Make Your Picks

Is David Fincher among the all-time greats?

Tools    





Not by me. This is all subjective. An 'all time great' is the greatest of the greats throughout cinematic history. Fincher is way off, as mosts of these lists show.



You've literally answered you're own question. He's one step below them.
Yeah, i'd agree if we go by the subjective route. But would you just say that he's "only" a great director who did some interesting films.

One step below PTA and Tarantino or below Leone and Coppola?

Because i'd agree that Leone and Coppola are definitely all-time greats.



Professional horse shoe straightener
Yeah, i'd agree if we go by the subjective route. But would you just say that he's "only" a great director who did some interesting films.

One step below PTA and Tarantino or below Leone and Coppola?

Because i'd agree that Leone and Coppola are definitely all-time greats.
One step below the top 40 or 50 in those lists. I think of it this way:

If somebody names a director that they claim is an all time great and you think they definitely deserve to be in the list of top 20 Directors in the world ever, then they probably are. There's about maybe 40 or 50 of them that could fit this list on any given day maybe?

However if you think hmm they're good but not an all time great (Fincher, PTA, Tarantino etc) they'd probably not get into a top 10 or 20 of the best directors in the history of cinema, then they're going to be looking up at the greats, not eating at the same table as them.

It's like when somebody says a sportsperson is 'world class'. Really? World class should mean in the top 1 or 2 in the world in their role.

Just like an all time great, should be able to be as good as the other unquestionable greats (Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Welles etc). If they're not in that league, then they're in the league below. Which isn't all time great.



One step below the top 40 or 50 in those lists. I think of it this way:

If somebody names a director that they claim is an all time great and you think they definitely deserve to be in the list of top 20 Directors in the world ever, then they probably are. There's about maybe 40 or 50 of them that could fit this list on any given day maybe?

However if you think hmm they're good but not an all time great (Fincher, PTA, Tarantino etc) they'd probably not get into a top 10 or 20 of the best directors in the history of cinema, then they're going to be looking up at the greats, not eating at the same table as them.

It's like when somebody says a sportsperson is 'world class'. Really? World class should mean in the top 1 or 2 in the world in their role.

Just like an all time great, should be able to be as good as the other unquestionable greats (Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Welles etc). If they're not in that league, then they're in the league below. Which isn't all time great.
Yeah, that sounds about right.

Yeah, for Coppola and Spielberg or even Leone and Scorsese that would be correct right?

I'd say Fincher is worse than either directing.wise, influence wise and consistency wise but i tend to enjoy his films more than PTA's.



All time? Not a chance imo. I hesitate to even say he's amongst the best of the 21st century.



Who would you put above him or in the same level, restricted to the 21th century?
Wang Bing
Raul Ruiz
Abbas Kiarostami
Manoel de Oliveira
Straub-Huillet
Marco Bellocchio
Abel Ferrara
Jean-Luc Godard
Lav Diaz
Tsai Ming-liang
Hong Sang-soo
Brian De Palma
Frederick Wiseman
Johnnie To
Pedro Costa
Claire Denis
Jia Zhangke
Tony Scott
Philippe Grandrieux
James Benning
Clint Eastwood
Terence Davies
Michael Mann
Chantal Akerman
Kiyoshi Kurosawa
Martin Scorsese
Michael Haneke
Apichatpong Weerasethakul
Christian Petzold
Philippe Garrel
Carlos Reygadas
Miguel Gomes



Wang Bing
Raul Ruiz
Abbas Kiarostami
Manoel de Oliveira
Straub-Huillet
Marco Bellocchio
Abel Ferrara
Jean-Luc Godard
Lav Diaz
Tsai Ming-liang
Hong Sang-soo
Brian De Palma
Frederick Wiseman
Johnnie To
Pedro Costa
Claire Denis
Jia Zhangke
Tony Scott
Philippe Grandrieux
James Benning
Clint Eastwood
Terence Davies
Michael Mann
Chantal Akerman
Kiyoshi Kurosawa
Martin Scorsese
Michael Haneke
Apichatpong Weerasethakul
Christian Petzold
Philippe Garrel
Carlos Reygadas
Miguel Gomes

None of these directors, with the exception of Scorsese, Godard (superior) and Eastwood are on his level.



None of these directors, with the exception of Scorsese, Godard (superior) and Eastwood are on his level.
You do realize it's your "type" which made me groan and come to avoid these forums, (for the most part), right?

The incessant: "Is "x" (insert film, director, actor, etc.) better/worse than "x"?" Or the "Hear ye I have an opinion. Prove thee wrong."

