Fincher was rated this high, after seeing some lists. He’s still my 4th favorite director though.

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.

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.

I would agree with that, there are betters but not a very large amount of them. But speaking of what I enjoy, I personally have Fincher and Nolan as my favorites besides Marty and Spielberg (and Coppola tied for a a 2nd place) so agree to disagree.

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.

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...

I genuinely can't remember. It was on a forum I rarely went on and made no note of it.

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.

To extrapolate a bit, The argument here was that the guy really disliked Dicaprio, but said he was considered the best actor in Hollywood due to his box-office draw etc. Most of his arguments would degenerate into just so much number-crunching, with the quality of the film or the acting work being disregarded for box-office stats. If not the same guy, sounds like he was cut from the same cloth.

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.

Yeah, he’s pretty great as you can see with my ratings. I think they’re all great films and he has like 1 good movie snd 2 that I don’t like. The only movie I don’t like is Panic Room but I’ll try the assembly cut of Alien 3 tomorrow since you reminded me.

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.

Malick and PTA maybe, but personally I would look a bit further afield than that for the best directors working today, I didn't really want to name names but since you asked: Directors like Andrey Zvaginstyev, Lars von Trier, Alfonso Cuaron, Celine Sciamma, Hirokazu Koreeda, Andrea Arnold, Michael Haneke, Darren Arronofsky, Chang Dong Lee, Park Chan Wook, Bong Joon-Ho, Xavier Dolan, Lynn Ramsay, Pawel Pawlikowski, Rueben Ostlund, Claire Denis, Nuri Bilge Ceylan. Those are guys who, to me, seem to understand the medium and how to make it beautiful, more than most.

He probably is one of the best but because he's bloody good, not because of profits at the box office.

:D That's nuts. Makes it sound like de Caprio has the same remit as the Warner Bros Marketing Director.

I like Malick but he's FAR from being of my favorites, his post-TTOL work is atrocious on every single measurable level. His first 5 films are pretty good and have amazing cinematography though. So while I get what you say, I don’t think that makes you on par with people such as Coppola and Spielberg.

I like Arronofsky, Cuaron and Park-Chan Wook out that list, ill check some of the others.

Yeah, I agree with that.

Love me a bit of Park Chan Wook

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMQ9pDUmY3Q

This is off topic but Joint Security Area is solid, Handmaiden is great, Oldboy is a masterpiece and I like both vengeance movies.

Haven’t seen the rest of his filmography but he’s a great director. On par with Bong John Hoo.

The Handmaiden my favourite of his.

Oldboy for me.

Count me in as another supporter of the Assembly Cut of Alien3. Just bear in mind that, like the name suggests, it was "assembled" by, I think the editor and some other crew member, from unused footage and cut scenes without the involvement of Fincher. Because of that, there are some incongruencies, I think, but it is definitely superior to the Theatrical Cut which, like you said, feels "unfinished" and chopped up.

But yeah, Fincher's production woes during that film are well documented. He abandoned the film during post-production, after constant clashes with the studio, and he doesn't even list it among his films.

I know about that, and honestly it really does not feel like a Fincher film. I'll give it a watch next week.

His streak after it was pretty solid though.

Just be aware that while the narrative flow has been significantly improved in The Assembly Cut, and now actually makes sense, there is at least one scene where they couldn't salvage the original audio, so it becomes tough to hear certain lines etc. It's a rough cut, to be sure, but is still miles better than the theatrical, which says a lot.

I kinda enjoyed it, far better than the theatrical but some issues are still here.

The ending is totally changed btw, but atleast it fixes some unexplained moments and becomes a more complete film:

Agree. Still a flawed flick, but...

He did his best considering all the troubles during production.