No thank you. Not interested.

If you've got something to add to the intellectual bucket, by all means, add and drink therefrom... but if you're just going to piss and shout, take and take, and not add a damn thing. Why waste mine, others, or most importantly, YOUR valuable time.

Food for thought, did my service by adding to the intellectual bucket called "movieforums.com." What say you? Once again, said my piece and my bit, I'm sure you're going to get as frosted as corn flakes but don't care too much outside of this post. Argue and debate, yell and scream, throw a fit, but remember, just because you're on your parents computer and your 28 doesn't necessarily make you an adult yet.

tl;dr

Contribute something worthwhile.

You see this Thread by @StuSmallz? Here's a user actually trying at his posts and is actually furthering the language/conversation on these forums. Same with plenty of other users, (Holden Pike deserves a mention, as Tyler1, and quite a few others.) So get with the program dude. I'm out.

EDIT: I've now come to associate the face of Leonardo de Caprio in Inception was it? never actually saw that movie? With this:

__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?

-Stan Brakhage



You do realize it's your "type" which made me groan and come to avoid these forums, (for the most part), right?

The incessant: "Is "x" (insert film, director, actor, etc.) better/worse than "x"?" Or the "Hear ye I have an opinion. Prove thee wrong."

No thank you. Not interested.

If you've got something to add to the intellectual bucket, by all means, add and drink therefrom... but if you're just going to piss and shout, take and take, and not add a damn thing. Why waste mine, others, or most importantly, YOUR valuable time.

Food for thought, did my service by adding to the intellectual bucket called "movieforums.com." What say you? Once again, said my piece and my bit, I'm sure you're going to get as frosted as corn flakes but don't care too much outside of this post. Argue and debate, yell and scream, throw a fit, but remember, just because you're on your parents computer and your 28 doesn't necessarily make you an adult yet.

tl;dr

Contribute something worthwhile.

You see this Thread by @StuSmallz? Here's a user actually trying at his posts and is actually furthering the language/conversation on these forums. Same with plenty of other users, (Holden Pike deserves a mention, as Tyler1, and quite a few others.) So get with the program dude. I'm out.

EDIT: I've now come to associate the face of Leonardo de Caprio in Inception was it? never actually saw that movie? With this:

I've just made a question, regarding his status. And stated my opinion (which is as valid as any) compared to the ones he named, that i don't consider as good as him.

If you don't like my post, fine, nobody is forcing you to read em, dunno why you're getting mad though. Saying i'm not an adult because i said a director is better than some lol.



I've just made a question, regarding his status. And stated my opinion (which is as valid as any) compared to the ones he named, that i don't consider as good as him.

If you don't like my post, fine, nobody is forcing you to read em, dunno why you're getting mad though. Saying i'm not an adult because i said a director is better than some lol.
I'm not mad at the conversation, by all means talk your head off on the merits of a director, that's the point of a movie forum/conversation. But user WorkersPeasants, and others, seem to be giving you decent rebuttals, (as in your other threads), and you pretty much say: "nah-uh!" It really makes me question whether you are serious, (trolling), or your age, (which is prone to trolling), or perhaps you've come down with a case of the downs. Either way, point I'm making is you basically start a topic and say: "x" is better. Okay. "y" (Why?) And you fail to deliver. You practically fail to deliver "why" someone's aesthetics is preferred over the next. Wanna see one of My Posts? I'll throw my chips in, if you'll concede to the incessant waterings-down of the board and actually "add" something of value.



I'm not mad at the conversation, by all means talk your head off on the merits of a director, that's the point of a movie forum/conversation. But user WorkersPeasants, and others, seem to be giving you decent rebuttals, (as in your other threads), and you pretty much say: "nah-uh!" It really makes me question whether you are serious, (trolling), or your age, (which is prone to trolling), or perhaps you've come down with a case of the downs. Either way, point I'm making is you basically start a topic and say: "x" is better. Okay. "y" (Why?) And you fail to deliver. You practically fail to deliver "why" someone's aesthetics is preferred over the next. Wanna see one of My Posts? I'll throw my chips in, if you'll concede to the incessant waterings-down of the board and actually "add" something of value.
You're taking this way too seriously. I just stated my personal preference, that's it lol.



You're taking this way too seriously. I just stated my personal preference, that's it lol.
You're absolutely right. I am taking this too seriously. If a user says "I prefer David Fincher," on a movie forum then when asked, "Why?" user believes these things (Aesthetic, Historic, ???, Misc.?) and then the user basically goes "wee, wee, wee, all the way home" aka "lol, I just stated a personal preference, that's all I'm here to do. lol." Yeah, we're done. I'm definitely out at this point. Toodles!



None of these directors, with the exception of Scorsese, Godard (superior) and Eastwood are on his level.
Care to elaborate on your reasons for the others? How about just the first 5 names in the list why are they not on Fincher's level?

Wouldn't mind hearing why you say Godard in the 21st century is superior to him as well.

Looking forward to your reply.



Care to elaborate on your reasons for the others? How about just the first 5 names in the list why are they not on Fincher's level?

Wouldn't mind hearing why you say Godard in the 21st century is superior to him as well.

Looking forward to your reply.
I've checked their films and with the exception of Heat (a masterpiece if you ask me).

Nothing they did comes close to Se7en, Zodiac or even The Social Network. Plus, they don't have the same technical craft and visual level.

Godard is self explanatory, he's simply a far better filmaker than Fincher.



I've checked their films and with the exception of Heat (a masterpiece if you ask me).

Nothing they did comes close to Se7en, Zodiac or even The Social Network. Plus, they don't have the same technical craft and visual level.

Godard is self explanatory, he's simply a far better filmaker than Fincher.

So nothing to say specifically about Bing, Ruiz, S-H, Kiarostami, or de Oliveira? What faults do you find in their work this century visually and/or technically? There are nearly 300 films between those 5 filmographies, and I'm curious to know why none of them come close to those Fincher examples in your eyes. (Not to mention the other filmmakers in the list.)

Very interesting to hear you say 21st century Godard is "self-explanatory" and a "far better filmmaker", considering how many elements in his work overlap with that of several others in the list. Godard's work this century is arguably the antithesis of self-explanatory, so I'd definitely like to hear more of what you have to say about that as well.



So nothing to say specifically about Bing, Ruiz, S-H, Kiarostami, or de Oliveira? What faults do you find in their work this century visually and/or technically? There are nearly 300 films between those 5 filmographies, and I'm curious to know why none of them come close to those Fincher examples in your eyes. (Not to mention the other filmmakers in the list.)

Very interesting to hear you say 21st century Godard is "self-explanatory" and a "far better filmmaker", considering how many elements in his work overlap with that of several others in the list. Godard's work this century is arguably the anti-thesis of self-explanatory, so I'd definitely like to hear more of what you have to say about that as well.
I simply like Fincher better.

Godard has too many masterpieces under his belt.



Welcome to the human race...
It's a dead end of an argument. You assert that Fincher is great. Someone disagrees. You ask who they think is better. They tell you. You say these filmmakers are not better. They ask why you think so. You settle for simple rhetoric that vaguely alludes to visuals and technique but when pressed for specifics you fall back on "stating your opinion".

I mean, if the whole thing is about being able to make informed judgments regarding Fincher's worth, then surely that should be extended to any other filmmaker who is presented as a counterargument. Looking at WorkersPeasants' list, I see filmmakers whose work I know very well, some I'm only somewhat familiar with, some where I've seen maybe one or two films, and some I just haven't seen at all. If I have to compare any of them against FIncher, I should at least have enough experience with them to be able to assert that or at least point out how they are so different as to make direct comparison practically impossible. I can argue that Haneke can readily match Fincher in terms of stone-cold nihilism, that Ferrara can match him for making urban and moral decay seem coolly stylised, or that Scorsese has him beat when it comes to expository montages, or that Mann does more visually interesting things with digital cameras and is able to vary his colour palettes while Fincher has effectively settled for the same yellow-and-green colour palette for years now (and even going black-and-white for Mank shows he doesn't have as good a handle on that as Diaz). In any case, this is part of why I think trying to compare and contrast directors out of some need to prove one director's superiority over another or to validate them within some vague auteur hierarchy is kind of pointless. You can have your favourites, sure, but trying to prove that they are objectively above other filmmakers and then folding when pressed on proving that which can't ever really be proved is...just not a good use of time.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.



Right, it's definitely fine to just have an opinion, but by stating an opinion, it's implied there's an underlying rationale and that you want to discuss that rationale (to some degree), since it's being posted on a public forum.

If you'd rather not have an argument, that's totally fine, too, but it's good to elaborate when possible. That's the whole idea here, in fact! And hopefully the people who disagree take value from that rationale, even if they feel differently, and can politely recognize when there's a genuine impasse beyond that point.